Identity as Constraint and Resource in Interest Group Evolution: A Case of Radical Organizational Change
| Date | 01 February 2015 |
| Author | Carsten Daugbjerg,Darren Halpin |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-856X.12016 |
| Published date | 01 February 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Identity as Constraint and Resource in
Interest Group Evolution: A Case of
Radical Organizational Change
Darren Halpin and Carsten Daugbjerg
Research Highlights and Abstract
• demonstrates that the tools of Historical Institutionalism are valuable for interest
group scholars in assessing change
• offers a way to conceptualize and empirically differentiate between radical and
routine change within interest group organisations
• shows that a group’s founding mission is both a constraint and a resource for radical
group change.
While group scholars have long noted instances of change in overall organisational form—say from
amateur scientific group to environmental campaign group—the literature is short on persuasive
accounts of the mechanism(s) that drive or constrain such radical types of change. How can we
explain groups getting from form A to form B? In this article we explore how tools from the
historical institutionalism literature might aid in the analytical process. Specifically we focus on the
combination of focussing events, internal challengers to the status quo, and the capability of
challengers to demonstrate to key audiences that the ‘radical’ change is in some way consistent with
the founding identity of the group. We demonstrate the application of this approach by examining
a case of radical change—a shift in overall form—in a well-known UK interest group, the Soil
Association.
Keywords: interest groups, radical change; group identity
Introduction
Like all other organizations, interest group survival cannot be taken for granted.
Before they can engage in policy work—or even influence policy—groups must
survive as organizations (Wilson 1973; Lowery 2007). It follows that, like all other
organizations, groups will face intermittent challenges of various degrees of seri-
ousness and, as such, can be expected to (at least contemplate and try) adapt and
change. While the recent interest group scholarship has explicitly acknowledged
that survival is indeed precarious (see Gray and Lowery 1996; Nownes 2004;
Halpin and Thomas 2012), little work has been done on what shapes group
attempts to respond to adverse conditions and change (for discussion see Halpin
and Jordan 2009). In our view, the interest group literature could do with better-
developed and more diverse conceptual tools to empirically probe this process of
bs_bs_banner
doi: 10.1111/1467-856X.12016 BJPIR: 2015 VOL 17, 31–48
© 2013 The Authors. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2013
Political Studies Association
organizational adaptation and change (see Baumgartner and Leech 1998 for an
authoritative summary of group literature). The article seeks to contribute to filling
this gap in the group literature.
Specifically, in this article we explore whether some of the tools of historical
institutionalism can provide leverage on these types of important questions in the
group literature. Resorting to the tools of historical institutionalism makes sense, as
it builds on the decades old insight from Truman that origins constrain. In his
seminal text on interest groups, Truman makes the point that features of groups
that were important in their formative period may no longer seem to resonate with
contemporary conditions, ‘yet their impress upon the organizational structure of
the group may continue’ (Truman 1951, 115). He makes the (now well established)
argument that initial steps in a groups career will come to constrain subsequent
steps, perhaps even to the point of thwarting adaptation as times inevitably change
around them. A full decade and a half later Stinchcombe (1965) made the (more
widely cited) point that organizations generally were imprinted with the logic of the
time they were formed and, thereafter, found the logic hard to shake: it constrained
change. In this article we reconnect the group literature with Truman’s insight by
exploring how the initial step in a group’s organizational career shape subsequent
responses to challenges and opportunities. We argue that group organizational
change—in our case a radical shift in the organizational form of a group—can be
enabled by leaders who draw on the ideologies and rhetoric of the originating
founders.
To illustrate our broad approach we examine the case of the UK Soil Association’s
(SA) conversion from an amateur-scientific society into a promotional/
campaigning group in the 1980s. The SA is a group that has maintained the same
name for over sixty years, but—by scholarly consensus—has undergone a rather
significant change: ‘converting’ its organisational form from that of an ‘amateur
scientific society’ to a modern day ‘campaign-group’. Change of this nature might
come about by various pathways. As will be outlined below, this case is an instance
of what we refer to as identity-led change, whereby change in overall organiza-
tional form is catalysed by a (relatively brief and explicit) fight over the ‘proper’
mission of the group. Though such radical change is not unique, analysing the
transformation from the perspective of historical institutionalism is novel (but see
Engel 2007 and Young 2008). We begin with a review of the interest group
literature. Then, we spell out how historical institutionalism can contribute to the
analysis of group evolution. The two subsequent sections demonstrate the utility of
our analytical framework in a study of the Soil Association. Our aim is not to
provide a full explanation of the evolution of this interest group, but to illustrate the
utility of bringing historical institutionalism in group studies. The final section
concludes with broader lessons for group scholarship.
Issues in Group Organizational Adaptation:
Scope and Sequence
The departure point for this article is the observation that any attempt to gain
traction on adaptive change among interest group organizations requires more
conceptual attention in two areas: (i) calibrating the scope of change and (ii)
32 DARREN HALPIN, CARSTEN DAUGBJERG
© 2013 The Authors. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2013 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2015, 17(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial