Hi, everyone! The end is in sight! People did an excellent job on this week's blog assignment. To review the schedule, on Monday, April 21, papers are due by class time. If you still haven't seen the paper topics (that would be bad), they are on the blog in an entry below. Also on Monday, I will distribute the review sheet for the final exam and be available to talk about it in class. I'll have regular office hours next week (April 21 and 23), and I'll have office hours to be announced on Monday, April 28. The final exam (cumulative, with an emphasis on the last book) is on Thursday, May 1, in our regular room, from 7 pm to 9 pm.
So, your final blog assignment, worth 15 points, is simple. After you finish your paper, write a one paragraph summary of your paper in the comments section below (feel free to argue gently with your colleagues). You should also make sure, before the final, to read all the comments. Comments are due on Wednesday, April 23, at class time. Note, however, that there is no class that day. Rather, I will administer makeup exams to those who missed one of the exams with an excused absence (I think there are only people taking exam #2; please correct me via email if I'm wrong).--NB
In my paper I discussed why interest groups are bad for the American democracy. First I discussed the positives of interest groups. One positive example is that interest groups bring controversial and underexposed issues to the agenda. This is positives because it informs people on less popular issues, but the drawback to this is that it crowds the agenda. The next positive example I gave was interest groups make it easier for people to run a competitive campaign who normally wouldn’t be able to. This is good because it levels the playing field, but interest groups rarely do this, and when they do it is for their own benefit. Another example is that all interests are represented because of interest groups. This is a positive because members of congress want to know what the people believe are the biggest issues. Unfortunately this is not completely true because the free rider problem makes it difficult for many interest groups to even form let alone push their issues onto the agenda. The last positive example I used was the argument from class that interest groups serve as watch dogs for members of congress, ensuring that they fulfil promises and get done what they need to get done. Now the negative effects on the democracy. The first negative effect I discussed was that interest groups have made the democracy all about money. Members of Congress will not do anything for interest groups unless they are backing them with money for their next campaign. Money is not what the American democracy was founded on but that is what interest groups have formed it into. The next example is interest groups protect incumbents. In order to gain access to office interest groups fund the candidate who has the best chance of winning in the election which in most cases is the incumbent. This gives an unfair advantage to incumbents. Another example is that interest groups finance mudslinging. This does not gain votes for anyone it only takes away undecided votes. It discourages people who are undecided from voting which is a definite flaw that interest groups create for our democracy. Interest groups also crowd the congressional agenda. Due to the high number of interest groups that have access to congressional offices, they crowd the agenda with their hundreds of issues which blocks some issues from arising naturally. Another problem interest groups cause is they cause people to be more polarized. This means people are less likely to reach across the aisle to pass legislation and congress will be in a constant gridlock and never get anything done. The last example given was that interest group leaders are more extreme than their members. But because the leader has the power they represent the voice of the group and members of congress believe that every member is this passionate about a particular issue. That is why interest groups are clearly bad for democracy. Even the positive arguments for interest groups have holes in it, so they must have a negative effect.
ReplyDeleteIn my paper, I make an argument that interest groups are bad for our democracy, as my colleague Sean argued above. In my paper, I look at arguments made in the majority opinion of the Citizens United v. FEC case. Other positive aspects of interest groups that I look at include the idea that bundling allows those that are not wealthy to contribute to political campaigns and feel they are making a difference, and the class argument that they allow expression of free speech.
ReplyDeleteFor negative aspects of interest groups, I look at some of the points made in the dissent of the Citizens United v. FEC case. I also look at Olson's argument that collections of interest groups are bad for the economic growth of democracies. I finally reference the class arguments that interest groups function as access seekers and donate overwhelmingly to incumbents, leading to greatly increased costs of campaigns.
My argument for why interest groups are bad hinges on a number of points. First, I look at Olson's fourth implication, which includes the idea that interest groups will lead to more divisive political life in democracies where they collect. This was a point I felt like Olson did not expand upon enough within his own research. One of the examples I use in my paper is the 2010 midterm election. I also look at the high amount of money spent by Super PACs so far in the 2014 midterm election, and discuss how it has been spent mostly on negative ads, which will likely lead to decreased voter turnout.
