Compare and contrast grassroots lobbying with astroturf lobbying. Which one is generally more effective?
What will be an ideal response?
Ans: Grassroots lobbying is really a bottom-up public movement to make change. The source of the action and the coordination come from citizens who bind together—at times spontaneously—over a concern. Because of the romantic vision of grassroots activism and because elected officials do not like to be on the wrong side of public opinion, astroturf lobbying attempts to emulate grassroots political action. Instead of being a bottom-up movement, however, astroturf lobbying is coordinated by existing, and often powerful, interest groups. Both types of lobbying can be very influential, although the latter is artificial and looks to piggyback on grassroots politics by masking itself as a grassroots effort.
You might also like to view...
Changes in population growth rates do not have a significant effect on the services provided by state governments
Indicate whether this statement is true or false.
Answer the following statement(s) true (T) or false (F)
1. Collective action theory suggests that minority groups may actually be more powerful than majority groups in some circumstances. This might explain why business lobbies are usually considered to be more effective at influencing political elites than trade unions are. 2. Collective action can explain the mass protests that eventually brought communism to its knees in 1989. 3. Public goods are, by their nature, desirable. Thus, anyone who would benefit from such a good can be expected to contribute to its provision. 4. Collective action theory indicates that individuals will automatically act collectively to achieve their goals whenever they share common interests (such as wanting to listen to NPR, protect environmental resources, or promote democracy). 5. The point is that revolutionary thresholds vary across individuals.