The first of the major groups in the US are the ‘Economic Groups’. These can be big corporations, or even groups of corporations, called ‘peak associations’. Business is very important in America, demonstrated by the increase in involvement in public policy by US firms, since the 1960’s. This is a change from governments at this time, who often used to be pro big-business. Firms rarely became politically involved. However, active involvement especially at local level in now far greater, due in no small part to the quick changes in the economy, and the observed weakness of large American firms to competition from abroad. Many large corporations even employ their own professional lobbyists. Some large corporations, known as ‘agribusinesses’, are now the main representatives of the farming industry. Small farm owners have little clout in political discussions, but the business like nature of the agribusinesses allows them far greater influence, especially in their main objective of raising farming subsidies.
The labour unions that these firms’ employees belong to are also considered to have weak influence on policy. Despite a small percentage of workers belonging to trade unions, the figure is still huge, indicating that the 18 million members are definitely still one of the most important organised interests in the US. The main purposes of such unions are to collectively bargain with the industry that the members are in (for example over wages, hours worked, etc.) and to ensure equal rights for all members. Labour Unions do this in a very visible way, often through the media, to make their voices heard and to attempt to garner public support. However, a highly decentralised labour union movement, coupled with decreasing membership (particularly in the ever increasing tertiary sector), and past anti-labour procedures, has meant a huge reduction in power since the 70’s and 80’s.
Two other groups are also represented in the US: Professional and Promotional Groups. Professional groups are made up of some of the top professionals in a certain line of work. These occupations are normally either very involved politically or economically, such as bankers, lawyers, or doctors. The difference here is that the experts help rather than hinder the US government. The government needs their expertise, resulting in a more amicable relationship with professionals than with many other groups. Their expertise are essential, implied by the part they take in helping the government with policy. Many also help fund electoral candidates, if the candidate puts forward and promotes their views, and promises to put funds back into their particular fields. The expertise and power of these specialist groups means that they can strongly influence, and gain the trust of those who make the decisions.
Promotional groups are groups of people related by something other than economic or professional reasons. They all share a similar view on a particular interest, and work as a group to benefit this interest. In the last 40 years, the number of promotional groups has rapidly increased, as more and more have realised the power that they can have as a well organised formal interest. Although not necessarily - as many claim - in the public interest, promotional groups do have the strongest views on their particular cause, and hence a big influence. This, for politicians, is a very good reason to listen to what promotional groups have to say.
The obvious question to summarise with is: Why has there been such a huge increase in number, and therefore influence of interest groups in the US in the past 50 or so years? One of the main points is that the ability to communicate, organise, and assemble large groups of people has vastly increased. Technology has allowed thousands of people with similar interests to agree to meet, discuss, or take action in ways never before possible. This is of vital importance in a country the size of the US, where such meetings would be unfeasible in the past. An increase in government activity and decisions, such as Reagan’s anti-labour measures, also encourage those with positive or negative views on a social policy to form pressure groups. Similarly, corporations became more involved once the government chose not to help them so much, and many promotional groups were born out of reaction to government action (or lack thereof), both good and bad. To generalise, there has been an increase in the US in people wanting to have more of a say on their interests, than just through their single vote. In big corporations, in professional bodies, and in promotional groups, citizens have become more interested in improving their welfare, through group interaction with public policy makers.
When comparing interest and pressure groups in the US, with those in the UK, it is important to remember that despite being differently structured, many of the types of pressure groups are very similar. Their roles differ from their US counterparts, and they may have more or less influence than they have. A crucial issue to remember is that whereas groups in the US are both open about their actions, and freely allowed to attempt to gain the support of whomever they want - public or politician – public policy in the UK is made more discretely. That is not to say that these groups cannot exist and flourish – many hundreds have – but it means that the approach to influencing those in power is slightly different.
