Blog that supports USC Aiken APLS494I South Carolina Politics class taught in Summer Session I, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Interest Groups – Question 7
Question for Courtney T and Erica W. What are the four methods to determine which groups are most powerful, and what would each method suggest about the powers of the different groups in South Carolina?
To determine which groups are most powerful four approaches are used. The first is the reputational approach. This is where political scientists look at the reputation of the group among those in key political positions. The second approach is called the decisions approach. This approach looks at the power of the group compared to the area in question. Groups hold tend to hold more power in the areas that interest them most. The third approach is called the non- decisions approach. With this method, the researcher considers how the social and political cultures might be influenced so that certain questions aren’t brought up. Some groups are powerful enough to keep questions that potentially threaten them off the issue agenda. The final approach is called the group resources approach. This less controversial method just simply lists factors such as: size, unity, intensity of concern, money, etc., to determine the power of particular interest groups. All these approaches show how powerful the interests groups of South Carolina are. If a group has a good reputation, good membership, strong interests and money, they can be considered powerful. In South Carolina, a group’s power depends on the group itself, how much it is involved in politics, and the representation that they have in the legislature.
Courtney did an excellent job with the first part of the question, but did not say much about which groups look most powerful using these methods. The short answer to the second part is that business groups have a big advantage, whether we look at reputation, non-decisions, or reources. The second approach, the decisions approach, is less clear in who has the most power because it depends on the decision in question.
The first approach is reputational approach. It is where you take into consideration the reputations of legislatures are important. The second approach is the decisions approach. This looks at power as relative to the decisional area in question. The third is the nondecisions approach only views some groups as powerful enough to keep questions that potentially threaten them off the issue agenda. The fourth is the group researchers approach. This approach is less controversial; it takes into consideration factors such as size, unity, intensity of concern, money. Technical expertise, public image, leadership skills, ability to form coalitions, access to decision makers, power of the opposition, and whether the group is working for change or to protect the status quo. The group researchers approach appears to be not only less controversial but appears to be clear b/c it takes into consideration many different factors. Erica
I am the one on the right! I have been a professor of political science at USCA since 1978. We will use this blog for class discussion and for posting written assignments that I may make. When you post you may do so using the anonymous profile, but please sign your name to all your posts! Posts are shown REVERSE chronological order. The most recent post is at the top. So READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP in the topics shown in the BLOG ARCHIVE above.
3 comments:
To determine which groups are most powerful four approaches are used. The first is the reputational approach. This is where political scientists look at the reputation of the group among those in key political positions. The second approach is called the decisions approach. This approach looks at the power of the group compared to the area in question. Groups hold tend to hold more power in the areas that interest them most. The third approach is called the non- decisions approach. With this method, the researcher considers how the social and political cultures might be influenced so that certain questions aren’t brought up. Some groups are powerful enough to keep questions that potentially threaten them off the issue agenda. The final approach is called the group resources approach. This less controversial method just simply lists factors such as: size, unity, intensity of concern, money, etc., to determine the power of particular interest groups. All these approaches show how powerful the interests groups of South Carolina are. If a group has a good reputation, good membership, strong interests and money, they can be considered powerful. In South Carolina, a group’s power depends on the group itself, how much it is involved in politics, and the representation that they have in the legislature.
Courtney did an excellent job with the first part of the question, but did not say much about which groups look most powerful using these methods. The short answer to the second part is that business groups have a big advantage, whether we look at reputation, non-decisions, or reources. The second approach, the decisions approach, is less clear in who has the most power because it depends on the decision in question.
Bob B
The first approach is reputational approach. It is where you take into consideration the reputations of legislatures are important.
The second approach is the decisions approach. This looks at power as relative to the decisional area in question.
The third is the nondecisions approach only views some groups as powerful enough to keep questions that potentially threaten them off the issue agenda.
The fourth is the group researchers approach. This approach is less controversial; it takes into consideration factors such as size, unity, intensity of concern, money. Technical expertise, public image, leadership skills, ability to form coalitions, access to decision makers, power of the opposition, and whether the group is working for change or to protect the status quo.
The group researchers approach appears to be not only less controversial but appears to be clear b/c it takes into consideration many different factors.
Erica
Post a Comment