https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9833-0347
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article aims to examine how citizens evaluate the contribution of interest groups to the functioning of representative democracies, focusing on several dimensions related to political representation and democratic governance. Drawing on an original online survey conducted to a representative sample of the population in Portugal, we investigate the correlates of citizens’ perceptions regarding interest groups, in particular the impact of individual-level factors related to political involvement, partisanship, party closeness and ideology. We find that associational membership and partisan identities positively impact citizens’ views, while higher levels of (perceived) proximity between political parties and groups increasenegative perceptions. Moreover, people displaying greater trust in interest groups are more likely to hold positive views of organised interests. Overall, political features shape citizens’ attitudes towards groups to a great extent, as people anchored to the political system are more prone to support the institutional role of organised interests and to evaluate their contribution to the functioning of democracies more positively.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 We define interest groups as ‘an association of individuals or organisations, usually formally organised, that on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy’ (Thomas, Citation2022). The terms ‘interest group’, ‘interest organisations’, and ‘organised interests’ are used interchangeably in this text. The notion of civil society includes a wider universe of groups, which are not necessarily based on an organisational structure (e.g., social movements) and/or do not aim to influence public policies (e.g., civic associations). See also footnote 2 for a discussion on the implication of using distinct terms.
2 Following Putnam’s seminal study, we can define social capital as ‘trust, norms, and networks that facilitate cooperation and civic action’ (Putnam, Citation1993, p. 167).
3 A related field of research has focused on citizens’ opinions regarding the involvement of interest groups in election campaigns. However, this strand of research draws essentially on the American experience and remains out of the scope of this article.
4 Given that several terms can be used as synonyms for interest groups, one question asked whether the respondent’s understanding of each of these terms was positive or negative. We used the following terms: pressure groups, interest groups, organised interests, civil society organisations and social partners. As scholarship also acknowledges (e.g., Beyers et al., Citation2008), there is no consensus on the best definition of interest groups and empirically we can find different terms associated with this concept. Our data show that whereas the term ‘pressure group’ received the most negative evaluation, social partners was the most positive (Table A1 in the Appendix). Our survey uses the most ‘neutral’ terms, namely interest groups or civil society organisations. From a theoretical point of view, this choice still captures the basic features of interest groups, namely the fact that they have (1) a formal organisation; (2) a membership (which is voluntary) and (3) public relevance (this was specified in the introductory question, see Table A1 in the Appendix). We also believe that this strategy avoids an important problem that lies behind Portuguese political culture (as in other Southern European countries), namely the fact that the terms ‘interest groups’, ‘organised interests’ or ‘pressure groups’ very often have negative connotations in public opinion, and are wrongly associated with (or considered equivalent) to corruption.
5 The question was the following: ‘In your opinion, do you consider the general contribution of interest groups to democracy to be positive or negative?’
6 We standardise the value between 0 (no trust) and 1 (trust in all types of organisations).
7 Table A8 in the appendix provides a correlation matrix between the main dependent and independent variables.
8 See Tables A2 and A7 in the appendix for more details on the sample.
9 The exact wording was as follows: ‘Would you say that there are civil society organisations in Portugal that represent your views reasonably well?’(yes/no).
10 Including in the survey the ‘don’t know’ option would probably imply obtaining a large number of missing values. Consequently, we decided to offer the option to skip these questions. However, even in this case, we cannot rule out the hypothesis that some respondents answered randomly, namely choosing the mid-point. This is especially the case for those who try to minimise their efforts to answer the questionnaire (‘satisficing’ behaviour, see Krosnick, Citation1991).
11 The following question was asked: ‘In your opinion, do you agree that the state should contribute to the financing of civil society organisations?’ (1: completely disagree; 4: completely agree).
12 See the online appendix (Table A8) for the correlation matrix of these dimensions.
13 Complete results are available in the appendix (Figure A1). These differences, however, are not statistically significant.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Marco Lisi
Marco Lisi is an Associate Professor in the department of Political Studies, Nova University of Lisbon and Researcher at IPRI-NOVA. His research interests focus on political parties, interest groups, electoral behaviour, democratic theory, political representation and election campaigns. He published several articles in national and international journals. He recently edited Party System Change, the European Crisis and the State of Democracy (Routledge, 2019). E-mail: [email protected]