Promotional groups in the UK are very similar to those in the US. They are again a group of people with a shared ideology on a subject, trying to promote and better their group’s interests. The last 20 years has seen a big increase in promotional groups in the UK, due to a, “disenchantment with traditional politics, a greater interest in the politics of direct action, welfare cutbacks and increasing environmental concerns”[ref]. The primary difference with promotional groups in the UK is that as well as lobbying parliament over policy, many will take issue with other powers. In this sense, it could be said that there are many more points of access for groups in the UK, although not specifically directly UK political ones. Groups can go even higher, if they have the resources, lobbying the EU or even a private corporation, over dumping waste for example. So, although there are fewer direct access points to politicians in the UK, well organised power can result in climbing even higher, and taking direct action.
Restricted membership groups, often interested in the economic or political side, are similar to the economic groups in the US. Known also as ‘sectional groups’, they can again be divided into business or corporate groups, trade unions, for employees, and professional groups. Some join forces, and create peak associations, such as the TUC – a joint organisation that combines the demands of workers and employees. Although the separate economic groups are similar to the US, the ways in which they approach political influence are different.
In a similar way to the US system, some groups in the UK are used by the government to help decide public policy, rather than to just influence decisions. Groups that the government utilises to help in making decisions are called ‘insider groups’, and tend to have a particular expert knowledge on a subject, that the government needs. Pressure groups by their nature are likely to know the most information, and be the first to know it. This level of expertise on all subjects from important major issues such as finance (called a ‘core insider group’), to rarer issues such as the conservation of badger sets (called a ‘niche insider group’). The difference between these groups is that the core group is more likely to be made up of professionals, or true experts in a field, whereas the niche group may have the best knowledge on its subject, but are not necessary ‘professional’. So far, the main difference between the US and UK pressure group system is structure.
However, in contrast to the US’ ‘open for all’ policy in terms of pressure groups, whereby anyone can lobby some level of government, and hope to come to some sort of amicable agreement, this is not always the case in the UK, as has been seen particularly with pressure group action with regards to the environment. ‘Outsider groups’ are pressure groups who either choose not to become a tool of the government, out of principle or through their actions, or wish to become an insider group, but fail for some reason. The former describes groups such as animal rights protesters, whose occasional violent tactics necessarily excludes them from helping the government, as do awareness marches – some simply don’t want to help the government, but may want to appeal more to the public. Others are simply ‘too niche’ (as opposed to the US, where almost all topics, however rare, are at some point attended to), and are not needed by the government, or lack the finance, organisation, or expertise to attempt to become an insider.
Pressure group numbers have also risen quickly in the UK, although more recently than in the US. The last 25 years, from when Thatcher came to power, have seen pressure groups become more organised and more professional in their approaches. Specifically, it was Thatcher’s anti-group stance which helped them thrive. MP’s were used not only as a point of access to influencing public policy, as in the US, but furthermore, some were used to represent and stand up for the ideologies of certain groups. Despite this, a gap grew between many groups and the political parties, who were often said not to be listening to the groups, and not representing their interests fairly. The result was, and still is to some extent, a period of physical protest from many groups. This is one of the most blatant differences between the roles of UK and US pressure groups – the use of protests and tactics to show concern on an issue, such as Iraq, or environmental issues, like the building of new bypasses. As already mentioned, the US system tends to be more amicable, especially when it comes to promotional groups, whereas many in the UK protest themselves, and encourage others to join their cause, at least temporarily.
To summarise, despite similar organisations of groups, there is a clear difference in the US and the UK between how the groups approach influencing the political policy making process, and also how the political system views the groups themselves. Both countries have a huge variety of groups representing almost every conceivable interest in their respective countries, but in the UK, those who will be listened to specifically are picked out by the government. The result is often more vociferous support in the UK amongst the public and groups about issues. The US group system is based more around the influence of corporations, the decisions of big business, whereas in the UK, the power is often with the professionals, but the voice and indeed the pressure is often that of promotional groups and the public.
Word Count: 2283