Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The relationship between social service nonprofit
organizations and government is characterized, among others, an
increase in government reliance on nonprofit agencies in delivering
social services. This deepening interdependent relationship is mostly
determined by two policies devolution and welfare reform, which may
have contributed to this change through the empowerment of state and
local authorities with the management and development of welfare
programs. Research has found that beyond their financial role, local
and state governments play an even more critical role in administering
social welfare programs. Therefore, how could nonprofit organizations
effectively shape state level policies becomes an important research
question. Ostrander (1989) found that under the condition of financial
restrain created by withdrawal of state funds, nonprofit agencies move
towards greater political advocacy in favor of welfare services and
benefits in state policies and programs. Alexander (1999) found that
devolution expands the linkages between nonprofits and local government
and increases the dependence of nonprofits on the state. What makes
nonprofit organizations influential in dealing with state and local
policymakers is still a controversial question. A research done in
2000-2001 asked state legislators and administrators from Harrisburg
(Pennsylvania's capital), local legislators, and administrators from
Allegheny County (PA), and lobbyists what makes human service nonprofit
organization influential in state and local politics. The research
focused on the state and local departments and offices working in three
policy areas: family and welfare; health; housing and community
development. A questionnaire was sent to 17 local (Pittsburgh, capital
of Allegheny County) legislators and administrators, 39 state
legislators, 17 state offices and 19 lobbying firms. The return rate
obtained was 34 percent . This paper presents the findings of the research. The
characteristics of influential organizations are presented, as well the
purposes for which this influence is used. The paper also looks into
the characteristics and work of the less influential nonprofits. A
correlation between types of influence and type of influence purpose is
performed too. Overall, this research looks into what makes social
service nonprofit organizations influential and how these organizations
use their influence in state and local politics.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Using new data on 1,710 interest organizations in Washington and 140 of the constituencies that they represent, I analyze which types of public factions are better represented by organized advocates in Congress and the administration.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Interaction between legislators and interest groups is a complicated two-way relationship that is likely to become even more complex in states that have adopted term limits. Based on a longitudinal study of member of the Michigan House of Representatives, the authors explore several facets of legislators' perceptions of their relationship with lobbyists before and after term limits. Despite the claims of some term limits advocates that this reform would purge the state of cozy relationships between elected officials and special interests, the authors find that there is no difference between the extent to which legislators rely on interest groups and lobbyists for information and guidance on issues. Further they find that legislators may be more instead of less accessible to lobbyists after term limits.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The paper demonstrates a link between corruption and lobbyists on the ratification of an environmental treaty. Additionally it demonstrates ratification is negatively influenced by past participation in environmental treaties and government.

Previous studies on the ratification of international environmental treaties have looked only at the Kyoto Protocol, finding corruption and lobbyists to be influences on ratification. This paper uses the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) as the focus to discover if previous the studies’ findings will hold when looking at other environmental agreements. Survival analysis techniques were used to account not only for the differences between countries, but also to look at the role of time in the ratification process. Data were collected from 46 countries over the time frame of 1999-2004 for this analysis. This paper is able to provide evidence to the hypothesis that the interaction of lobbyists and corruption hasten the ratification of the Aarhus Convention. It is also the first paper to demonstrate that past participation in environmental treaties has a negative influence on the ratification of the Aarhus Convention. It also demonstrates that government effectiveness (a measure of bureaucratic competence and public service delivery quality) also has a negative relationship with ratification of the convention.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper takes on the ubiquitous notion that in Washington, money buys power. Previous research has focused primarily on the policy effects of resources such as insider advantages and especially campaign contributions, but few studies have looked directly at the financial resources of the lobbyist's organization. Using the Heinz, Laumann, Nelson and Salisbury (1993) interviews with nearly 800 lobbyists, and adding data on groups' sales or budget, staff, group membership, and other measures of financial resources, I find no demonstrable relationship between groups' financial resources and their ability to get their preferred policy outcomes.