This study compared regulatory definitions of interest groups against definitional elements drawn from academic accounts.
The underlying assumption is that definitions are modular, and are made up of interchangeable elements. By identifying these elements, it may be possible to derive a definition that best suits the New Zealand institutional environment.
There is some general consensus in academic definitions of interest groups. Shaw and Eichbaum define interest groups as ‘privately organised groups that seek to influence government policies through means other than holding public office’ (2009: 184). The key elements here are private (i.e. non-public institution actors), organised groups who seek to influence policy.
Mulgan defines interest groups as ‘an organised group representing to Government the views of those who share a common interest’ (2004:208). This is broader, emphasising organisation, the activity of representing views to government, and shared interests.
Tenbensel provides ‘groups who organise in order to influence public policy decisions, but do not do so in the form of political parties’ (2010: 526). This definition draws attention to organisation, the purpose of interest groups, and explicitly excludes political parties.
Common elements are the emphasis on organisation and purposeful engagement with government. Tenbensel and Shaw and Eichbaum also attempt to describe interest groups as private (as opposed to public) or at least as excluding political parties.
The definitional characteristics therefore are that interest groups must be organised (specific and identifiable), that interaction with Government is intentional, and that interest groups are non-public (not subject to constitutional or electoral control).
