Does group engagement with members constitute a “beneficial inefficiency”?

This article explores the role of variations in organizational form in explaining levels of group access. Specifically, we test whether group forms incorporating more extensive engagement with members receive policy advantages. We develop and test a account of beneficial inefficiencies. Our account reasons that the costs of inefficient intraorganizational processes and practices associated with enhanced engagement with members are beneficial as they generate crucial “access goods”—specifically encompassing positions—that in turn receive enhanced policy benefits. The costs of intraorganizational practices allowing members to engage more thoroughly in decision making are thus beneficial inefficiencies. We test this proposition using data on the Australian interest group system. Using the tools of cluster analysis, we identify three forms, each varying in respect of the inefficiencies they embody. Our multivariate analysis finds strong support for the account of beneficial inefficiencies: groups with the most inefficient organizational model receiving the greatest policy access.     

Developing a common law of animal welfare: offences against animals and offences against persons compared

Most animal welfare/suffering cases heard by the courts focus only on the facts: did the defendant, as a matter of fact, do those things with which they are charged? Analysis of the 2010 Amersham horse cruelty case reveals that there is significant room for ambiguity and subjective interpretation within the statutes that underpin animal welfare law. To provide certainty and to allow the law to develop it is essential that cases such as Amersham are not only subject to a review of the facts, but also a full analysis of the legal principles contained within the relevant statutes.     

What Drives Political Participation? Motivations and Mobilization in a Digital Age

This article provides insights into the driving forces that underpin new forms of political participation. Digital technologies offer opportunities for engaging in a wide range of civically oriented activities, each of which can contribute to deeper democratic engagement. Conventional acts of political participation are argued to be driven primarily by intrinsic motivations relating to self-efficacy and empowerment, with participants feeling they can have influence over decision makers. Little research explores whether similar motivations drive participation in less conventional acts, as well as whether mobilization attempts via social media by peers or political organizations mediate those motivations. Drawing on data from a survey among a representative sample of the U.K. electorate, we find the offline and online spheres of agency remain fairly distinct. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations both matter but extrinsic motivations have the strongest explanatory power independent of the sphere of activity. The mediating effect of mobilization tactics has a minimal effect on extrinsic motivations, online or offline, but online intrinsic motivations lose their explanatory power. As intrinsic factors offer little explanatory power, some forms of online political participation may lack meaning to the individual. Rather, these non-conventional acts result from reward seeking and are more likely to be encouraged by nongovernmental campaigning organizations, suggesting social media users are most likely to perform simple acts in support of non-contentious causes.     

How do interest groups legitimate their policy advocacy? Reconsidering linkage and internal democracy in times of digital disruption

The ongoing embrace of interest groups as agents capable of addressing democratic deficits in governing institutions is in large part because they are assumed to contribute democratic legitimacy to policy processes. Nonetheless, they face the challenge of legitimating their policy advocacy in democratic terms, clarifying what makes them legitimate partners in governance. In this article we suggest that digital innovations have disrupted the established mechanisms of legitimation. While the impact of this disruption is most easily demonstrated in the rise of a small number of ‘digital natives’, we argue that the most substantive impact has been on more conventional groups, which typically follow legitimation logics of either representation or solidarity. While several legacy groups are experimenting with new legitimation approaches, the opportunities provided by technology seem to offer more organizational benefits to groups employing the logic of solidarity, and appear less compatible with the more traditional logic of representation.     

Understanding self-harm and suicide websites: a qualitative interview study of young adult website users

Self-harm and suicide websites have been heavily criticized both in the literature and the wider media, despite the fact that very little is known about them. To date, no study has interviewed users of these sites about them. This qualitative study aims to explore the accounts of young adults who engage in self-harming and suicidal behaviors and use websites dedicated to these issues, in order to develop a broader understanding of these websites and to identify potential implications for future research. In-depth interviews were conducted via e-mail with 10 participants, who were recruited directly from self-harm and suicide websites. Using discourse analysis, we identified three main ways in which participants wrote about the sites. They constructed them as sources of empathy and understanding, as communities, and as a way of coping with social and psychological distress. These discourses gave users access to important, socially valued identities, such as being understood, belonging to a community and coping with their problems. If health professionals and researchers hope to understand people who use self-harm and suicide websites, and engage them in their services, they must take a more balanced view and not focus solely on the possible risks associated with using such sites.