Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-g628x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T08:43:52.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Initiative Process and the Dynamics of State Interest Group Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Frederick J. Boehmke
Frederick J. Boehmke*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What effect does the initiative process have on the volatility of interest group populations? Theoretical results suggest that interest group communities in initiative states should be characterized by greater rates of entry and exit since the presence of the initiative process increases mobilizations by potentially less stable groups, particularly broad-based citizen groups. I test this prediction using data on state interest group lobby registrations in 1990 and 1997. Tabular and regression analysis of exit and entry rates for all groups as well as separate analyses for different kinds of groups, including citizen, economic, membership, institutions, and associations, are consistent with the prediction, with the effect strongest and most consistent for citizen and membership groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Winter 2008 , pp. 362 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berkman, Michael. 2001. “Legislative Professionalism and the Demand for Groups: The Institutional Context of Interest Population Density.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26:661–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2002. “The Effect of Direct Democracy on the Size and Diversity of State Interest Group Populations.” The Journal of Politics 64:827–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2003. “Using Auxiliary Data to Estimate Selection Bias Models, With an Application to Interest Groups' Use of the Direct Initiative Process.” Political Analysis 11:234–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005a. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Groups Systems. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005b. “Sources of Variation in the Frequency of Statewide Initiatives: The Role of Interest Group Populations.” Political Research Quarterly 58:575–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equal.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4:345–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasher, Holly, Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 1999. “State Lobby Registration Data: The Anomalous Case of Florida (and Minnesota Too!).” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24:303–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, Thomas E. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, Todd, Bowler, Shaun, McCuan, David, and Fernandez, Ken. 1998. “Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Initiative Campaigns.” In Citizens As Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline J.. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Richard. 2002. Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, Howard R. 2001. “The Historical Role of Narrow-Minded Interests.” In Dangerous Democracy: The Battle Over Ballot Initiative in America, eds. Sabato, Larry J., Ernst, Howard R., and Larson, Bruce A.. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 40:99–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1996. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1998. “State Lobbying Regulations and Their Enforcement: Implications for the Diversity of State Interest Communities.” State and Local Government Review 30:78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2001a. “The Expression of Density Dependence in State Communities of Organized Interests.” American Politics Review 29:374–91.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2001b. “The Institutionalization of State Communities of Organized Interests.” Political Research Quarterly 54:265–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, William H. 1993. Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
King, James D. 2000. “Changes in Professionalism in US State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25:327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr., Hagen, Michael G., and Rochlin, Steven A.. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies and Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58:760–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Beth L., Baumgartner, Frank R., Pira, Timothy La, and Semanko, Nicholas A.. 2005. “Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Attention and Interest-Group Mobilization.” Political Research Quarterly 58:19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, David, Gray, Virginia, Fellowes, Matthew, and Anderson, Jennifer. 2004. “Living in the Moment: Lags, Leads, and the Link Between Legislative Agendas and Interest Advocacy.” Social Science Quarterly 85:463–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, Robert C. 2005. “Explaining the Variation in Organized Civil Society Across States and Time.” The Journal of Politics 67:574–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G.G. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting On Ballot Propositions in the United States. Balitmore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative Process, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G., and McCarty, Nolan M.. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organizations 17:413–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony. 2004. “The Population Ecology of Interest Group Formation: Mobilizing for Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 34:49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony, and Lipinski, Daniel. 2005. “The Population Ecology of Interest Group Death: Gay and Lesbian Rights Interest Groups In the United States, 1945–1998.” British Journal of Political Science 35:303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opheim, Cynthia. 1991. “Explaining the Differences in State Lobbying Regulation.” Western Political Quarterly 44:405–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, Robert. 1984. “Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 81:64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1984. “What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System.” The Journal of Politics 46:1006–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline, Lowenstein, Daniel H., and Donovan, Todd. 1998. “Election Laws and Rules for Initiatives.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Tolbert, Caroline. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. Jr. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professionals, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolak, Jennifer, Newmark, Adam, McNoldy, Todd, Lowery, David, and Gray, Virginia. 2002. “Much of Politics is Still Local: Multi-State Lobbying in State Interest Communities.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 27:527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar