Argues that:

1. transformation in the way much public policy is made and that this process is not dominated so often by a relatively small number of powerful interest groups.
2. many interest groups seek information more than influence and are dependent on, and sometimes exploited by government officials.

 Background

 1) Dramatic increase in the number of organizations pursuing their interests in Washington DC. More than doubled (from 3,400 to 7,200) from 1975 to 1985.

2) Dramatically more Washington Representatives.

3) More U.S. trade and professional associations headquartered in DC.

4) The number of DC lawyers increased dramatically.

5) The number of business corporations operating DC offices increased dramtically.

1) More institutions (individual corporations, universities, state and local govts) are active on their own behalf

2) Think tanks more influential (Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute)

3) Agents/consultants (guns for hire) of various kinds are retained to advance their client's interests. Often act as go-betweens.

 1) The hegemony of a few organizations dominating within a given

policy sector has been challenged by the increase in more self-interested groups (for, AMA is no longer *the* player in health policy). Coalitions must now often be built or organizations must carve out a particular policy niche.

2) More citizens' groups (may be "issue organizations") today.

3) As a result, policy processes more uncertain and more contentious (destabilized).

1) Iron or cozy triangles no longer descriptive (interest groups, congressional committees, executive agencies)

2) Flow of influence is partially reversed (political officials can play off various interest groups)

3) Diffusion of power in Congress (weakening of seniority, empowering of subcommittees, expansion of congressional staffs)

4) Concentration of initiative in the Executive Office and particulary White House staff (interest groups have less contact)

1) The legal rules constraining the behavior of organized interests in Washington have remained essentially stable despite repeated efforts to reform them and yet it is a different environment for interest groups.

2) Formation of many coalitions (collections of interest groups). Coalitions often serve informational purposes.

3) Interest groups go where they can to influence.

4) information is central component of the policy process--lobbyists spend most of their time managing this information rather than peddling influence.

*the growth in institutions, associations, and their agents does not mean that these private interests have acquired greater sway or even a more articulate voice. In many ways, the opposite is true.*