What is a Crisis? The Perspective of Interest Groups

Interest groups play vital roles in representative democracies by bridging society and government, and providing services where state intervention is absent or insufficient. However, crises often strain their ability to deliver essential services, reduce political engagement in advocacy, and hinder fundraising efforts. These challenges can persist beyond the immediate crisis, potentially creating participatory biases in government affairs by privileging stronger organizations. The resilience of interest groups, defined as their ability to endure crises and restore representational and service functions, is crucial for maintaining a healthy participatory democracy. Despite its importance, this phenomenon has been understudied, with limited research exploring how crises impact interest group activities. The broader political science disciplines of public administration and organizational studies have paid more attention to crisis dynamics, leaving a gap in understanding the intersection of crises and interest group politics. This research note argues that systematically examining interest group politics during crises can enhance established theoretical frameworks, such as disturbance theory, population ecology, and resource dependency. These perspectives can benefit from integrating insights into how crises, turbulence, and distress influence interest group operations and behaviors. Drawing on theories of crisis, turbulence, and urgency politics, the note explores how crises — defined as situations posing urgent threats to core values or functions under conditions of uncertainty — affect interest groups. It examines the various responses and coping strategies by these groups in the face of such challenges. The research further highlights the importance of linking crisis politics with interest group studies to better understand the factors shaping interest group systems and their role in representative democracies that are challenged by different internal and external shocks. This note addresses this gap by proposing a classification framework that distinguishes between policy, organizational, and reputational disturbances. By doing so, it contributes to understanding how civil society organizations respond to crises, manage instability, and navigate recovery or termination.