Finally, I reference the recently released study which claims to empirically show that America has become an oligarchy, and that interest groups have a much higher rate of receiving policies they wish relative to regular citizens. I only briefly touch on this article in my conclusion to tie up some of the other points, but I believe that it is an important piece of evidence (which I wish had come out earlier this semester so we could have discussed it in class).
I decided to write my paper on the positives and negatives of interest groups in a democracy. I highlight a number of interesting viewpoints from Mancur Olson to Katrina Whitehead and others. I argue that it gives the American people an informal check on each level of government, whether it is at the local, state, or national level. Which, as a result, gives the people exactly what they want…a voice in American politics. I contrast these ideas with the argument that the leaders of well-known interest groups sometimes embody a completely different perspective or outlook on the issue. Making it so that the interest group—whose primary function is to collectively influence the decision-making process—evolves into a more polarized entity. Furthermore, I make clear that sometimes we, as citizens, associate power with wealth. The larger, wealthier interest groups tend to see greater policy advancements than those of smaller, less prosperous groups. As a result, gives latent groups access to politicians and useful resources to further advance their agenda.
ReplyDeleteI wrote my paper on the potential effectiveness of parliamentary systems in the United States. Originally, I planned to argue that a parliamentary system would decrease the power of interest groups and would benefit the United States, as that is what I argued on the exam. However, after researching, I found that to not be true. Specifically, in an industrially advanced country in which interest groups already exists, parliamentary systems have loop hole where interest groups would still have policy influence. My paper focuses on the common arguments from proponents of a parliamentary system, the differences between a presidential system and a parliamentary system, and attempts to debunk the common arguments. Learning more about the inner workings of a parliamentary system influenced my changed of heart. Parliamentary systems are faulted and would not eliminate interest groups influence, rather parliamentary systems have areas in which interest groups could gain a foothold.
ReplyDeleteFor my paper I chose the discussion question about interest groups not forming due to the free rider problem, the solutions to the free rider problem and some examples of where he is right in the real world and where he is wrong in the real world.
ReplyDeleteI begin with discussion both the pluralist and elitist theory and what madison and mills have to say on these topics and their thoughts on why interest groups form or dont form. Next, I Discuss what interest groups are(groups that have a reason to form), who form them( people, corporations, etc), why they form(support or implement laws/policies), the reason we have them ( alot of public goods) how big and small they are(privaledged, intermediate vs latent). Next, i explain in detail, the possible solutions around the free rider problem such as; federations, conditional cooperation, selective incentives, concentrated benefits difuse cost, and altruism. Next, i mention who overcomes the free rider problem and how they get around it, and example would be the mountaineer maniacs, which is a latent group but uses all types of selective incentives like solidary( free t-shirt/tickets) , economic(cheap to join), and expressive incentives( showing school spirit). I end with the discussing Student Advocates for legislative Advancement, SALA. I discuss my opinion if SALA has overcome the free rider or not and what the could do to overcome it in the future.
I chose the topic about whether interest groups are good or bad for democracy. In my paper, I argued that democracy requires the principle of "equality of influence" or the equivalent ability for each individual in the public to influence policy. Further, I argued that a majoritarian view of interest groups was required for this principle to be realized.
ReplyDeleteThen, I attempted to use evidence to show that "biased pluralism" or a theory of interest groups which privileges some groups and hinders others provides a much better explanation of interest groups. I drew heavily on a very recent study done by Princeton and Northwester professors (which everyone should read: it's fantastic - http://goo.gl/lkffKb) which concluded that the composition of the interest group universe doesn't in any way reflect public opinion, and that the goals of business-oriented groups correlate twice as strongly as the goals of other groups to policy outcomes, despite the fact that the net-push of business interest groups correlates negatively with public opinion. Also, I used the free-rider problem (as presented in The Logic of Collective Action) to argue that the interest group universe cannot reflect the aggregate opinion of the public because, even where there is a common majority interest, there is not an interest group without selective incentives or coercion.
