Some Neglected Aspects of British Pressure Groups Morris Davis Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7, No. 1. (Feb., 1963), pp. 42-53. Stable URL htp:/flinks.jstor-org/sicisici=( 126-3397% 28196302%297%3A 1%3C42%3ASNAOBP%3E2,0.COGIB2-E Midwest Journal of Political Science is currently published by Midwest Political Science Association. Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hutp:/wwwjstor.org/joumals/mpsa. html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Sat Sep 2 10:06:53 2006MORRIS DAVIS Tulane University Some Neglected Aspects of h Pressure Groups» I By rxeictr pertsrtioN or by implicit corollary students of British pressure groups have delimited their field in such a way that it omits business corporations. The definition fashioned by Allen Potter in his recent book, Organized Groups in British National Politics, offers clear evidence for this generalization. “Organized groups,” according to Potter, “are groups organized largely for political purposes, except governmental bodies and party groups in the politics of the state. This definition excludes such organizations as business firms, social clubs, universities, and religious institutions.” Corporations like Shell of ish Petroleum or Unilever or Hawker-Siddeley or Dunlops ot L.C.L, which have important interactions with government and impacts ‘on politics, are excluded by the definition, while che Tomato and Cucumber Growers’ Association and the Union of Welsh People in Dispersion are included. S. E, Finer and J. D. Stewart, authors of two other major surveys of British pressure groups," implicitly adopt the same working criteria as Potter.’ Within the "Business Lobby,” for example, Finer enumer- This ance is reworking of paper read before he Canadian Polis! Science Awan on June 11,1082, Tam greta tothe Social Science Research Council (U-8.A) and to the Cansds Councll for cabling ne to vate England uring 19 and" 15s snd to James Aitchison od Martin Hartson for hee onments and eric, Esvor of fact and opinion of couse, rain slly iny spony. "London, 1981), 15 Finer, dnonyoas Empire (London, 1958); and Stewart, Bris Pressure Groups (Oxford, 1988). Many authors ints fel, inldenely, prefer some other term to prem group” Potter ops for“ ongaized group"; Fler, for “the Laty "a J. H. ile, or ineres-group Buc many teprabl authors we the plas = prose soup *-among thom SH, Beer, H, Eelateny HH. Wilson, J.D. Stewtre and Bocce himelin oer cootestr-and i i te expresion T pesonaly Ro next congenial "het explici defnoos are considerably ls exclusive than Power's. Accord- ing to Fine (op. cs 2, "the Lobby” refer to "the sum of organizations ia fo far as they are occuped at any pot of tine in tying tw lnfener the policy 2Barris Pressure Groups 8 ates only associations such as the National Farmers’ Union, the In tute of Directors, the British Employers’ Confederation, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Asso- ciation of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Chamber of ‘Trade, Aims of Industry, the Economic League, Industrial Research and Information Services, the Roads Campaign Council, and the Fair Prices Defence Committee. Two corporations alone are singled out for any individual attention, Tate & Lyle and I.C.L, and these only for their mass public relations and advertising campaigns. Tate & Lyle is also the sole corporation discussed by Stewart. His book finds room enough for the Institute of Trichology and the Association of Assistant Mistresses in Secondary Schools and the National Canine Defence League, but none at all for the oil companies or the banks. Studies of pressure groups in Britain,* then, systematically omit the ‘most important and powerful components of organized business. As a result academic literature in this field has de-emphasized much of politico-economie significance while stressing such non-economic groupings as religious, educational, recreational, and cultural organi- zations Strangely enough, in these latter categories even organiza- tions that are not associations are included by some writers under the rubric of pressure group. The Lord’s Day Observance Society is ‘counted, but so are “the Churches themselves"; The Third Programme Defence Society falls within the field, but in addition ‘The Universities themselves can sometimes constitute a very powerful Lobby.”* And so it would seem that in the city of Oxford the University is a member of “the Lobby” and British Motors Corporation is not. ‘There is no need to exaggerate. Academie literature on British pressure groups is occasionally sprinkled with the names of large of public bodies in thet own chosen direction; though (nike pola! partis) never themselves prepared to undertake the diet government uf the coenry While for Stewart (op. chy Dy presure group studies encompas "the Held of tonganived groupe powsng bah formal Sructre and seal common fee a to fara they influence the decons of public bodes "or perhaps more Saicdy, Tso far as they seck to influence the proces of goverment” “Fine, of cit 810 * And or the must putin the United States Cf. V. O. Key, Jey Poles, rien, and Presue Group, th ed, (Neve Voth, 1988), 10. “Dorr devores seventy page to cataloguing what be cals spokesman groups {ovanly economic), and foreynine to promotional (or cause) groups, He ahd Stewart even more oy allot grater Space to promeion groupe than thle polka! inportance could juny. "Fine, oP ly 1144 Morris Davis corporations like A. C. Cossor and Pye Radio,* and particular attention has been given the Mr. Cube campaign.” Furthermore, associations like the National Farmers’ Union, the Federation of British Industries, the Roads Campaign Council, the British Legion, the British Medical Association, or the labor unions generally, are certainly of importance, politically and economically, and well deserve the case studies they have received."® But far too much attention has been given issues of marginal economic significance, like equal pay for women or smoke abatement,"* or of charming inconsequence for political power, like the anaesthetizing of animals. 0 ‘Two operational factors help account for the disregard of business corporations by students of British pressure groups. First, trade asso- ciations have more frequent formal contacts with government than do individual corporations, and consequently are mentioned more in governmental publications. This characteristic is of consequence be- cause many political scientists prefer to work from official sources. Second, trade associations are more open about some of their political activities than are corporations: they often publish journals and year- end reports describing their political actions—indeed, frequently making larger claims about their influence than the facts might warrant. Corporations are far more chary about publicizing their political impact, and will rarely assist the researcher in polities. As a result, *H. H, Wilson, Preenure Group (London, 1961), 63, 82-3, 1335, 143, 147,150 The seminal study of the campaign is in H.'H.” Wilson, * Techniques of Pressure.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (Summer 1951), 224-282 "See, for example, Peter Self and Herbert Storing, “The Farmer and the Seats,” The Political Quarterly, XXIX (Jan-Mar. 1988), 17-27; 8. E. Finer, * The Federation of Britsh Industries” Poical Sti, 1V (Feb, 1956), 61.84 Finer, sport Interests and the Roads Lobby,” The Political Quarterly, XXIX GaneMar, 1958), 47-58; John H. Miles, “Brish InteresGroup Tactics” Political Science Quarterly, LXXIL (Mar. 1957), 71-82; Harry Eckstein, Pressure Group Politics (London, 1960); and Martin Harrison, Trade Unions and the Labour Party Since 1945 (London, 1960). Books by Self and Storing and by Finer will aso have been published before this article is printed. * Allen Porter, * The Equal Pay Campaiga Commies,” Political Studie, V (Feb, 1957), 49-64 and J. B. Sanderson, “ The National Smoke Abatement Society and the Clean Air Ace (1986)," Political Seudis, IX (Oct. 1961), 236-53. Further- more, in these two articles events are discussed mainly as they are seen by the pressure groups named in their titles "= Fines, Anonymous Empire, 23, This statement is true despite the retention by firms of public relations con-Barris Pressure Groups 6 the political scientist can produce far more in a short time if he con- ccentrates on trade associations alone.!* Consider, for example, those formal contacts between business and {government encompassed by official consultation, Clearly it is easier for both sides to conduct these meetings as a duologue. “It became essential to men engaged in one branch of business to have a single point of reference in their dealings with Whitehall: and Whitchall was equally concerned to find trade bodies which would represent and reconcile their members.” Consequently, each segment of the economy has some ministry or governmental office especially concerned with its problems—its “ sponsor,” if you will-and “all but the largest firms approach their sponsor through trade associations, the permanent staff of which become well known to the civil servants concerned.” Consultation also takes place via permanent or ad boc committees to inquire and advise, to which officers of associations are appointed. Much is known officially about these committees. The reports of the Commictee on Intermediaries just after World War Il, and of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs and the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation in the early 1950s, give particularly valuable and extensive information on this machinery for industry-government interaction." Moreover, many references to consultation can be gleaned from various ‘departmental reports and parliamentary debates. In addition to what appears in Hansard and in Command Papers, there are the non-official (but printed and therefore academically respectable) publications of the trade associations themselves. These provide a considerable body of data. “The chief source for [his] book,” Potter has remarked, “is the publications of the groups then selves, especially their journals and annual reports.” If anything, these publications overstate the extent and impact of the associations’ influence, ‘The reason for this, as Stewart observes in another context, is that “the membership of a group not only like to get value for its sultants or their establishing of internal PR offices. Public relations in business seeks to tell only the story that firms want told “This is especially true for younger British poltial sciencists, who often find it difficult to obtain travel grants or extended leave. Under pressure to produce they turn to analyzing printed materials almost exclusively. Such studies, ometimes based on their master’s ot doctor's thesis, are at least inexpensive and can be completed at a local library. TW. J. A. Mackenzie and J. W. Grove, Central Adminiseration in Britain (London, 1957), 455 and 463, No further information is given on the exceptions. For a quick survey sce Stewart, op. city 1-25. Porter, Orgenized Groups in British Nasional Polities, 19.46 Morris Davis money; it likes to see itself getting value.”!* As a result, much in these documents seems to be comprised of a type of internal public relations designed to fortify the position of a group's leadership vis- vis its ordinary members. Admittedly much is accomplished by an association's leader or staff man ringing up his opposite number in a ‘ministry and discussing a problem with him on a first name basis; but because the detailed inner workings of government are secret, the effect of these discussions must always remain in doubt, even though successes and failures in the end may be tallied.!® Nonetheless, although fone can be misled by what associations say about chemselves, the problem isnot one of too little information, but of too much, of which some is hokum, In contrast to associations, individual corporations do not participate in semi-governmental committees—except in the indivect sense that officers of associations represented on the committees may simultane- ously be officials of corporations, or in the accidental Sense that a corporation official may be named to a committee because of his general skill in committeemanship.* Names of corporations appear less fre- quently in Hansard, exceptions made of causes célebres like the once proposed I.C.1. take-over of Courtaulds. The annual reports of corporations are often overwhelmingly fiscal in tone; and their regular publications tend to be house organs, designed to mollify (or exhort) dealers, stockholders, employees, or some other section ‘of the public in which they are particularly interested. Such material tends to be barren of data interesting to researchers in political behavior. Finally, corporations typically bar access by outsiders to their dossiers and files, whereas trade associations sometimes allow such access, at least under certain restrietions.** Mm Ease of research helps explain, then, why trade associations are examined in British pressure group studies to the vireual exclusion % Stewart, op. cit 38-9. © Samuel H, Beer, “Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain;” The American Political Science Review, L. (Mar. 1956), 8; and for detailed evidence in regard to the British Medical Association, see Fckstin, Pressure Group Politics, ch. 4, 1d 7, ‘or example, Sir Alexander Pleek, chairman of 1.C.I, headed the Commit ‘of Inquiry into the Fishing Industry’ (Cmnd. 1266). On the general point see K. C. Wheare, Government by Conminee (Oxford, 1955), 59-60 and 81-7. "See Finer, “The Federation of British Industries” loc irs and my “British Journal of Polivcs, XXIV (Feb, 1982), 50-71Barris Pressure Groups a7 of individual corporations however large. Ease of research also helps explain why the issues analyzed in these studies have been exclusively domestic and civilian, and why problems related to the military or to international affairs have been conspicuously ignored Let us examine consultation again. In the three and a half page double-colamned “Index of Committees” that concludes Wheare’s recent book, only one official committee is listed that is squarely in the foreign policy field.” Potter has drummed up a few others: a Book Selection Committee and a Scientific Committee for Germany, to advise the German Section of the Foreign Office; an Advisory Com- mittee on Book Title Selection, reporting to the Secretaries of Stare for Foreign Affairs, for Colonies, and for Commonwealth Relations; the Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women, advisory to the Commonwealth Relations Office; and the Oversea Migration Board, advisory to the Secretary of State.* The total is not impres- sive. Even by grubbing together such matters as a convention on the treatment of venereal disease among seamen in 1926 and an agree- ment between British and Icelandic trawler owners under the auspices of O.E.E.C. in 1956, Potter is able to devote only five pages, out of a total of 396, to the impact of pressure groups on the conduct of external relations. The lack of detail on this topic is particularly noticeable in a book that is elsewhere crammed with detail? Since Potter is unquestionably a diligent searcher through the publi- cations of associations, and through government documents and secondary literature as well, it is evident that data on the role of = Wheare, op. cit, 76. The committee is on Admission of Women into the Foreign Service. * Potter, of. cit, 224. ¥ Ibid, 223-7. Bower's book is also dowed with a eategory of promotional groups “concerned with Commonwealth and International Affair” Te contains fssociations like the Anglo-Netherlands Society, the African Bureau, the National Peice Council, and the English-Speaking Union of the Commonvvealth. They have little impact