Pressure Groups Lecture 3 The problem of assessing effectiveness

Not a purely academic question  Visit from Trade Association Forum last week  Some literature is now talking about ‘capacity’ rather than ‘effectiveness’  That emphasise ability to act rather than outcomes

Problems of methodology (1)  Power or influence cannot be quantified  One is often dealing with ‘reputational’ measures – where does power reside?  Government may manipulate outcomes

Problems of methodology (2)  Can a given outcome be attributed to a particular group – often many actors with complex set of objectives  Less consensus than there used to be about a winning strategy  State power more fragmented, multi- level governance, also new forms of politics. Target may not be state.

Problems of methodology (3)  Probably easier to identify ineffectiveness and reasons for it  We don’t expect you to solve difficult methodological problems – but a good answer will show awareness of them

The group and the target  What are the group’s objectives?  What relative priority does it give to those objectives?  What resources does it have at its disposal?  How efficient is it at mobilising them?  Any coalition building?  Serious internal tensions?

The target  How does it rate the group?  Sanctioning power?  Expertise, research backed evidence?  Legitimacy  Popular support  Can the group be excluded?

The target (2)  Are there internal divisions within the target, e.g., government?  Is the group seen as a client of a particular ministry?  Is the group reliant on financial support from the target?  Can government ‘harden up’ proposals to give empty concessions?

Manipulation of the agenda  The case of the proposed new airport near Rugby  Governments engage in ‘synoptic’ decision-making on new airports, look at all possibilities  Real aim was to get 2 nd runway at Birmingham, deflect protest elsewhere

What governments want from groups  Evidence from Baggott et al, Speaking for Patients and Carers  Governance structure – election of leaders, clear organisational framework, dialogue and high quality interaction with members (would disqualify many social movements)  Policy skills – no difficult or vociferous people

Countervailing groups  Key idea of pluralists  Canoeists wanting access to rivers  Found themselves up against alliance of landowners and ‘gnomes’ (anglers)  More generally seen historically as unions opposing employers, but more likely to be environmental groups today

Group resources (membership)  Any competition for members?  How important is legacy income – 25% for many groups  Can members be mobilised for campaigns. Do they have relevant skills?  Does group go for elite or restricted membership or mass membership?  Numbers do count – canoeists versus ramblers and anglers

Group resources (finance)  Baggott et al found clear relationship between income of group and number of examples of influence reported  Income pays for high quality staff  A small group can win a particular point with a well researched case, but in general money talks

Relationship with cultural norms (Rose typology)  Harmony with general cultural norms, e.g., animal welfare  Political values supporting group demands become more acceptable over time – opposition to smoking  Fluctuating support from cultural norms – CPRE and ‘Englishness’

Rose typology (2)  Cultural indifference – pedestrians  Opposition to long-term cultural trends – temperance, Sunday opening  Conflict between cultural values and pressure group goals. Civil liberties groups?

Contingency and policy windows  Politics is highly contingent – dependent on particular combinations of actors and events  Policy drivers: 9/11 and emphasis on security policy  Global warming, tendency to drive out other aspects of environmental policy

Framing of issues  Something becomes an ‘issue’, e.g. obesity  23% of UK population defined as obese, consequences for health care costs  But who is to ‘blame’? Individuals? Food processors? Retailers? Advertisers?

Kingdon’s analysis of issues  Awareness of problem – indicators (quantitative measures); events; feedback  Policy stream – primeval soup of ideas which may float to the top or fall to the bottom  Political stream – national mood; organised political forces (including pressure groups); government (changes in personnel and jurisdiction); consensus building

Window of opportunity  At critical times political, policy and problem streams come together  Short window of opportunity like launch window in a space mission  Smart pressure group will be able to recognise and seize opportunity

Strategy issues cause tensions within groups  Greenpeace overcomes this by being hierarchically organised  Paul Gilchrist’s work on canoeists shows variety of stances within one movement  Frustrated consenters accept rights of riparian landowners, but claim it is an injustice

Paddling your canoe (2)  ‘Trade unionists’ – seek to pursue legal and moral claims through courts, assert equity of treatment with others given access  Martyrs – still within rights discourse, but use confrontational techniques of mass trespass

Paddling your canoe (3)  Rebels who call themselves ‘bandits by stealth’  Paddle canoes in small groups  A much more individual approach, rejection of collective action  Hence seen by others as undermining collective protest

Can the issues get more difficult?  Environmental groups dealt with relatively easy issues – water quality, endangered species  Harder issues where change may affect jobs or lifestyles  Climate change  Water availability  Fish stocks

Conclusion  Policies do not change just because of pressure group activity  Other factors include level of public interest; political stance of government; ideas from think tanks  Public opinion + government policy + group activity = public policy