Assessing the Transformation of Advocacy Groups and their Democratic Contribution

A growing literature – in both political science and sociology - notes the professionalisation of interest groups and advocacy organisations, claims that existing legacy groups are transforming themselves in ways that reduce their reliance on supporters/members, and asserts that newly minted groups adopt novel group designs that utilise web-technology to attract a loose network of supporters with only weak attachments to the group and its policy agenda. Together, these are powerful narratives that have a great deal of momentum in the scholarly conversation. Moreover, such arguments lend themselves to a pessimistic conclusion regarding the democratic contribution of organised civil society. However, there is cause to take stock and to probe to what extent there is counter evidence to these noted trends, and to assess whether we are even using the right metrics to make sense of and evaluate apparent transformations in the practices of advocacy groups. This paper takes stock and argues for a more nuanced and contingent approach. It makes two related points. Firstly, it takes issue with a dominant normative perspective which suggests that all groups ought to conform to established ’representative’ standards in order to make a democratic contribution. Secondly, it is suggested that groups, as strategic actors in their own right, adapt to changing conditions and that appreciating this surfaces a far more nuanced approach to organizational design than imagined in influential narratives. A range of ideal-type group designs are presented and illustrative examples provided to demonstrate that contemporary practice is characterised by diversity in group design and internal democratic practices - not conformity.