on the distribution of World political power, even though some ‘of the activities of some of them may be useful 5" Mose aspects of the conduct of external relations” we hear, “give rise to ‘the usual consultations between Government Departments and organized groups”: but litle specific information is provided beyond noting that "the Board of Trade consults bodies like the F.B.1. and the A.B.C.C. about impending trade negotiations " or thar “the names of suitable persons for trade missions are put forward.” We are told of the grest practical importance of “the attachment of advisers from interest groups to the official delegations co international meetings”; ‘but no specific examples are cited, Ibid, 225 and 2268 Moris Davis pressure groups in foreign affairs rarely appear in such materials. Besides the references Potter gives, one could mention Beer's summary of the pressuring by the Central Horticultural Committee of the Na- nal Farmers’ Union for a higher tariff on tomatoes, which culminated in the President of the Board of Trade going to Geneva in 1953 to obtain permission from GATT to raise tariffs against foreigners but keep Commonwealth preference on eighteen varieties of fruit and vegetables; or my own account of the part played by the British ‘Trawlers’ Federation and its public relations consultants at the 1958 and 1960 International Conferences on the Law of the Sea and at a number of other private international meet are few. By and large, data on the role of pressure groups in inter- national relations is hard to come by, and the subject has consequently been much ignored in scholarly political science literature. “The same generalizations for the same reasons apply to mi matters. With the exception of veterans’ groups like the Brit Legion, where large membership induces much overt and publicity- prone activity,** and of enthusiasts’ organizations like the Navy League, pressure group activities relating to the military go largely unrecorded in the academic literature. Indeed, none of the three books that survey British pressure groups employs the term “military” or the name of any of the armed services in its index." And yet pressuring obviously ‘goes on in this area. With questions like the awarding of defence Contracts or the future role and scope of British armed forces, business leaders and high military officials obviously do not just sit on their hands. But just what they do is hard to establish. General govern- mental secretiveness* is overlaid by official security restrictions; and the near monopoly of government over many kinds of military infor- mation and over the capacity for armed action forces outside pressures Beer, “ Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain,” Joc. city 1214. #"* British Public Relations," loc. city especially 65-9 Mille, op. cit; Graham Wootton, “Ex-Servicemen in Polities” The Political CXIX (Jan-Mar, 1958), 28-39; and Potter, of. cit, a6 indexed under icemén's and pensioners: groups.” 1 category of promotional groups concerned with “national security, governmental procedures, and private rights"; but this is more potpourri than clasiieation. "am not thinking of bribery on details like which firm shall build » particular sirafe, but of crucial questions of isue—for example, whether Britain should build that aircraft itself, or buy it abroad, or rely on the United States to provide analogous striking power and defensive cover. “Finer, Anonymous Empire, 129-33Barris Pressure Groups 9 to express themselves more deviously or intricately or circumspectly than usual, In any case, it is the lack of easily assembled documentation rather than a dearth of pressure group activity that accounts for the absence of pressure group studies relating to military affairs. Vv Mainly for operational reasons, then, political scientists researching British pressure groups have ignored corporations, no matter how large, and have neglected even associational activities if they impinge ‘on military or international affairs. Furthermore, within the civilian- domestic area researchers have focused almost entirely on problems that do not raise major issues. They have studied attempts to win higher benefits for veterans, or better prices for farmers, or changes in hospital rules for doctors; and they have made it appear that pressure groups aim for just a small adjustment of procedures in their favor— a larger subsidy, or a bigger tax concession, or some small change in ministerial regulations. Investigations of pressure group activity in Britain have been directed, in short, to what might be termed “fiddling.” They have illuminated minor accommodations. Such adjustments are not unim- portant since they reduce political friction and help keep the societal heat level low; and to a given pressure group they may well be vital Bur they do not seem crucially to affect the public interest one way or another. This explains Eckstein’s o conclusion (after a thor~ ough study of the B.M.A.) that ‘the influence of private groups is greatest when, from the standpoint of democratic values, it matters Teast whether it is great or small.” ‘This conclusion is consonant with the now prevalent view that issues have dropped out of British polities. “Since 1949,” Professor Mac- kkenzie has remarked, “we have entered a phase in which party pro- grammes seem relatively unimportant. . .. This phase may be cut shore by events at any moment, but while it lasts we tend to think of politics as a continuous process of adjustments and not as a. contest beeween alternative principles.”® ‘This view also helps explain why consultation with ministries has seemed so important and other forms of political activity so subsidiary. For the National Farmers’ Union, “Party and parliamentary activities take an unobtrusive second place” © Eekstein, op. city 157 = W. JM, Mackenzie, “ Pressure Groups in British Government,” The Briss Journal of Sociology, Vi (June 1955), 133.50 Morris Davis lest they “undermine the special relationship with the Government on which it mainly relies”** ‘To a trade association parliamentary lobbying is “a chaney procedure, often involving a lot of hard labour for small reward. ... The real sanction behind trade association power lies in their co-operation with the administration.” ** The generaliza- tion holds true even for so powerful a group as the Federation of British Industries: Finer emphasizes “how rarely the Federation is arguing policy and how overwhelmingly it is concerned with detail, », and administration . . . , with technical and administrative *o" In short, “The group is more concerned with the pol of detail than the politics of issues. . . . Negotiation has precedence over agitation.” # Any group that relies primarily on forms of political activity other than negotiation with ministries is either weak** or desperate.!® Unquestionably generalizations like these ring true for fiddling about most domestic civilian problems. To achieve small adjustments a quiet talk with your sponsoring department provides an efficacious way of proceeding, and success is likely if you can win the appropriate Minister—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.” But are there no questions of issue left? v ‘There is no need to conclude this paper on a critical note. The study of British pressure groups has progressed rapidly since World ‘War II. In the 1940s and even the 1950s the accepted view was that pressure groups had at most a minor effect on British policy and politics. “Responsibility,” we heard, “ falls so heavily upon the Cabinet and the Prime Minister along with their party followers and the elections are so avowedly national in outlook, that special interests squirm under the glare of publicity consequent on their activities.” # % Self and Story, of. city p20 "Leonard Tivey and Emese Wohlgemuth, “Trade Associations as Interest Groups,” The Political Quarterly, XXIX JansMa. 1958), 64 and 69. "Finer, “The Federation of British Industries,” loc. cit, 67. Stewart, of. cit, 29 and 30. SA group which i weak turns to active measures in circumstances where other groups would seek consultation” [bid 139. This is the implication in Finer’s verm, “The Fire Brigade Campaign.” Anonymous Empire, 8. ‘Beer, “ Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain,” foc. ct, 9. “Robert Rienow, Ineroduetion 10 Government (New York, 1952), 219, Cf. Herman Finer, Theory and Practice of Modern Goverment, Rev. ed. (New York, 1949), 4834,Barris Pressure Groups st Or again, British “ pressure groups are made more responsible to the public than American ones by the necessity to declare themselves ‘openly and to submit their aspirations to party and thereby to electoral scrutiny.” Even as late as 1957 one could read that “the pressure group which wants to get somewhere in Great Britain does not waste its time in persuading individual members to revolt against their party’s leaders, Instead i tries to convince the Cabinet and the leaders of the party’s organization that the party as a whole cannot win an election unless it satisfies the pressure group. This is a much harder cok” ‘That was the first stage. During the mid 1950s the study entered a second stage, articles by Beer and Mackenzie signalling the change. No longer were British pressure groups to be described as weak and buffeted about. If anything, they had “developed farther than in the United States,” “showed a greater degree of concentration,” and were “far more intimately linked with the apparatus of government, especially government administration.” ® This assessment of British pressure group activity has itself quickly filtered down into textbooks ‘on comparative government:* ‘We have already discussed certain aspects of this second stage, and concluded that its methods tend to limit it to non-corporation activities that do not impinge directly on military or international problems. Within the domestic civilian field remaining—or rather within a sub- sample of it: i.e. problems that do not involve major issues—the generalizations and findings of investigators seem incontestable. Con- sultation provides the most efficient sort of political action for a group; and it is often both intimate and well-nigh continuous. ‘This second stage presents both conceptual and emotional difficulties. Ic deals with only a subsection of pressure group activities, so that its conclusions seem applicable only when the problem is one of slight Daniel Wit, Comparative Political Intiutions (New York, 1953), 248. “= Tealics mine! Gwendolyn Carteret al, Major Foreign Powers, ird ed. (New York, 1957), 103. “*W. J. M. Mackenzie, * Pressure Groups in British Government,” The Briss Journsi of Sociology, VI (june 1955), 13348; Mackenzie, “Pressure Groups: ‘The Conceptual Framework’ Political Srudies, IM (Oct. 1955), 247-55, Beer, “ Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain,” The American Polivcal Science Review, L (Mar, 1956), 1-23. “Beer, of. city 45. Herbert J. Spiro, Government by Constitution (New York, 1959), 122; Harry H. Ecistein in Samuel Beer and Adam B, Ulam, eds, Patterns of Govern ‘ment (New York, 1958), 127-9.2 Morris Davis, adjustments in working arrangements or of minor changes in how the pie is to be divided. And it focuses on topics that, though ad- mittedly important as lubricants of the political mechanism, appear dull and trivial in a world in which there are still great issues, in which attention is riveted on the arms race and space travel and the winds of change in developing nations. The outlook of these studies seems myopic. It is as if, for the age of the conquest of the American frontier and the development of huge industries, all the political scientist felt worth his examining was graft and nepotism in the urban political partis. If I may hazard a prediction, we are now entering a third stage in British pressure group studies for which H. H. Wilson’s recent book, Pressure Group, seems a harbinger in just the way that the Mackenzie and Beer articles were for the second. Wilson concentrates not on a matter of fiddling but on an important issue: whether the most potent method of mass communications, television, was to be exclusively under government ownership and control, or whether private, com- mercial interests were to own and control a major sector of the medium. Though a single case study, the book required a year of field research; and many of its data were gleaned not from official and published documents (although these were consulted, too) but from interviews with participants and from scrutiny of unpublished file material The richness of Wilson’s findings precludes an adequate summary here. But at least it should be noted that he discusses the part played in the campaign for commercial television not just by various spokes- man and promotional associations, but by large corporations and advertising agencies, by Lord Woolton and the Conservative Central Office, and by small groups of backbench M.P.s, Parliament, in both overt speechmaking capacity and more covert study groups**—and not only the House of Commons but also the House of Lords—bulks larger and seems more vital in this book than in “ second stage” studies, Backbenchers in revolt and party headquarters matter, while consulta- tion with Ministers plays a less prominent part in the pressure group process than earlier investigations had indicated.” +The book is not without its blemishes, of course, For all its slim size, ic is padded far too much with citations from speeches in che House of Lords, See expecially 71-6 and 106-118 Wilson, Pressure Group, as indexed under “Ralph Assheton” and “ Con- servative Brondeasting Committe.” Ibid, 129 8.Brrristt Pressure Groves 53 ‘The general shape of Wilson's findings would apply, I think, to many cases of pressure group politics in which an issue was at stake, Ie would apply, for example, to the recent activities undertaken in Britain by the Central African Federation, including the tasks per- formed for it by the public relations firm Voice and Vision. Here lies 1 major issue involving the future direction of colonial development, a subject of international as well as domestic significance. Even cursory analysis indicates the great effort that was concentrated on influencing ‘members of Parliament and other community leaders, and the fact that such effort came close to paying off. ‘Adequate research of this campaign would require much time since extensive field work and interviewing would be needed to supplement data available from printed sources. Intensive study of significant pressure group processes, however, may well become more common in the future. At the same time there will probably be 2 decrease in the number of brief case studies about minor accommodations and of volumes that survey the pressure group field generally and serappily. “Group managers,” Mackenzie has remarked, “are in general com- petent and clearheaded men who recognize the existence of the public interest and are moderate in action, by temperament or because in England moderation is a good way to get what you want. The worst danger to the system is from external shocks. Within ies limits it is both sensible and humane, but it is technologically conservative and its political horizon is limited to problems familiar to the ordinary man in his daily business and the organizer who represents him.” * Most pressure group studies about Britain have concentrated on the familiar, ordinary, daily problems. Wilson dealt with a shock. Future studies will tend to follow Wilson's lead, for the shocks, though relatively infrequent, politically matter most. + See also the issue touched on in D. E. Butler and Richard Rose, The Briss General Blection of 1989 (London, 1960), Appendix Il, The Anti-Nationalsation Campaigns” ‘Mackenzie, “ Pressure Groups in Britsh Government loc. cit, 146.