Next, I considered David Truman's view of majoritarian pluralism, especially his idea that politicians must consider unorganized "potential" interest groups which could form as a result of a policy outcome. This would render the argument about the composition of the interest group universe as well as the fact that it doesn't reflect public opinion moot. However, I think that the statistical significance of especially the latter point calls Truman's assessment into question. Also, he was writing before Olson, so he seemingly has no answer to the free rider problem.
Finally, I considered the huge influence of money in elections, especially the amounts centered out of interest groups. The amount of PACs which have emerged, and the amount of money they handle is staggering, especially considering how little the stands of interest groups correlate with public opinion. What's more, the largest growth is in business and industry related PACs - the same groups who were correlated negatively with public opinion.
All of this evidence suggests, I argue, that the majoritarian view of interest groups is false and biased pluralism is true. Since equality of influence requires a majoritarian view and democracy requires equality of influence, I conclude that interest groups are antithetical to democracy.
The main theme of my paper was from Mancur Olson’s Logic Of Collective Action. In this book I learned that organizations form because there is a common interest to further the members of the group. The collective action of the group is what allows, according to Olson, the organization to thrive.
ReplyDeleteIn his book, Mancur Olson explains the free rider problem and possible solutions for the free problem. The free rider problem is when someone who is part of a group and does not do their part but is able to benefit from the collective action from the rest of the group. He suggests that free riding is minimized when small groups are present because people become, in Olson’s terminology, more noticeable. Another solution that Olson suggests is that an incentive is provided to those who do cooperate toward the organizations common goal.
The solutions to the free rider problem are used in most businesses today. If you take a look at the big businesses and look at their structure, you will notice that companies are broken down into relatively small divisions, and receive benefits all to work toward the business’s common goal of increasing profit.
Grant Easterday
In my paper, I used the first amendment to prove my point that interest groups are not only good but also a necessity in a democracy. I make an observation that the growing amount of independents and the increase in interest groups are directly related. I use the component of the first amendment where it gives American citizens their right to peacefully assemble. I obtained sources that point directly to the correlation of the right to peacefully assemble and interest groups. When you think of peacefully assembling you may picture a large group protesting on the street. I make the argument that these interest groups are also an assembly of people gathering together to further a particular goal; therefore they are protected under the first amendment. I have research that helps prove this connection further.
ReplyDeleteNext I use the part of the first amendment that states, “and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (United States Constitution). This portion of the amendment grants citizens the right to petition the government. I note in my paper that groups are absolutely more influential then individual people. When challenging the government it is only natural that citizens form groups. These groups are necessary to fully exercise this right to petition.
It is important to look at the connection between American citizen’s freedom of speech and interest groups. I found multiple sources including Justice Roberts majority opinion in the most recent Supreme Court case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. I ultimately make the point that interest groups are how many citizens exercise their freedom of speech, therefore crucial to democracy.
After I explain just how interest groups and the first amendment go hand and hand, I spend the last portion of my paper explaining why the first amendment is so important. I use the meaning of democracy in Greek which is, “Power of the people,” to further my accusation that interest groups are necessary. A democracy must take into account the opinions and petitions of citizens. Since citizens best express their concerns through interest groups, these groups are instrumental.
In my paper I discuss how a switch to a parliamentary system would curb interest groups influence in our country. I begin my paper with some facts about how interest groups power and influence has grown in this country in the past several decades. Next i go into length on exactly how a parliamentary system is able to limit interest groups influence, such as focusing on more voters, force interest groups to align with a specific party, dispersal of finances, less direct influence on policy making, and the increase power of political parties. From here i discuss the pro's of such a shift to a parliamentary system. These positive attributes that are associated with parliamentary systems such as the fact that parliamentary systems are a good fit for places that are ethnically radically or ideologically divided, and that is something that describes the US. Another good feature is that political parties are stronger in this type of system. These are several of the positives that i mention in my paper among others. I also describe the cons that are associated with a parliamentary system such as no checks and balances and a weak seperation of powers were among some of the cons i mention. Overall i beleive that a switch to a parliamentary system would do a good job of curbing interest group influence.
ReplyDeleteMy paper centered around the debate between interest groups' role in the democracy. I drew upon research from both sides of the argument as to whether interest groups are good or bad for the democracy of the United States, focusing the bulk of the research in the paper on the evidence I found stating that they have a negative impact on democracy.
ReplyDeleteI gave an outline of the claims and reasoning of interest group supporters as to why they felt positively about interest groups heavy involvement in democracy. I attempted to provide a detailed description of their views, and then used reasoning of the objectors, those not in favor of interest groups in our democracy, to show that the potential good is far outweighed by the actualized bad that interest groups bring to the United States democracy.
Many supporters say that individuals would not have nearly the scope of voice that an interest group manages to accomplish by pooling collectively from its members various issues and interests. While this is certainly true in a sense, I used data from opposing research to show that a monetary and hierarchical power structure is in place in the interest group system so that only those of high status and wealth can actually have a true say in our government. Thus, those members who thought the power of their voice would increase are in the same situation they would have been previously.
Another debatable issue involving interest groups that I researched and reported in my paper is that of the ability of interest groups to inform the public. Supporters say interest groups finance campaign ads that inform most of the public about the candidates and elections; otherwise, according to supporters, the public would be clueless. I use objecting data to show that far more often interest groups sling mud during these advertisements which muddies the waters, literally, and confuses the public instead of helping them.
For these reasons, mainly, and others, I asserted in my paper that interest groups are overall detrimental for democracy.
For my paper, I chose the topic about whether or not interest groups were good or bad for democracy. After opening by discussing Federalist 10, I then described in detail three theories on interest groups that I got from a textbook. After that, I began listing reasons on how interest groups are beneficial to the U.S. government, such as how citizens can have a stronger voice and how any kind of interest can have a group associated with it. I then brought up criticisms of interest groups, both from public opinion as well as scholars. Examples include how some people think interest groups don't represent the entirety of American society, and how some groups are all about money. I concluded the paper by discussing counterarguments to the so-called negatives of the group, and also briefly touched on how proper regulation must occur for groups to flourish. I ended by saying that these groups have more pros than cons and we should allow them to exist so long as there is regulation.
ReplyDeleteMy paper was about whether Interest groups were good for democracy or not. I started off by posting potential arguments from both sides of the aisle. Then I started transitioning into my argument - that interest groups are indeed good. I started off by arguing that interest groups are good for expression of freedom of speech. I mainly used the Gun Control as an example, both sides of it actually. I addressed some counterarguments as well. To defeat the counterargument I used Opensecrets.org and the 2000 New York Senate election to answer certain concerns. After that I moved onto how Interest groups help keep our political leaders informed on key issues and how without interest groups some important issues would be overlooked and not even be discussed. I used gun control as an example again. Finally, I addressed how much wealth of knowledge and expertise lobbyists bring to Washington. These are educated people lobbying our congresspeople, they do have something to bring to the table. Many great bills had been influenced by them. I actually brought up an example with SCOTUS and gay rights on this point. I then concluded by going into a brief review of what I argued.
ReplyDeleteOh, I also went into a lot detail talking about how wealth by itself does not corrupt the interest group system. If there are no limits on the lower class, I don't understand why people like to argue that they have no voice. No one is physically stopping you from supporting a cause you believe in. Life is a equally created puzzle piece.
DeleteIn my paper assignment, I chose to further explore the question of whether interest groups are good or bad for democracy. Initially in class, in my first blog, and in my paper, I thought that interest groups were bad for democracy and that they come with a lot of corruption and confusion. I took a closer look of how interest groups affect a campaign to help me make my final opinion about them.
ReplyDeleteI took studies done my professors of the University of Northern Iowa and the University of Pennsylvania and included their research in my paper. They gave examples of corruption and false information being injected into a campaign via interest group influence. In addition, one professor spoke of the extremist views and lack of moderation that generally accompany a leader of an interest group. Furthermore, I found a recent article from the Tampa Bay Times about recent coordination and corruption between a political action committee (PAC) and a candidate. Absolutely no legal action was taken when the coordination occurred.
