Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions

Alexander Grant Jordan, Darren Halpin, William Anthony Maloney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article notes the systemic lack of conceptual clarity in the social sciences and attempts to illustrate the adverse consequences by closer examination of the particular example of the interest group field. It indicates the significant ambiguities implicit in the term. Not all policy-influencing organisations are interest groups as normally understood, but because there is a lack of an appropriate label the term interest group is used by default. The article seeks to distinguish between interest groups and other policy relevant bodies—often corporations or institutions. It finds disadvantages in adopting a functional interpretation of the interest group term (i.e. any organisation trying to influence public policy). While the wider range of organisations are crucial in understanding the making of public policy, it is confusing to assume that this wider population are all interest groups. The article instead advances the complementary notions of pressure participant, policy participant and interest group. This slightly expanded repertoire of terms avoids conflating important distinctions, and, in Sartori's term permits ‘disambiguation’. The core assumption is that the search for comparative data and exploration of normative questions implies some harmonisation in the interest group currency.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)195-212
Number of pages17
JournalBritish Journal of Politics and International Relations
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2004

Fingerprint

interest group
public policy
need
lack
currency
harmonization
corporation
social science
policy
examination
interpretation

Cite this

Defining Interests : Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions. / Jordan, Alexander Grant; Halpin, Darren; Maloney, William Anthony.

In: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 2, 05.2004, p. 195-212.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jordan, Alexander Grant ; Halpin, Darren ; Maloney, William Anthony. / Defining Interests : Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions. In: British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2004 ; Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 195-212.
@article{75cd1b6853ab4543b510d39a6b1f098c,
title = "Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions",
abstract = "This article notes the systemic lack of conceptual clarity in the social sciences and attempts to illustrate the adverse consequences by closer examination of the particular example of the interest group field. It indicates the significant ambiguities implicit in the term. Not all policy-influencing organisations are interest groups as normally understood, but because there is a lack of an appropriate label the term interest group is used by default. The article seeks to distinguish between interest groups and other policy relevant bodies—often corporations or institutions. It finds disadvantages in adopting a functional interpretation of the interest group term (i.e. any organisation trying to influence public policy). While the wider range of organisations are crucial in understanding the making of public policy, it is confusing to assume that this wider population are all interest groups. The article instead advances the complementary notions of pressure participant, policy participant and interest group. This slightly expanded repertoire of terms avoids conflating important distinctions, and, in Sartori's term permits ‘disambiguation’. The core assumption is that the search for comparative data and exploration of normative questions implies some harmonisation in the interest group currency.",
author = "Jordan, {Alexander Grant} and Darren Halpin and Maloney, {William Anthony}",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00134.x",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "195--212",
journal = "British Journal of Politics and International Relations",
issn = "1369-1481",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Defining Interests

T2 - Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions

AU - Jordan, Alexander Grant

AU - Halpin, Darren

AU - Maloney, William Anthony

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - This article notes the systemic lack of conceptual clarity in the social sciences and attempts to illustrate the adverse consequences by closer examination of the particular example of the interest group field. It indicates the significant ambiguities implicit in the term. Not all policy-influencing organisations are interest groups as normally understood, but because there is a lack of an appropriate label the term interest group is used by default. The article seeks to distinguish between interest groups and other policy relevant bodies—often corporations or institutions. It finds disadvantages in adopting a functional interpretation of the interest group term (i.e. any organisation trying to influence public policy). While the wider range of organisations are crucial in understanding the making of public policy, it is confusing to assume that this wider population are all interest groups. The article instead advances the complementary notions of pressure participant, policy participant and interest group. This slightly expanded repertoire of terms avoids conflating important distinctions, and, in Sartori's term permits ‘disambiguation’. The core assumption is that the search for comparative data and exploration of normative questions implies some harmonisation in the interest group currency.

AB - This article notes the systemic lack of conceptual clarity in the social sciences and attempts to illustrate the adverse consequences by closer examination of the particular example of the interest group field. It indicates the significant ambiguities implicit in the term. Not all policy-influencing organisations are interest groups as normally understood, but because there is a lack of an appropriate label the term interest group is used by default. The article seeks to distinguish between interest groups and other policy relevant bodies—often corporations or institutions. It finds disadvantages in adopting a functional interpretation of the interest group term (i.e. any organisation trying to influence public policy). While the wider range of organisations are crucial in understanding the making of public policy, it is confusing to assume that this wider population are all interest groups. The article instead advances the complementary notions of pressure participant, policy participant and interest group. This slightly expanded repertoire of terms avoids conflating important distinctions, and, in Sartori's term permits ‘disambiguation’. The core assumption is that the search for comparative data and exploration of normative questions implies some harmonisation in the interest group currency.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00134.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00134.x

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 195

EP - 212

JO - British Journal of Politics and International Relations

JF - British Journal of Politics and International Relations

SN - 1369-1481

IS - 2

ER -