Working with the anthropologist Russell Hill, [ evolutionary psychologist Robin] Dunbar pieced together the average English household’s network of yuletide cheer. The researchers were able to report, for example, that about a quarter of cards went to relatives, nearly two-thirds to friends, and 8 percent to colleagues. The primary finding of the study, however, was a single number: the total population of the households each set of cards went out to. That number was 153.5, or roughly 150.
This was exactly the number that Dunbar expected. Over the past two decades, he and other like-minded researchers have discovered groupings of 150 nearly everywhere they looked. Anthropologists studying the world’s remaining hunter-gatherer societies have found that clans tend to have 150 members. Throughout Western military history, the size of the company—the smallest autonomous military unit—has hovered around 150. The self-governing communes of the Hutterites, an Anabaptist sect similar to the Amish and the Mennonites, always split when they grow larger than 150. So do the offices of W.L. Gore & Associates, the materials firm famous for innovative products such as Gore-Tex and for its radically nonhierarchical management structure. When a branch exceeds 150 employees, the company breaks it in two and builds a new office.
It is impossible for Americans to accept the extent to which the Colonial period—including our most sacred political events—was suffused with alcohol. Protestant churches had wine with communion, the standard beverage at meals was beer or cider, and alcohol was served even at political gatherings. Alcohol was consumed at meetings of the Virginian and other state legislatures and, most of all, at the Constitutional Convention.
Indeed, we still have available the list of beverages served at a 1787 farewell party in Philadelphia for George Washington just days before the framers signed off on the Constitution. According to the bill preserved from the evening, the 55 attendees drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer, and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.
The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now.
. . .
So if the effects of regulation are so deleterious to economic growth and the prosperity of citizens, why do countries enact so much of it? Dawson and Seater’s paper mentions three theories: Arthur Pigou’s notion that governments enact regulations to improve social welfare by correcting market failures, George Stigler’s more cynical view that industries capture regulatory agencies in order exclude competitors and increase their profits, and Fred McChesney’s argument that regulations are chiefly aimed at benefiting politicians and regulators. I asked if their results fit most closely with McChesney’s. Dawson replied: “This could be the conclusion that one reaches based on our empirical results (since they show a net cost of regulation over time), but again we did not set out to prove or disprove any particular theory.” Seater added that their research does not address the question of “why society allows excessive regulation….It’s an important [issue], but it is one for the public choice people to study, not for macroeconomists like me and my coauthor.”
Washington, DC is home to thousands of interest groups and lobbyists, all with a single goal: attempting to influence public policy. Although many do not like the idea of interest groups and lobbyists influencing Congress, it is likely that the number of interest groups and lobbyists will continue to grow. Mancur Olson made this point in “The Logic of Collective Action,” first published in 1965.
Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is a wide variety of lobbyists and interest groups that work in Washington on a daily basis to represent the interests of a thousands of organizations and businesses. Most large businesses and labor unions employ lobbyists in-house, and thousands of lobbyists work in and with trade associations. There are hundreds of independent lobbying and law firms that provide advocacy services.
Lobbyists and interest groups can have a definite affect and influence on Congress. Because it is practically impossible for any single member of Congress to understand every aspect of a particular issue, members rely on lobbyists to provide background information and explain the way in organizations and businesses operate before they form an opinion on a particular issue.
In many cases a business or organization may actually be part of a member’s constituency, which means that when the member hears from an interest group or lobbyist they are actually hearing about the interests that affect the people they represent.
If you belong to almost any kind of national organization, you belong to a “special interest group.” And if your interest group is not represented in Washington, other organizations, including allies and opponents, will have representatives who are active and busy in Washington trying to ensure the greatest advantage possible. Small groups are often represented through a trade association, while larger groups may employ an independent firm to represent them.
To learn more about lobbying and special interest groups as well as the influence they can have on Congress, consider our 1-day course, Congressional Dynamics and the Legislative Process, or our 3-day Capitol Hill Workshop.
Reference: Persuading Congress, by Joseph Gibson, Ch. 12, Interest Groups and Lobbyists.
For more information about working with Congress, see these resources from TheCapitol.Net:
