The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (131 page)

Russian word for intellectuals engaged in politics, as were most reformers in nineteenth-century Russia. After the
Russian Revolution
, the word acquired a Leninist tinge, being used both of and by intellectual supporters of Lenin(ism). Mostly now used sarcastically.

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Between industrial democracies. Influenced by the emergence of trade deficits after 1970, the rapid postwar spread of
multinational corporations
, and the oil crisis of 1973–4, many liberal political scientists in the United States reacted against the strong emphasis placed in the dominant realist school of international relations upon the centrality of the state and the relative autonomy of its military and political power from social and economic pressures. R. O. Keohane and J. S. Nye coined the term ‘complex interdependence’ to describe the new pattern of relations between mature industrial democracies in which functionally defined international
regimes
, comprising state agencies, specialized international organizations, and firms, managed matters as diverse as international trade, security, environmental issues, public health, and development assistance in ways which could no longer be relied upon to yield outcomes dictated by the United States as the conventionally preeminent power. Interdependence was also seen as an insurance against any collapse of Western security and the international economy that might follow a post-Vietnam decline in United States hegemony, since it was argued that co-operative international regimes might outlast the dominant power that had instigated them. Mere lexical coincidence has led to confusion between interdependence and neo-Marxist Latin American dependency approaches to international relations, but the two are quite unrelated.
CJ 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Organizations seeking to advance a particular sectional interest or cause, while not seeking to form a government or part of a government. The term is often used interchangeably with
pressure group
, although it is important to be aware of the particular ways in which the term is deployed by different writers. Interest groups may occasionally contest elections as a tactic to influence political parties, but they usually rely on a variety of campaigning and lobbying methods to influence government policy. Thus,
agrarian parties
contest elections with the objective of forming a government or, more realistically, entering into a coalition with other governing parties, while farmers' organizations use a variety of methods from violent demonstrations to private consultations with ministers to attempt to secure their policy objectives, but do not seek to enter government themselves.
A considerable proportion of the literature on interest groups has focused on why individuals or institutions become members given that they can ‘
free ride
’ on the public policy objectives achieved by the group without incurring the costs of membership. A variety of answers have been given to this problem, ranging from the selective incentives provided by the group in the form of services (M. Olson , J. Q. Wilson ), through the role of the entrepreneur-organizer in initiating the group (R. Salisbury ), to the role of external patrons including government in assisting the group (J. Walker ). In any event, the general tendency is for interest group memberships to increase while political party memberships decline.
Various attempts have been made to categorize interest groups to assist understanding of their methods of operation. The distinction between sectional groups and cause or promotional groups differentiates between those groups based on the representation of a particular defined interest (such as a trade union or employers' association), and those which seek to advance a particular cause (such as animal welfare), and whose membership is open to all interested citizens. The distinction between insider groups and outsider groups draws a line between those groups that are regularly involved in the formulation of policy by ministers and civil servants, and those that have to rely on other methods of securing support such as letter-writing campaigns and demonstrations. The exact combination of methods used by interest groups to exert influence will vary from one political system to another. Indeed, the institutions on which interest groups focus their attention are one indicator of where power lies in a particular political system. Thus, in the United States, interest groups pay particular attention to influencing Congress, sometimes producing so-called iron triangles comprising interest groups, congressional subcommittees, and bureaucratic agencies. Interest groups are more likely to resort to the courts in the United States to secure their objectives than in many other political systems, reflecting the importance of the Supreme Court in the US political system, and the general reliance on resolving disputes by legal means. As the United States has a federal form of government, some attention has to be paid to developments at the state level, particularly in states such as California which have a reputation for being policy innovators. Distinctive and well-resourced pressure groups are to be found at state level, a phenomenon which is even more pronounced in highly decentralized federal systems such as Australia and Canada. In Britain, where power is more concentrated in the executive branch, interest groups generally place a greater emphasis on influencing ministers and civil servants.
The influence of the media in Western societies, particularly in terms of political agenda-setting, has tended to increase, leading to a greater emphasis by pressure groups on securing media attention. This strategy has been particularly important for environmental groups as a means of placing their concerns on the political agenda. The development of political structures at the international level, notably the
European Union
, has led to the development of increasingly effective international federations of national interest groups, and in some cases direct membership interest groups operating at the international level. The development of more liberal political systems in East-Central Europe and Russia has encouraged the formation of interest groups, although, particularly in relation to business interests, the distinction between interest groups and political parties is often more blurred than in Western countries. Concern is often expressed about the influence exerted by special or vested interests in democracies. This concern has particularly focused on the privileged status that appeared to be achieved by a limited range of economic interests in connection with the development of
corporatism
, and the techniques used by some
lobbyists
. Freedom of association is, however, a basic principle of democratic societies, and interest groups provide a channel for special expertise to be made available to decision-makers, and for particular concerns to be brought to their attention.
WG 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

An individual's interests connect policies and actions adopted by him or her, or by other persons or governments, with want-satisfaction and possibly need-fulfilment. Interests express an instrumental relation between such policies and so forth, and an individual's preference-attainment. Hence if I claim that it is in my interests to receive a pay rise, I suggest that more pay will enable me to obtain more of what I want. Such judgements are often predictive, and may be wrong. Interests are important in political analysis because they are taken as guides to behaviour—if something is in my interests I may be expected to try to bring it about (
but
see
collective action problems
). Again, in judging how others are likely to behave it may help to assess where their interests lie. When the relationship between a policy and its effects on a particular agent is a complex one, or where there is inequality in information, or when the agent is or has been subject to a power relation, the agent may not be the best judge of his or her own interests. In general, liberal political theory has given the agent a privileged position in the assessment of his or her interests for two reasons: first, agents have knowledge of their own wants which may not be accessible to outsiders; and secondly, an external judgement may impose someone else's view of the good. Radical political theory has suggested that the real interests of agents are not those based on the whole set of their present wants, but those based upon the wants they would have if liberated in various ways from the heteronomy imposed by the society in which they live. Liberals recognize that agents can be mistaken about the impact of a policy or action on their want satisfaction, and thus that they can be mistaken about their interests; radicals suggest that they may be systematically misled about their wants and needs, so that even if they correctly judge their interests on the basis of their perceived wants they will not pursue their real interests. See also
public interest
.
AR