However, after learning more about interest groups in class since making my initial hypothesis, my views have changed somewhat. There is a lot of positivity that comes with interest groups. These groups can help increase minority influence, work as an avenue for political participation, be a cause for more representation, and help tear down constitutional constraints. In addition, interest groups allow us as citizens to be a little lazy in that they help to supply us with information instead of us having to go find it ourselves. They form together and create awareness about issues as well as lobby politicians concerning issues that we as American citizens care about. Interest group goals are normally to get voices out there to congress and to seek the greater good for the American people. In the end, I concluded that interest groups are probably right on the fence when it comes to whether they do more harm than good. Yes, they promote mudslinging- but they also provide us with information. Yes, they may slow down the lawmaking process- but they help us to take a second look at where we stand. Interest groups are an important part of democracy because they help us to focus on issues that congress may overlook. Regardless of whether we think interest groups do more harm than good, or vice versa, they will always be around. People will always have particular concerns that they wish to collaborate over act on with others that share the same interest.
For my paper, I wrote about the effects interest groups have had on democracy. Focusing mainly on the role they have played in elections and in influencing politicians, I looked at their intended effects and what actually happens. From small groups like SALA, to bigger groups like the NRA and Super PACs, there is a clear bias in terms of who survives and who has influence towards the groups with money. I talked about both the pros and cons of having interest groups influence our democracy so greatly, coming to the conclusion that while most of the effects are negative, they are not going away, so it’s on us to make them a positive aspect of our system of government.
ReplyDeleteFor my paper I chose to write about whether interest groups are good or bad for democracy. I laid my paper out into sections, the first being why interest groups are good for democracy. I explained such points as they allow for individuals to be heard, they get more people involved, and they can get new issues on a candidate’s platform. I also explained that interest groups can be seen as good for democracy because they can join together and create social movements. These movements can raise awareness not just in our country, but because these movements are made up of many interest groups, they can gain support from around the globe.
ReplyDeleteThe second section of my paper was about why interest groups are bad for democracy. In this sectioned I focused mainly on the negative impacts of interest groups being able to donate as much money as they want through SuperPACs. There is also a problem with big states being favored, only the groups with money being heard, and the mudslinging that happens as a result of interest groups funded ads.
After my evaluation of both the good and bad of interest groups, I concluded that overall interest groups are bad for democracy. While I feel very strongly about the importance of social movements to further democracy, the use of money to further a cause far outweighs it; the ones with the most money will have the most say and that causes an unfair advantage to the groups that are backed by large corporations. If we want to use interest groups in a positive way then there need to be more regulations on the amount of spending and the way the spending is being used by interest groups.
In my paper, I confronted the question of whether or not interest groups help to promote growth of a democratic society. There are many different arguments to be considered, all with valid points in their own respect to defend their stance. I decided to side with those who say that interest groups help to further democratic advancement in modern societies, drawing heavily from examples from the United States. To begin, I discussed the effectiveness of interest groups in influencing policy decisions, citing cases of groups such as the NRA in which they had a hand in affecting policy. I proceeded to explain that interest groups allow people who are disadvantaged to achieve a voice in the political system by aligning their interests with those of a larger group with more influence. For my rebuttal, I countered the argument that interest groups favor middle to upper class members by stating the simple fact that it is better to at least have a chance (with interest groups) to influence policy than no chance at all (without interest groups). In the end, my overall argument was that interest groups definitely need to be fine tuned to achieved their desired outcomes, but overall they serve to aid the growth of democracy.
ReplyDeleteEric Johnston
I chose to write my term paper on the 2010 State of the Union address in which President Obama projected "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." In analyzing whether or not the president was correct in his assumption, I discussed the electoral activities of Super PACs working in conjunction with candidates, specifically investors such as Soros, Adelson, and the public information that is B-roll film, as well as the treasuring and funding of foreign companies in U.S. elections, specially trade associations and the American Petroleum Institute. These activities, allowed by the haziness of a post-Citizens United marketplace, are a serious detriment to American democracy. Overall, President Obama was correct when he projected that the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC would open the floodgates to mudslinging, oligarchy, and a destruction of the former American electoral system.
