Actor-centered theories: I. Interest groups theories

2. Actor-centered theories:I. Interest groups theories Health Politics Ana Rico Room L4-46, rico@bmg.eur.nl

3. OUTLINE OF THE SESSION 1. Introduction - A. Representative and “direct” democracy - B. Actor-centred vs. social context theories 2. Interest groups theories - A. Why do IGs & PPs emerge? - B. Why/when do they influence policy? - C. Which consequences for democracy? 3. The role of interest groups - A. Pluralism and corporatism - B. Present and future of IGs politics 4. The role of political parties

4. STEPS IN DEDUCTIVE POLICY RESEARCH ANALYSIS • Causes = determinants • Consequences = political impact • Policy implications DESCRIPTION • Definition • Types, policy instruments • Evolution trends - Do different types evolve differently (diverge) or similarly (converge)?

5. Analytical framework (1):Interest groups and democratic politics

6. INTEREST GROUPS & POLITICAL PARTIES • They are the sociopolitical organizations which attained policy influence earlier on in time • Originally conceived as completely dependent on the socioeconomic structure (owners/workers)  not considered an actor (=independent). (INTEREST GROUP THEORY) • Later conceived as partly dependent, and partly independent = sociopolitical actors (ACTOR/ACTION THEORIES) • Modern (post-1945) Constitutions in the EU give some of them formal state powers (eg parties organize parliament, IGs decide under corporatism)  Some of them play simoultaneously the two roles: sociopolitical and political/state actors • Most political parties were created by IGs to defend their interests in parliament & government (to ”privatize” the state); later on, they gained independence & become more public

7. THE POLITICAL & SOCIAL SYSTEMS SOCIAL CONTEXT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM a Dynamic interactions Sociopolitical actors ECONOMY SOCIETY c Implemen- tation Policy change CULTURE b HC services Institutions Political actors Outputs d e f Outcomes POLITY POLITICS POLICY INPUTS OUTPUTS • Demands and supports • Access to the political system • Decision-making d. Institutional change e. Social impact of policy f. Distribution of costs and benefits

8. TWO DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES REPRESENTATIVE Democracy DIRECT “Democracy” • The formal, constitutional model in modern democracies, based on: • Voters choosing political representatives (state actors) • State actors choosing policies which reflectvoters’ preferences (responsiveness) • Voters reelecting representatives if policies favour their interests (accountability)  • The informal political process, based on interest groups/PP: • Sociopol. organizations which claim to represent social groups • Which exert informal pressure upon the state’s choice of policy • + Formalized in EU, due to: • Evidence of democratic problems (limits of formal representation, elitism, manipulation & inestability)  • If there is no intermediation between state & citizens State Voters

9. TWO DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY DIRECT “DEMOCRACY” RQ 3. Who governs (= makes policy)? RQ 2. Who influences policy? State context Sociopol. context Social context RQ 4. How it governs (= who benefit)? RQ 1. Who participates? (= seeks to influence policy)

10. MEMBERSHIP PERSUASION IGs, political parties, social movem-ents State context Mass media, public opinion, policy experts Sociopol. context Social context State Sociopol. actors Voters TWO DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY DIRECT “DEMOCRACY”

11. PUBLIC & PRIVATE INTERESTS 100% Social movements, eg Greenpeace PUBLIC Unions 50% (Peak associations= National federations) Political parties Professionals PRIVATE Employers Sectoral interest groups 0%

12. SOCIAL vs. POLITICAL THEORIES “FATE” POLITICAL ACTORS(as representatives)  independent of social groups SOCIAL CONTEXT • Convergence theory • Structural theories: capitalist/working class strength depends on distribution of ownership • Cultural theories: national (anti- or statist) cultures inherited from history • Contextual theories: unusual conjunctures, policy windows INTERESTGROUPS(as delegates of social groups  dependent on mandate) CHOICE SOCIOPOLIT. ACTORS partly independent • Bussiness associations & Unions • Professional associations • Policy experts • Citizens´ preferences (= PO) • Mass media • Social movements CHANCE

13. Analytical framework (2):Interest group theories

14. INTEREST GROUP THEORIES • MAIN THESIS: Policy is the result of the political pressures of private interest groups on the state, who needs their financial, knowledge and support resources in order to change policy • WHY DO IGs EMERGE/INFLUENCE POLICY? • MARXIST: The two main societal interests (owners/workers) organize and mobilize to take control of the state; democracy/absolutism favours owners • 1) PLURALISM: All social groups with a shared interest organize and mobilize politically in order to influence policy; the state needs them • 2) COLLECTIVE ACTION THEORY (Olson, Ostrom) – Rational choice: • - Only social groups with more financial resources, small size and strong political preferences voluntarily self-organize; eg bussiness/profs.  they tend to have higher policy influence • - The rest require external mobilization/direction by elites; eg Unions, parties their influence on policy is more difficult (maintaining internal cohesion & external support is costly)

15. INTEREST GROUP THEORIES • 2) COLLECTIVE ACTION THEORY (Olson, Ostrom): Arguments  The decision to engage in collective action depends on individuals’ balance of costs/benefits • * Concentrated costs: time, effort, money, risk, information • * Collective, dispersed benefits: a) individual (marginal) impact small; b) difficult to exclude non-participants (free-riding)  As all public goods, collective action does not pay off  On voluntary basis, it works best only in groups which are: - A. Small (homogeneity of interests, frequent interaction, social control) - B. Intense: strong political preferences  Otherwise requires positive (e.g. rewarding social interaction) & negative incentives (e.g. Compulsory participation) introduced by the state or group leaders

