Main Purpose
The primary function of any form of government, whether local, state or federal is to come up with policies, laws, and regulations that ensure the wellbeing of the citizens. This is done primarily through the enforcement of policies by different bodies and agencies. The government, however, realizes that the implementation of any form of the system requires the collective responsibility and input of various players in the sector, hence the need to form working partnerships. Such partnerships are held together through mutual understanding and funding of both the public and the private sector. The primary purpose of this article, thus, is to show the relationship between the various partners when it comes to implementing policies, such as the campaign contributions by each player (Mahoney & Baumgartner, 2014) . However, the authors, Christine Mahoney, and Frank Baumgartner take on a different approach by bringing to light the aspect of lobbying. They stress on the fact that lobbyists do not lobby alone, and that their efforts are in most cases a sum of government policymakers responding to the overall structure of conflict rather than just providing resources for individual lobbyists.
Key Question
The critical question that the authors of this article ask is the role government policymakers play in supporting the efforts of lobbyists. To develop their thesis and answer this guiding question, the authors conduct a project that is based on in-depth interviews with the various players in the policymaking fields. This includes conducting over 300 interviews with active policy advocates and retrieving systematic information on the chief advocates in Washington (Mahoney & Baumgartner, 2014) . Equally, the authors conduct random sample tests of quite a number of policy issues in the state for the period between 1999 and 2002 in which there were approximately more than 95 policy issues to be addressed. It is interesting to watch how the authors develop their argument through case studies out of a simple guiding question to show precisely how the federal, state and local governments play a significant part in offering support to lobbyists. Of other guiding questions, the authors consider the criteria upon which the various levels of government use to determine where to invest both their time and resources.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Important Information
One of the essential aspects of this article is that it sheds light on quite a few critical areas of public concern, such as the criteria government officials use in determining what policies to invest in. To this end, the authors point out that government officials are rational actors. Being rational actors implies that government officials and agencies only invest their time and resources in policy ventures that are promising in benefiting their image in the end. In other words, government officials only respond to lobbies that show a high likelihood of success in achieving their policy goals (Ridge, Ingram, & Hill, 2017) . By relying on the pattern of the allies the government had formed with lobby groups between 1999 and 2002, the authors establish that government officials invest their time and resources where they see impressive lobby sides, where lobbying resources support their preferred policy position, and where other prominent government officials and agencies lead such policies. In other words, government officials do not take initiatives but instead join the bandwagon when it seems profitable.
Key Concepts
The key concepts the readers need to understand in this article are government officials acting as allies in advocacy, and the role individual and collective resources play as a wakeup call to change such systems (Mahoney & Baumgartner, 2014) . What the authors mean by these concepts is that in as much as elected congressmen are supposed to be the objects of lobbying efforts, each of these players advocates for various policy positions that only seem to benefit their own interests. Each individual in the government seeks to push a legislative agenda that they can directly benefit from. The authors do not downplay the role government officials have played in policy advocacy, such as the Washington goal of influence that motivates elected members. However, they point towards a government that is driven by selfishness rather than the general wellbeing of its citizens. To this end, the authors introduce the reader to the concept of individual and collective resources. What this means is that each individual has a role to play in pushing the government, and the society at large to address particular policies and interventions, even if there may not be direct gains involved.
Main Assumptions
Some of the main assumptions the authors have made in their research include the role individual members of the society play in pushing for policies. It is true that by concentrating on the role lobbyists and the government plays in implementing policies and driving for change; the authors have down looked the role of the citizens (Berry & Wilcox, 2018) . This can be seen more clearly in the way they call on the public to take on individual and collective resources to hold the various bodies and agencies accountable, rather than applauding the role the society and individual members have played so far. The other assumption the authors have made include the possibility of self-funding. The authors have tied the government to the role of partnering with lobbyists groups to push for policies. While this may be the case in most scenarios, lobby groups equally have other platforms to air and finance their policies, such as the private sector, whose role has equally been downplayed in the article.
Main Implications
If the reader is to take into account the recommendations of the authors in developing a different approach when it comes policymaking, then there will be the need to rebrand lobbyists to consider getting aid from other sources. The authors do not fail in pointing out that lobbyists are lone sectors who rely heavily on government officials to push for their policies in government. Thus, the authors point towards the need for changing this approach and challenging the mentality so that lobbyists consider recruiting government officials to push for their agendas. There is no denying that government officials only push for policies they stand to gain from directly, and as such, there is the need for lobbyists to come up with policies that are appealing to the officials (Beyers, Braun, & Klüver, 2017) . However, should the lobbyists continue to rely on such avenues, then they are sure to experience low levels of progress, hence the need to widen their scope into the private sector to ensure they have massive support.
Main Conclusions
The main idea that can be inferred from the argument presented therein is the need for lobbyists to find alternative avenues for airing their concerns instead of relying solely on government officials to push for their policies in the Congress. The authors do not overlook the role legislations play in passing policies, but they point towards the reluctance of such systems, and how these cost lobby groups finances and time. In calling for individual and collective resources, the authors acknowledge the role sourcing from other avenues like the private sector will play in pushing for policies to be implemented. In conclusion, there is no denying the role the public has to play to push for policies that concern their very being. It is not the sole duty of lobbyists to push for policies, but instead, every stakeholder in the community has a role to play, both in pushing for policies and for holding government officials accountable to its citizens.
References
Berry, J. M., & Wilcox, C. (2018). The interest group society . Routledge.
Beyers, J., Braun, C., & Klüver, H. (Eds.). (2017). Legislative lobbying in context: The policy and polity determinants of interest group politics in the european union . Routledge.
Mahoney, C., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2014). Partners in advocacy: lobbyists and government officials in Washington. The Journal of Politics , 77 (1), 202-215.
Ridge, J. W., Ingram, A., & Hill, A. D. (2017). Beyond lobbying expenditures: How lobbying breadth and political connectedness affect firm outcomes. Academy of Management Journal , 60 (3), 1138-1163.
