Grass-roots lobbying vs. coalition lobbying: Transnational strategies and the 1994 China MFN decision

摘要

Foreign influence on U.S. foreign policy has stirred much controversy and concern recently in the United States, particularly in light of large contributions made by an Indonesian business interest to the Democratic party in the 1996 Presidential campaign. Foreign influence, or transnational lobbying, according to Chung-in Moon, can be classified into four types--two direct and two indirect types. Moon found the latter to be more effective than the former. This thesis expands on Moon's research by examining which of his two indirect lobbying types--grass-roots mobilization or coalition-building--is more effective, and which factors contribute to the effectiveness of each approach.;The 1994 debate over China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status permits a parallel analysis of grass-roots and coalition lobbying efforts. This thesis concludes that grass-roots lobbying tends to be trumped by coalition lobbying, even when circumstances appear to favor the former. The findings suggest that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which represent a wide range of issues--including human rights and the environment--and rely primarily on grass-roots lobbying, are likely to be unsuccessful when lobbying against groups with mutual economic interests, who tend to employ coalition lobbying. In addition, the findings contribute to the understanding of sources of U.S. foreign policy, particularly the increasing influence of transnational lobbying in the Post-Cold War era.