ReplyDeleteI did my paper on the free rider problem and how it affects interest groups. I talked about the problem and solutions that groups take to overcome the problem. I talked about how selective incentives help large groups overcome the free rider problem. I also talked about how federation helps large groups overcome the free rider problem through federation, when large groups break into smaller groups so they can be monitored. Smaller groups can overcome the free rider problem easier than large groups because they can monitor each other to find out who is participation and who isn't.
ReplyDeleteI also went over privileged and intermediate groups as well and how they overcame the free rider problem. I also talked about how condition cooperation also allows groups to overcome the free rider problem. Overall I agreed with Olson because I believe smaller groups do overcome free rider problem easier than large groups.
DeleteI wrote my paper on whether interest groups were good or bad for democracy. I relied heavily on the lectures, blog assignments, and the Cigler and Loomis book. I explored all angles of the issue, from the free rider problem to the popular argument that interest groups actually slow the government and technological growth. While I can see and appreciate the negative effects of interest groups, overall I said that they are good for democracy. Interest groups allow people's voices to be heard and allow them to advocate issues they feel passionately about. Freedom of speech is one of the most democratic opportunities of this country, and interest groups allow just that. Despite being a large or small group, the members can make a difference. Interest groups allow information to the public about political candidates, and even though sometimes they are misguided ads they get people talking about elections and hopefully subsequently inspire people to carry out their civic duties. Though there are notable drawbacks, overall interest groups provide the perfect outlet for people to have their voices heard.
ReplyDeleteIn my paper I summarized Mancur Olson’s book The Rise and Decline of Nations and talked about why I find his theory convincing. Olson claims that the power of these interest groups and the stability of the states in which they exist, large in part, control the economic growth of that nation. He hypothesizes a negative correlation in which the more stable a nation is, the less it will see growth. He also hypothesizes a negative relationship in which the number and power of interest groups and their self-focused influence leads to lower rates of economic growth. He breaks down his theory into smaller sections and uses the logic in his earlier book, The Logic of Collective Action, to test said theory. Olson has 9 implications that he uses this logic to explain and I go into detail as to what those are and why they are important to his theory. He also tests his theory in several historical circumstances, each strengthening his argument. I discuss these tests, as well as others’ criticisms of his theory. I finish my paper with reasons that I think Olson has a strong theory, including the fact that his theory is timeless. His theory can explain cases dating back to ancient times, but is still very relevant today. With his use of logic and his many examples of interest groups having negative impact on the economy of stable nations, as well as the growth displayed in unstable or developing nations, Olson’s theory seems to hold up better than the other theories that I came across that were attempting to challenge his theory.
ReplyDeleteI did my paper on Olson's theory concerning the free rider problem. In the paper I described the free rider problem itself and the proposed solutions to it. The theory from which Olson began to develop his in the first place was the fist thing that I went over, followed by the difference between latent and small groups as far as the free rider problem is concerned. The nature of self interested behavior that is one of the cornerstones of his theory was covered as well as voluntary action in a democratic society. The tyranny of the minority over the majority, the part of Olson's theory in which he claims the small group can control the large group because the small group is more organized and committed, was covered as well.
ReplyDeleteToward the end of the paper I covered the solution to the free rider problem (selective incentives, labor unions, entrepreneurs, patrons, fear-mongering). In reviewing a lll of the aspects of his theory, I think the Olson was generally incorrect . Though I do think his theory may have been more relevant to the time in which he presented it than it is now.
I wrote my paper in President Obama's quote in his 2010 State of the Union Address about the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case. I argued that the President is correct that the decision has opened the floodgate to spending by special interests, mainly from the creation of super PACs. I used the Chamber of Commerce as an example on how the decision affected their spending. I noted that he is underestimating the money already spent by foreign corporations (or at least their PACs). BP, and other foreign-owned corporations, have donated money, including to then candidate Obama, to campaigns. I also argue that foreign owned corporations, who employ Americans and put money into the economy, has as much at stake as American corporations.
ReplyDeleteIn my paper I also discussed the effect that the Citizens United case has on previous court decisions and the precedent it set for future cases dealing with campaign finance.
