Reflecting cutting edge scholarship but written for undergraduates, New Directions in Interest Group Politics will help students think critically about influence in the American political system. There is no shortage of fear about "the special interests" in American political debate, but reliable information about what interest groups do, who they represent, and how they influence government is often lacking. This volume, comprised of original essays by leading scholars, is designed to summarize and explain contemporary research that helps address popular questions and concerns, making studies accessible to undergraduate students and providing facts to butress informed debate. The book covers the mobilization of interest groups, their activities, and their influence. Each chapter briefly reviews research on a central question of scholarship before focusing on a particular empirical project designed to shed light on the topic. Rather than simply providing a descriptive overview, the chapters are designed to foster critical thinking by getting students to assess the role of interest groups in the American political system and supplying evidence of their effects. Importantly, a set of web resources associated with the book offer instructions for research and writing assignments. Students will be able to collect and analyze data on campaign finance, lobbying, and interest group involvement in governance. The eResource website includes materials for several classroom simulations, such as an interest group legislative battle, a Netroots convention, and a rule-making process. As they read about key questions in democratic government and current research trends, students can practice serving as interest group activists and conduct original research on topics that most interest them.

"Lobbyist" tends to be used as a dirty word in politics. Indeed, during the 2008 presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton was derided for even suggesting that some lobbyists represent "real Americans." But although many popular commentators position interest groups as representatives of special--not "public"--interests, much organized advocacy is designed to advance public interests and ideas.
Advocacy organizations--more than 1,600 of them--are now an important component of national political institutions. This book uses original data to explain why certain public groups, such as Jews, lawyers, and gun-owners, develop substantially more representation than others, and why certain organizations become the presumed spokespersons for these groups in government and media. In contrast to established theory and conventional wisdom, this book demonstrates that groups of all sizes and types generate advocates to speak on their behalf, though with varying levels of success. Matt Grossmann finds that the advantages of organized representation accrue to those public groups that are the most politically motivated and involved in their communities. Organizations that mobilize members and create a long-lasting presence in Washington become, in the minds of policymakers and reporters, the taken-for-granted surrogates for these public groups. In the face of perennial debates about the relative power of the people and the special interests, Grossmann offers an informed and nuanced view of the role of organizations in public representation and American governance.

Lobbyist tends to be used as a dirty word in politics. Indeed, during the 2008 presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton was derided for even suggesting that some lobbyists represent real Americans. But although many popular commentators position interest groups as representatives of specialOConot publicOCointerests, much organized advocacy is designed to advance public interests and ideas.
Advocacy organizationsOComore than 1,600 of themOCoare now an important component of national political institutions. This book uses original data to explain why certain public groups, such as Jews, lawyers, and gun-owners, develop substantially more representation than others, and why certain organizations become the presumed spokespersons for these groups in government and media. In contrast to established theory and conventional wisdom, this book demonstrates that groups of all sizes and types generate advocates to speak on their behalf, though with varying levels of success. Matt Grossmann finds that the advantages of organized representation accrue to those public groups that are the most politically motivated and involved in their communities. Organizations that mobilize members and create a long-lasting presence in Washington become, in the minds of policymakers and reporters, the taken-for-granted surrogates for these public groups. In the face of perennial debates about the relative power of the people and the special interests, Grossmann offers an informed and nuanced view of the role of organizations in public representation and American governance.

Reflecting cutting edge scholarship but written for undergraduates, New Directions in Interest Group Politics will help students think critically about influence in the American political system. There is no shortage of fear about "the special interests" in American political debate, but reliable information about what interest groups do, who they represent, and how they influence government is often lacking. This volume, comprised of original essays by leading scholars, is designed to summarize and explain contemporary research that helps address popular questions and concerns, making studies accessible to undergraduate students and providing facts to butress informed debate. The book covers the mobilization of interest groups, their activities, and their influence. Each chapter briefly reviews research on a central question of scholarship before focusing on a particular empirical project designed to shed light on the topic. Rather than simply providing a descriptive overview, the chapters are designed to foster critical thinking by getting students to assess the role of interest groups in the American political system and supplying evidence of their effects. Importantly, a set of web resources associated with the book offer instructions for research and writing assignments. Students will be able to collect and analyze data on campaign finance, lobbying, and interest group involvement in governance. The eResource website includes materials for several classroom simulations, such as an interest group legislative battle, a Netroots convention, and a rule-making process. As they read about key questions in democratic government and current research trends, students can practice serving as interest group activists and conduct original research on topics that most interest them.

It seems like most of what we read about the academic social sciences in the mainstream media is negative. The field is facing mounting criticism, as canonical studies fail to replicate, questionable research practices abound, and researcher social and political biases come under fire. In response to these criticisms, Matt Grossmann, in How Social Science Got Better, provides a robust defense of the current state of the social sciences. Applying insights from the philosophy, history, and sociology of science and providing new data on research trends and scholarly views, he argues that, far from crisis, social science is undergoing an unparalleled renaissance of ever-broader understanding and application. According to Grossmann, social science research today has never been more relevant, rigorous, or self-reflective because scholars have a much better idea of their blind spots and biases. He highlights how scholars now closely analyze the impact of racial, gender, geographic, methodological, political, and ideological differences on research questions; how the incentives of academia influence our research practices; and how universal human desires to avoid uncomfortable truths and easily solve problems affect our conclusions. Though misaligned incentive structures of course remain, a messy, collective deliberation across the research community has shifted us into an unprecedented age of theoretical diversity, open and connected data, and public scholarship. Grossmann's wide-ranging account of current trends will necessarily force the academy's many critics to rethink their lazy critiques and instead acknowledge the path-breaking advances occurring in the social sciences today.

This book presents a new view of American policymaking, focusing on networks of actors responsible for policymaking. Policy change is not easily predictable from election results or public opinion because compromise and coalitions among individual actors make a difference in all three branches of government. The amount of government action, the issue content of policy changes, and the ideological direction of policy all depend on the joint actions of executive officials, legislators, and interest group leaders. The patterns of cooperation among policymakers and activists make each issue area and time period different from the others and undermine attempts to build an unchanging unified model of American policymaking. In Artists of the Possible, Matt Grossman undertakes a rigorous content analysis of 268 books and articles on the history of 14 different major policy areas over 60 years, compiling and integrates these findings to assess the factors that drive policymaking. His findings-which collectively uncover the 790 most significant policy enactments of the federal government and credit 1,306 specific actors for their role in policy change, along with more than 60 circumstantial factors-overturn established theories of policymaking. First, significant policy change does not follow from the issue agenda of the electorate or policymakers. Second, neither changes in public opinion nor the ideology or partisanship of government officials reliably influence the amount or content of policy change. Instead, the patterns of cooperation and compromise among political elites drive the productivity and ideological direction of policymaking. Third, the policymaking roles of public opinion, media coverage, research, and international factors are all limited. Fourth, no typology can explain differences in policymaking across issue areas because the policy process is broadly similar except for a few idiosyncratic differences associated with each issue area.