The multiple ambiguities of ''counteractive lobbying''

We review an article recently published in this journal to show how errors of theory-building, measurement, and research design have contributed to a confusing state of research in the area of interest-group lobbying activities. Contradictory findings in this area have come from the use of cross-sectional variance models where theories have called for longitudinal ones, from inaccurate measurements, from incomplete models, and especially from a willingness to overgeneralize from case studies. Despite a resurgence of studies on lobbying strategies, this literature will remain contradictory and inconclusive unless researchers resolve some basic questions about their theories and the nature of the evidence necessary to test them.