東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Keeping the Trees Equal: Interest Groups, Strategic Advocacy, and the Federal Courts.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Keeping the Trees Equal: Interest Groups, Strategic Advocacy, and the Federal Courts./
作者:	Rossier, Ted D.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	114 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-03A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28644000
ISBN:	9798544228035

Keeping the Trees Equal: Interest Groups, Strategic Advocacy, and the Federal Courts.
Rossier, Ted D.

Keeping the Trees Equal: Interest Groups, Strategic Advocacy, and the Federal Courts. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 114 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Georgia, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

When interest groups decide to litigate, they intentionally work through a process that has as much to do with the rule of law as with ideological preferences, in which the outcomes are much less certain. Some scholars oppose what has come to be known as ``public law cases'' because they allegedly encourage non-democratic legal change or ``constitutional amendment by litigation.'' Others see public litigation as an intended feature of our republican form of government. My purpose with this project is to discover the factors that motivate strategic choices that interest groups make. I also assess whether those choices translate to greater litigation success.Following a discussion of the theoretical foundations and history of interest group litigation, I present three substantive chapters. The first is devoted to qualitative case studies that compare and explain the strategies of two particular organizations. The other two chapters represent empirical studies that test two competing theories of litigation-oriented decision making: Political Disadvantage Theory and the Pluralism Resource Model. The results of my analysis provide evidence that theories of coalition formation best explain the variance observed in the success of interest groups when they use the Federal court system to achieve their policy goals.

ISBN: 9798544228035Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.

Keeping the Trees Equal: Interest Groups, Strategic Advocacy, and the Federal Courts.
LDR:02342nmm a2200313 4500 001 2352492
005 20221128103958.5
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798544228035
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28644000
035 $a AAI28644000
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Rossier, Ted D. $0 (orcid)0000-0002-1433-6862 $3 3692120
245 1 0 $a Keeping the Trees Equal: Interest Groups, Strategic Advocacy, and the Federal Courts.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 114 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-03, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Vining, Richard.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Georgia, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a When interest groups decide to litigate, they intentionally work through a process that has as much to do with the rule of law as with ideological preferences, in which the outcomes are much less certain. Some scholars oppose what has come to be known as ``public law cases'' because they allegedly encourage non-democratic legal change or ``constitutional amendment by litigation.'' Others see public litigation as an intended feature of our republican form of government. My purpose with this project is to discover the factors that motivate strategic choices that interest groups make. I also assess whether those choices translate to greater litigation success.Following a discussion of the theoretical foundations and history of interest group litigation, I present three substantive chapters. The first is devoted to qualitative case studies that compare and explain the strategies of two particular organizations. The other two chapters represent empirical studies that test two competing theories of litigation-oriented decision making: Political Disadvantage Theory and the Pluralism Resource Model. The results of my analysis provide evidence that theories of coalition formation best explain the variance observed in the success of interest groups when they use the Federal court system to achieve their policy goals.
590 $a School code: 0077.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Environmental law. $3 560666
650 4 $a Litigation. $3 3564647
650 4 $a Interest groups. $3 3692121
650 4 $a Public opinion. $3 531264
650 4 $a Political activism. $2 bicssc $3 2079578
650 4 $a Success. $3 518195
650 4 $a Private schools. $3 1003110
650 4 $a Riots. $3 1972755
650 4 $a Expenditures. $3 3556049
650 4 $a Influence. $3 1973172
650 4 $a Case studies. $2 itrt $3 996239
650 4 $a Primaries & caucuses. $3 3562102
650 4 $a African Americans. $3 724919
650 4 $a Decision making. $3 517204
650 4 $a Noncitizens. $3 3560124
650 4 $a Variables. $3 3548259
650 4 $a Campaign contributions. $3 3692122
650 4 $a Taxonomy. $3 3556303
650 4 $a Race. $3 529036
650 4 $a Qualitative research. $3 536745
650 4 $a Civil rights. $3 530268
650 4 $a Lobbying. $3 601606
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0439
710 2 $a University of Georgia. $b Political Science and International Affairs - PHD. $3 3553433
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-03A.
790 $a 0077
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28644000