Two dominant traditions attempt to explain the role and importance of interest groups to modern politics (Mawhinney 2001: 208).
Pluralist and neo-pluralist accounts place considerable importance on interest groups to improve democratic outcomes (Dahl 1961; Mcfarland 2007), while social and public choice theories view interest groups as little more than vehicles for private interests which interfere in the pursuit of the public good (Blumm 1994: 407).
The benefits and dangers of interest groups are summarised by Tebensel:
Benefits:
- Interest groups enable greater public access to political and policy processes without which participation would be limited to voting and individual submissions to representatives and committees.
- Interest groups counteract the dominance of parliament by the executive, and are able to hold government to account when parliamentary opposition and the media are weak or inept.
- Interest groups can act as sounding boards for new policy proposals, capable of contributing creative ideas.
- Interest Groups can provide crucial feedback on policy proposals as well as assist with policy implementation and review.
Disadvantages:
- State accommodation of interest groups simply benefits those groups that are able to successfully organise, access resources and articulate their positions. Groups who do not have these resources and opportunities are disadvantaged.
- Interest group activities disrupt the efficient functioning of government as too many demands must be satisfied for governments to remain electorally viable.
- The policy process is slowed by the need to consult with interest groups.
- Interest groups are concerned with protecting the interests of their members who might suffer in the pursuit of a common good.
- Interest groups may not even reflect the interests of their members, instead being more concerned for their own ends as self-constituting organisations.
(Tebensel 2006: 531-532).
