Interest Groups versus Social Movements

Interest groups should not be confused with social movements that galvanize the attention of widespread segments of society. Social movements are more informal linkage institutions that generate interest among otherwise unassociated citizens on broad-ranging topics of general concern. Notable among worldwide social movements have been those on behalf of labor, civil rights, the environment, and women. Although the distinction between interest groups and social movements is a fine one, interest groups are usually more narrowly focused and depend on organized supporters of otherwise loosely mobilized citizens within a larger social movement. For example, the United Auto Workers is an interest group within the United States and Canada that, beginning in the 1930s, assumed much of the leadership of the North American labor movement. Similarly, at the peak of the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s, numerous African-American interest groups articulated differing goals and political strategies.

Understanding the differences between interest groups and the social movements of which they are often a part helps clarify the characteristics of interest groups. As the earlier examples imply, interest groups have specific public policy goals and lobbying tactics to achieve them. Usually, a core leadership group orchestrates the appeals for support from potential patrons and the lobbying efforts directed at policymakers.

Interest Groups versus Political Parties

Interest groups are frequently compared with POLITICAL PARTIES because both are linkage institutions that represent citizens' wants and beliefs to government. But while parties are accountable to the electorate and seek to organize and control the operations of government, interest groups lack such accountability and constitute outside political forces that seek to influence government policies.

Political parties exhibit three distinguishing features that set them apart from other linkage institutions.  (1)  They seek to win elections or electoral positions; (2)  they reorganize around those periodic elections and then may become less active, and (3)  they depend on the local mobilization of voters who support political candidates but not necessarily the party organization. In contrast, interest groups are more issue oriented, are continuously maintained, and are dependent on supporters who identify with their organization.

Another criterion that differentiates political parties from interest groups arises from the nature of the political system in which they operate andfrom the various electoral rules and structures that exist in different countries. In corporatist societies, interest groups may be invited to participate in government decisions to the exclusion of competitor interests. In parliamentary systems, a party may have a narrow base and may try to win only a small number of legislative seats. Here interest groups may closely resemble parties in scope. Thus, because parties in multiparty parliamentary systems take on a role that in two-party presidential systems is usually performed by narrowly based interest groups, the impact of interest groups on political outcomes in these parliamentary systems may be more limited than in two-party presidential systems where parties try to win the votes of broad-based coalitions. One crucial difference remains, however in all types of political systems, interest groups are not trying to win public office for candidates who carry their label, nor are they responsible to the electorate.

Groups versus PACs

Interest groups also are not to be confused with POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES, which are unique U.S. institutions that are organized to fund electoral campaigns. Interest groups are only one of several organizations, including political parties, that can operate PACs for tactical reasons. Campaign contributions, for interest-group purposes, help win access to government officials on behalf of particular issues and public policies.

The Impact of Interest Groups

The most important feature of interest groups as distinctive political organizations is their capacity to represent the collective views of vocal segments of society in ways that government officials would not otherwise hear. Their perspectives are narrower and their demands more precise than those of social movements or political parties. Even public interest groups, which represent the collective views of citizen reformists, address but a small range of issues and use exacting information about each one to make their case. Thus issues are managed in great detail and with considerable expertise by interest groups at precisely the time that policymakers consider them. Movements, on the other hand, address all the issues that affect, for example, labor and in turn propose sweeping and systemwide change. Movement demands are long-term and seldom detailed as to how they will be implemented. Parties, by contrast, must take a stand on all issues of concern to their likely voters and trust elected candidates to come up with specific plans that can be implemented later.

For those reasons, many political observers argue that interest groups are a necessary part of all political systems and their governments even though these organizations may lack any officially recognized status. Groups, as their greatest service, provide specific alternatives about pending policy problems to those public officials who must soon resolve them. The degree to which these alternatives are accepted varies from government to government. No government can totally ignore the needs of at least some vocal and well-organized groups within its citizenry.

William P. Browne