Ecopolitics: Institutional constraints and organizational differentiation among United States environmental groups, 1970--1990.

摘要

This dissertation examines both interest groups and social movement organizations, and finds previous accounts of each to be incomplete. This study offers a perspective on organized groups that is focused on the means they employ and the ends they seek. It argues that these are the chief characteristics distinguishing group types, and that by using institutionalized means to seek incremental ends, or noninstitutionalized means in pursuit of transformative ends, interest groups and social movement organizations each attempt to make a distinctive impact upon the political process.;The study presents a model for how means and ends are chosen by organized groups, one that gives weight to both internal and external factors. Such a perspective challenges earlier studies, which do not pay adequate attention to differences of means and ends as differences of group type, and which focus exclusively upon either internal or external factors. This dissertation adopts a "structured polity" approach to explain how groups choose their means with regard to the structural arrangements of government, after having first chosen their ends.;The dissertation then considers a central question which has too often been ignored in studies of organized groups-namely, under what conditions might either interest groups or social movement organizations change their means and ends in such a way as to also alter their group form? More specifically, do interest groups and social movement organizations respond to shifts in political conditions (whether positive or negative) by changing their means and ends?;Two interest groups (the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society) and two social movement organizations (Greenpeace and Earth First!) in the environmental issue area are considered in the period from 1970 to 1990. Shifts in political conditions in each of the three branches of the Federal government are evaluated and considered, with attention to whether these produced more or less favorable political conditions for the groups in question. The responses of each group are also detailed.;The final two chapters offer an analysis for the lack of change in means and ends by each group, despite the volatility of political conditions during the period. The theory that is offered builds upon the model presented in the first chapter, offering explanations that consider both the internal and external factors relevant to the choice of means and ends by organized groups.