Advocacy for the Poor

• Author: Robin Phinney
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X16640748
• Date: 01 September 2016
• Published date: 01 September 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Politics Research

2016, Vol. 44(5) 903 –938

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X16640748

apr.sagepub.com

Article

Advocacy for the Poor:

Organized Interests and

Social Policymaking in

the American States

Robin Phinney1

Abstract

While a large body of research examines cross-state variation in social policy,

few studies systematically examine the policy influence of organizations

that advocate on behalf of people living in poverty. This article examines

relationships between state advocacy communities and policy choices

following the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), or welfare reform. Using an

original data set of states’ advocacy communities, political and economic

characteristics, and welfare policy choices, the article analyzes whether

a state’s advocacy community is associated with its decisions to reduce

the government’s commitment to low-income families on one hand and

enact policies providing additional supports to families on the other. The

analysis reveals that significant relationships exist for both types of policies,

suggesting that organizational advocates may play a role in shaping state-level

social policy decisions.

Keywords

state politics and policy, social welfare policy, interest group lobbying

1University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Corresponding Author:

Robin Phinney, Research Associate, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota,

1414 Social Sciences Bldg., 267 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

Email: rphinney@umn.edu

640748APRXXX10.1177/1532673X16640748American Politics ResearchPhinney

research-article2016

904 American Politics Research 44(5)

Scholars of American politics have long been interested in understanding

cross-state variation in antipoverty policy. States differ in both the nature and

scale of their response to the problem of poverty, which ranged in severity

from 10% living in poverty in New Hampshire to 24% living in poverty in

Mississippi in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Although federal and state

governments share authority over an array of social welfare programs, state

governments retain discretion over the program design, eligibility rules, and

benefit levels of many federal antipoverty programs. States also develop and

administer their own programs, such as state tax credits to low-income work-

ing families and cash assistance to individuals living in poverty (Meyers,

Gornick, & Peck, 2001).

The existing literature on cross-state variation in antipoverty policy

yields important findings regarding the influence of partisan politics, con-

stituent opinion, economic factors, and racial politics on state social policy

adoption (Fellowes & Rowe, 2004; Plotnick & Winters, 1985; Soss,

Schram, Vartanian, & O’Brien, 2001; Tweedie, 1994). Yet few studies sys-

tematically examine relationships between antipoverty advocacy and pol-

icy choices across states. As a result, little is known about the policy

influence of states’ advocacy communities, defined as the population of

organizations that is politically active on behalf of low-income individuals

within each state.

The absence of knowledge regarding the role of advocates is surprising, as

many states maintain a robust community of groups that routinely advocate

on behalf of low-income populations (Berry & Arons, 2003; Pekkanen,

Smith, & Tsujinaka, 2014). Furthermore, qualitative research suggests that

advocates for the poor are influential in the policymaking process in at least

some states (Burt, Geen, & Duke, 1997; Francis & Anton, 1999; Geen,

Zimmermann, Douglas, Zedlewski, & Waters, 1998; Karch, 2007; Winston,

2002). As national policies have shifted authority away from Washington and

toward the state and local level (Meyers et al., 2001), understanding the role

of policy advocates has become increasingly important.

To provide insight into the role of state-level advocates in the social poli-

cymaking process, this article analyzes relationships between state advocacy

communities and policy choices following the passage of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(PRWORA), or welfare reform. Under the PRWORA, the national govern-

ment ended its 60-year guarantee of cash assistance to needy families and

granted states increased discretion over many programmatic aspects of the

cash welfare program (Weaver, 2000). Because the federal legislation

required each state to define the structure of its new welfare program in

select program areas, the PRWORA created similar incentives for advocates

Phinney 905

to mobilize across states, offering an ideal opportunity to analyze the rela-

tionship between advocacy and policy passage.

In the next section of the article, I review the literature on interest groups,

nonprofit advocacy, and state policy adoption to motivate the article’s focus

on state-level advocates for low-income populations. The “Data” section pro-

vides an overview of the data used to analyze relationships between advocacy

communities and policy choices. This section introduces two new measures

of advocacy community strength that include the number of groups regis-

tered to lobby on welfare issues as well as the number of charitable organiza-

tions active on social welfare issues. In the “Empirical Analysis” section, I

present the results of the empirical analysis. The analysis finds that across the

50 states, states with larger antipoverty advocacy communities were less

likely to adopt policies that imposed strict work requirements and penalties

on welfare recipients, as well as policies that allowed recipients to possess

greater assets without losing welfare eligibility. However, consistent relation-

ships do not exist across all policies considered. The “Discussion, Implications,

and Conclusion” section discusses the key empirical findings and argues that

scholars interested in cross-state variation in social welfare policy should

continue to consider the role of advocates in social policymaking processes

in the American states.

Theoretical Foundations

Organized interests play an active role in state politics. In 2007, more than

50,000 groups representing an array of public and private interests were reg-

istered to lobby at the state level (Gray, Cluverius, Harden, Shor, & Lowery,

2014). State interest group communities vary considerably, both with respect

to the number of groups active and the distribution of interests across eco-

nomic sectors (Gray & Lowery, 1996; Nownes & Freeman, 1998; Thomas &

Hrebenar, 1999). Organized interests also enjoy varying levels of influence

across states: Interest groups are described as having a dominant influence in

states such as Alabama, Florida, and Nevada, for example, but are described

as constrained or subordinate to other political factors in states such as

Delaware, Minnesota, and South Dakota (Thomas & Hrebenar, 1999).

A large literature examines the influence of interest groups on public pol-

icy choices (see Baumgartner & Leech, 1998; Hojnacki, Kimball,

Baumgartner, Berry, & Leech, 2012; and Smith, 1995, for reviews). While

much of this literature focuses on the national level, a growing number of

studies explore influence at the state level in areas as diverse as education,

health, environment, and animal welfare (Allen, 2005; Gerber, 1999; Mintrom

& Vergari, 1998; Ringquist, 1994; Ritchey & Nicholson-Crotty, 2015; Shipan