The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited
Abstract
This paper examines the place of groups in the consultative process in British policymaking. It stresses the importance of consultation even under the Thatcher government and distinguishes between consultation, bargaining and negotiation. The paper identifies the important divide between the relatively few groups with privileged status and the greater number of groups who find themselves consigned to less influential positions. The discussion revisits the insider/outsider typology often used to differentiate interest group strategies and status in policy development. It suggests that the insider group term is associated with a particular style of policy making, and offers amendments to the existing use of the terms to avoid the difficulties which occur from the conflation of group strategy and group status.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements
Walker, J. (1991) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.12845 · Cited by 837
Politics, pressures, and the tariff
Schattschneider, E. E. (1935) · Cited by 623
Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919-1981.
Bowers, D. E., & Hansen, J. M. (1992) · The Journal of American History · doi:10.2307/2080913 · Cited by 609
Hansen, J. M. (1986) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055400185405 · Cited by 590
(2017) · West Virginia Politics and Government, Second Edition · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1dfntx8.8 · Cited by 409
Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice
Williams, H. (1991) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/0743-0167(91)90013-i · Cited by 390
Organized Interests and Their Issue Niches: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain
Browne, W. P. (1990) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2131903 · Cited by 352
Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice: Economic Approaches in Political Science
Dunleavy, P. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315835228 · Cited by 316
Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain
Grant, W. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-15022-9 · Cited by 285
Cited by
Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012) · Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.1017/s0143814x12000049 · Cited by 294
The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity
Ulucanlar, S., Fooks, G. J., & Gilmore, A. B. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002125 · Cited by 252
Black Lives Matter: Evidence that Police-Caused Deaths Predict Protest Activity
Williamson, V., Trump, K.-S., & Einstein, K. L. (2018) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592717004273 · Cited by 195
The UK Government’s COVID-19 Policy: What Does “Guided by the Science” Mean in Practice?
Cairney, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.624068 · Cited by 79
Putting wrongs to right: Campaigns against miscarriages of justice
Savage, S. P., Grieve, J., & Poyser, S. (2007) · Criminology & Criminal Justice · doi:10.1177/1748895807072477 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Maloney, W. A., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, A. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-38
- ISSN
- 0143-814X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7815
- OpenAlex
- W2077319903
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0143814x00001239
- The paper
- Maloney, W. A., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, A. M. (1994). Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited. Journal of Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x00001239
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