DeleteI wrote my paper about how I believed interest groups were good for democracy. I mentioned how interest groups give people a louder voice in the government and make government officials notice them. I also noted how being a part of an interest group provides opportunities for individuals to become involved in our government and making choices. Interest groups also promote democracy by educating our legislators through lobbying and aiding them in drafting legislation. Even though the there are some downsides with interest groups like issues with money, I believe there are more pros than cons.
ReplyDelete-Carly Stover
I decided to write my paper on Mancur Olson’s book “The Rise and Decline of Nations.” The question focused around the role that interest groups will play in a stable government, and if that role would ultimately lead to an economic stagnation. Olson also believed that large interest groups are starting to overcome the free rider problem, thus enabling them to increase their efficiency by large margins. I then looked at the arguments made against Olson’s theory, for one reason or another. I feel like I favor Olson’s argument, over those that oppose him, for a few reasons. One, while many have formulated contradictory theories, there’s no real universal consensus as to why he’s is wrong. The second reason is that Olson emphasized heavily, at the beginning of the book, that he wanted the work to be viewed with perspective, using all of his points as a means to arrive at a single conclusion. No single case was meant to be taken as the sole explanation for his arrival at his theory. Contradictory to this desire, his opposition attempted to turn the book into a series of poor ad-hoc arguments. The third, and most important reason that I feel his argument was just, was the way in which he arrived at his conclusion. Political science and economics are not exact sciences. With this, you must utilize a logical outlook, combined with historical events, as a means to make the most educated predictions possible. More often than not, those that opposed his theory cited him as being too selective. I feel that in such a study, there are so many contributing factors to an outcome; it’s necessary to be selective, in order to make the most accurate prediction.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of my paper concerned the debate of whether interest groups are a net good or bad for democracy. Over the course of my paper, I explored both sides of the issue via commonly held views and arguments, augmented with current real-world examples. I came to the conclusion that interest groups are, undoubtably, a net good for democracy rather than a bad. Essentially, I came upon this conclusion after learning more closely about the role interest groups play in lobbying for legislation. Also, I touched on the idea that interest groups are result of human nature - that logically, people sharing the same concerns would want to join together to make their collective voice louder than any solitary one. This is not only the most efficient way, but as I say the natural way. I think that's something beautiful we tend to take for granted in democracy.
ReplyDelete-Anthony Cicconi
On my final paper for the class I discussed how to overcome the free rider problem. I used Mancur Olson’s theory about beating the free rider problem and some of the ways to do this. I used Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action, as a primary source. The book shows Olson’s theories as well as his answers on how groups may overcome the free rider. I also talked about the differences in types of interest groups the small privileged ones, who have the easiest time overcoming the free rider problem, the intermediate sized interest groups, also the large latent sized interest groups who have the hardest time beating the free rider problem. Moving further into my paper I spoke about high cost low reward as a factor to why groups have a hard time overcoming the free rider problem. In my paper I also spoke about the article we had on our blog assignment from Karina Whitehead about how conditional cooperation was a very good way to overcoming the free rider. I also use Olson’s example of federations as a way to overcoming the free rider problem. Finally, I wrap my paper up by talking about how selective incentives are an asset to groups when trying to overcome the free rider problem. The main point of my paper was to show that the free rider problem is a real thing and like interests don’t always an interest group, but with the aid of certain concepts groups can form as long as everyone is willing to contribute.
ReplyDeleteMy paper discussed whther a change to a parliamentary sytem would curb the power of interest groups. Coming in to the topic I was certain that they would have less influence under a parliamentary system, whether it be proportional or westminster. After my research I found that it would. The biggest part of it is that elections would be more centered around a party rather than the candidates, which is why they have such large influence today in my opinion. If succesful the interest groups could gain larger power in a parliemntary system but it would depend on the ability to connect with a party that's receiving representation.
ReplyDelete-Carl Bojesson
The topic I chose to write about in my paper discussed Mancur Olson's theory explaining why some interest groups form and why others do not. By analyzing class discussions, blog assignments, and Mancur Olson's book, The Logic of Collective Action, I was able to assess the validity of Olson's theory and claims. Olson basically believes that small groups form more easily than large groups for several reasons. First is because they can over come the "free rider problem" more easily than large groups. In economics, a free rider is a person who receives the benefits from other peoples' labor. So the free rider problem occurs when too many people in a group become idle because they expect others in the group to work to accomplish group goals. This problem is especially apparent in large latent groups because if the group succeeds in their efforts then the whole will receive the benefits, not just those that worked hard. Secondly, small groups usually have a more narrow focus and do not try to accomplish broad goals over a large period of time. They are usually more productive than large groups (productive, relative to their size and manpower) and thus provide people with more of a reason to continue participation. Lastly, smaller groups are able to provide more selective incentives to their members because with small numbers, they can distinguish the needs of their members and work to catering those needs. I ultimately agree with Olson's theory.
ReplyDeleteI choose to look at the positive and negative effects of interest groups on democracy. For the negatives I mentioned that money controls our elections and campaigns, the interest groups protect the incumbents, and that interest groups take away power from the member of congresses constituents. The positives were that interest groups can finance candidates who would not have the money to run otherwise, interest groups help make members of congress stick to their campaign promises, and interest groups are one voice for collective thoughts. In the end I concluded that the bad outweighed the good and that interest groups were not good for democracy.
ReplyDeleteFor this semester's term paper, I chose to write about Mancur Olson's theory on why many interest groups do not form due to the free rider problem. From the very beginning of class, I thought this was an interesting topic that had many points that could be argued for and against it. I found that for the most part, Olson's theory is indeed true. There are examples of groups not abiding by his theory or rules and forming, but this is the exception, not the rule.
ReplyDeleteFor the final paper assignment i decided to discuss olson's theory about te free rider problem. I was interested in this topic throughout the entire semester because so many people have opposed his theory although it has been proven true. Also the free rider problem is one that everyone has been a part of it was interesting to look at the ways to overcome it and apply it to the groups.
ReplyDeleteI wrote about whether interest groups were good or bad for democracy. I ultimately came to the conclusion that, in their current state, they are detrimental to democracy. I believe that interest groups are a powerful and necessary part of our government process in modern times, but that with current lack of regulation they have became to powerful, and until put in check are not good for the flow of American politics.
ReplyDeleteFor my paper, I wrote about whether switching to a parliamentary system of government would curb the influence of interest groups. In summary, I found that switching to a parliamentary system from a presidential system of government would, in fact, curb the influence of interest group power because of three main reasons. First, interest groups in the United States benefit from relatively weak political parties. Second, the checks-and-balances system places a burden on each branch of government to investigate the other. The system, in essence, frustrates compromise and promotes conflict. Third, the lack of a complex federalism structure in parliamentary systems places a higher cost of entry on interest groups compared to the decentralized nature of presidential systems. Lastly, and unrelated, I also found that a shift to proportional representation would further reduce the power of interest groups. I do not believe, however, that the United States will ever switch to neither a parliamentary system nor a system that includes proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteI wrote my paper on Mancur Olson and The Collective Logic. Olson says that not every interest will form an interest group because of the free rider problem. Many people will not participate in interest groups because there is too much of a cost to participating and some people do not feel the need to participate if they will receive the same benefits as those who do not participate. Olson says that privileged and intermediate groups are the groups that face either no free rider problem or very little and are the two that are able to overcome the problem with the easiest of time. Latent groups are the groups who have a harder time overcoming this problem. It is harder for latent groups to overcome the free rider. Olson says if you want to overcome the free rider you must be small and have a third party providing incentives. He discusses a number of solutions the first of incentives, then federations. There are a variety of incentives that interest groups can employ the first being selective economic incentives. Then solidary and expressive incentives. These focus on the individual and how they value the relationship and their part in the interest group. Many people take a stand because that is the right thing for them and they receive satisfaction from that. Federations are also another way of overcoming the free rider. This makes it easier for small parts of the larger group to govern each other. In today's world, interest groups are at an advantage but can still have problems overcoming the free rider at the same time. There are different ways of going about overcoming the problem and it truly depends upon the group and the interests of that group and the will and ability of the group members.
ReplyDelete