16. INTEREST GROUP THEORIES 2) OTHER (mostly later) THEORIES:  The decision to engage in collective action depends on • * the intensity of political conflict across social cleaveages (class/income, religion/values, community/ethnia), ideologies and political issues (social structuralism) • * the extent to which there are political elites/organizations who actively mobilize (and represent) their potential constituencies or issue publics (power resources theories  actor/action); • * the openess of democratic institutions to direct political participation, eg neocorporatism, popular legislative initiative, referendum (institutionalism) NOTE: Olson’s thesis are compatible with all the above

17. INTEREST GROUP THEORIES • WHICH CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC POLITICS? • MARXIST: Democracy collapses, threatened first by despotism of the rich, and then by violent revolt of the poor • PLURALISM: Quality of democracy increases  all social groups are equally able to influence policy through mobilization and competition  the state should not intervene, but let free initiative + competition reign • COLLECTIVE ACTION THEORY: • - If there is no state intervention, only small private IGs will be present • - Small, powerful IGs corrupt the quality of democracy  private interests take over the public interest • - As the size of IGs expands, they become more majority, their interests become more public (“all-encompassing”), and their policy influence increases political representation = quality of democracy  - The state should promote the creation of national federation of IGs, and delegate to them some formal policy power NOTE: The consequences of the grow of political parties for democracies are considered minor/mainly positive  visibility & accountability

18. E NOTE: The circles symbolize parties, and the organigrams internal party organization THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES POLITICAL SYSTEM SOCIETY ELECTORAL SYSTEM PUBLIC POLICIES STATE NATION PROF. TU&BA Sociopolitical organizations Bureaucracy (+ P/A) P J Co Fi Fa Et/ Cult Cl/ Prof Gen/Age Health care services POLITICAL SOCIAL

19. Descriptive evidence: - Definition- Types of IGs/partisan politics- Role in expanding the WS- Evolution and trends

20. DEFINITIONS • INTEREST GROUPS: Sociopolitical organizations... • With membership restricted to those sharing an objective characteristic (employers/employees; doctors/lawyers; male/female parents; catholic/islamic/protestant; blacks/jewish) • Main goal: to advance the interests of their members (vis-a-vis other IGs) • Secondary aim: exert political pressure = influence policy • POLITICAL PARTIES: • Membership open to anyone who supports ideology = policy platform • Main goal: attain formal government power, advance majority interests • Secondary goals: exert political pressure to advance members’ interests • SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (eg greenpeace, amnesty international): • Membership open to anyone who supports their “cause” = 1 policy issue • Main goal: political pressure  influence policy to advance public interest

21. DEFINITIONS NOTE: Classical terminology Nowadays… • INTEREST GROUPS POLITICS: • Process by which IGs exert direct pressure upon government to obtain policy influence (direct ‘democracy’) • Increasing predominance of direct IGs pressures (over citizens’ preferences/general interest) within democracies • PARTISAN POLITICS: • Process by which political parties obtain formal & informal influence on policy, through penetrating other sociopolitical organizations + the state • Increasing predominance of political parties within the state in representative democracies Unions Pressure groups Synonymous Social groups, social bases, constituencies Interests groups Employees

22. TYPES • INTEREST GROUP POLITICS: • Liberal pluralism: No state intervention  informal pressures • Bussiness/professions mainly • Small, fragmented IGs • Competition among them • Neocorporatism: State intervention  some IGs given formal (statutory) power • Tripartite, the state mediates among conflicting IGs • Large, national IGs: Bussiness/Unions; Professionals/Insurers • Cooperation between IGs and the state • PARTISAN POLITICS: • Two-party systems: Correlated with 1 (class) cleavage; majoritarian electoral systems; executive dominance (majority government) • Multi-party systems: Correlated with 2 or more cleavages; proportional electoral systems; and more importance of the Parliament (coalition governments)

23. ROLE IN EXPANDING THE WS • INTEREST GROUP POLITICS: • Liberal pluralism: The US  First professionals, then insurers block NHI; Unions weakened by employers’ pressures • (Quadagno, 2004  sociopol. actors/action theory; Navarro, 1989  IGs/structuralism) • Neocorporatism: EU  Countries with statutory corporatism tend to expand the WS more + earlier (but they also have multi-party systems) • PARTISAN POLITICS: • Countries in which SD parties strong as pressure groups  + WS (NHS/SHI) • * No access to government, but still strong mobilization capacities  demonstrations, strikes, petitions, etc. • Countries in which SD parties access government  + WS / NHS

24. EVOLUTION AND TRENDS • Liberal pluralism: Tends to expand & democratize, due to  • - Expanded resources of the less priviledged (thanks to WS expansion) - Increasing openess of the state to IGs consultation (policy networks) • Neocorporatism: Tends to contract formally, but expand and democratize informally, due to  • - Increasing criticism on private IGs holding formal government rights  statutory rights increasingly supressed - Increasing number of countries introduce neocorporatist agreements informally (with the biggest IGs) - Increasing openess of the state to IGs consultation (policy networks) • Party sytem: little changes in number of parties, but... • - Emergence of new “issue parties”, linked to social movements • - Decreasing importance as IGs role expands • NOTE: For both IGs and PPs  as political power increases, state regulation/inspection of internal activities expands