Rural producer groups and policy‐making: A study in state politics

Abstract

TRADITIONALLY, DEPARTMENTS connected with primary industry have a high reputation for being in sympathy with their client groups. Professor K. O. Campbell observed: With the possible exception of the Repatriation Department, probably no department acts for a specific group in the community more conscientiously than do the Departments of Agriculture. This article outlines an empirical study of one such department and its relations with rural groups. In the literature on pressure group theory, writings by Samuel Beer and Harry Eckstein have been among the most influential. Their statements have come to be generally recognised as guidelines of group action. Beer, for , example, has noted the changing role of parties and government which have come to realise first, the necessity of bargaining with groups in the pursuit of a managed economy; and second, parties and government have accepted that they must bid for the support of consumer groups if they are to maintain a government-directed, welfare state society. focus of the Beer/Eckstein discussion, however, has remained the producer group— those organisations of producers representing the main economic sectors, especially trade unions, professional, business and rural groups. In a modern political system interests must be represented (that is, for functional representation to occur) if both the managed economy and the welfare state are to be continued. This requires that parties and governments harness the resources of the public and private sectors. Beer says: The mobilisation of their talents by the polity subjects them to the state and, at the same time, gives them influence over it. groups are important in that they can offer the crystallised view of an economic sector as well as proffering detailed information at their disposal. This affords the groups considerable bargaining power in relation to governments. Further, since the major parties pursue broadly similar policies, group conflict is confined to minor, administrative details. Hence a constant theme has been the significance of the administrative department and the importance of the group in influencing administrative decision-making. Groups need to be considered because of their three bases of power: groups offer advice, groups need to accept the decision that is made, and their approval is sought by administrators. Other channels of influence—the electorate, the legislature and the party—are of much less importance. This approach to groups and policy-making has received general acceptance in the period since it was first advocated. Some reservations about the applicability of the thesis have been expressed, however. In an empirical study of groups concerned with the education issue in Britain, for example, Paul E. Peterson demonstrated that the Beer/Eckstein interpretation was only partly appropriate: not only did it neglect ideological issues and underestimated channels apart from the administrative avenue, but it failed also to see the shortcomings of the administrative sector. Similarly, an examination of rural groups in New South Wales found their thesis only partly applicable. While the New South Wales Department of Agriculture accepts the necessity of frequent contact with its client groups, this interaction allows the groups limited influence. This is so for three main reasons. First, owing to the inherent inadequacies of groups and group spokesmen, they only poorly represent their members' interests. Second, groups are offered access to certain and restricted decisions but their views are often discounted as they conflict with the wider concerns of the decision-makers. Third, groups have virtually no access to the major decisions as the most important policy is made