FACTORS AFFECTING PRESSURE GROUP SUCCESS

It is often difficult to measure the success or otherwise of pressure groups. For some cause groups, the problem of measurement is straightforward – either nuclear weapons are or are not banned, the Newbury by-pass is or is not built – but for most groups, especially sectional groups, the situation is not so clear-cut.

Most pressure groups have a variety of goals and make a variety of compromises as part of their on-going negotiations and campaigning. For some groups, success may just be ensuring that rival groups do not achieve some of their objectives.


Nature of the pressure group

Pressure groups vary enormously in size, composition, knowledge and status:

> Size - in general, the bigger and more representative the group, the more influence it is likely to have.

> Social composition - those groups with membership drawn from those with public school and Oxbridge backgrounds are likely to have very good contacts within the decision making elite. § Knowledge - those groups with a great deal of information who can advise and inform decision makers are more likely to attain insider status.

> Status - the more important a group is in society - for example, those with high professional standing – the more likely the government is to take notice of its opinions.


Relationship to political parties

A pressure group with a close relationship to a political party may use it to its advantage. But this is a two-edged weapon - if the opposing party is in power, the group's influence is likely to decline sharply. The trade unions found this between 1979 and 1997. A better tactic might be to play one party off against another.


Resources

A group's resources include

> its financial resources - clearly the greater they are, the more a group is able to pay staff, produce material, advertise, lobby etc.

> its ability to employ full time staff - a group cannot be successful (except perhaps briefly) without staff who can research their case, negotiate with civil servants and others, and present an argument to the media, the public and decision makers.

> the commitment and skill of its members - this can, to some extent, compensate for lack of other resources; for example, the efforts of their members have been largely responsible for ensuring the high profile of groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, etc.

> its representativeness - it is especially important for a sectional group which claims to speak for a particular section of the population that a high proportion of the eligible membership actually belong to it and/or support its stand. Similarly, the bigger the membership of a cause group, the more it is able to claim it is speaking for a substantial part of public opinion.


Political culture

This is the extent to which pressure group activity is regarded as legitimate. In Britain, it is generally accepted that pressure groups have a role to play in the political process.


Opposing groups

These can cancel each other out - or at least reduce the impact of each other's activities. Obvious examples might be the pro- and anti-abortion campaigns or the pro- and anti-hunting groups.


Attitude of the government

This is the extent to which decision making is open to influence. Under the Conservative government from 1979, particularly under Mrs Thatcher, there was less likelihood of pressure group influence being successful - the government often pressed ahead on its convictions regardless of outside opinion, for example over NHS reform.

The election of the Labour government in May 1997 was seen by many as opening up the political system to greater influence by pressure groups.

In general, governments will be more receptive to pressure on policies which they favour, and from groups which share their basic values. For example, the Institute of Directors gained significant influence during the Conservative years. Governments are also more likely to be open to influence on issues which are peripheral to their main policies rather than central to them.