Sometimes ideological opposition to change combines itself conveniently with self-interest. Many of them feel unhappy with growth and progress, and claim that the new opportunities and choices they present are unnecessary and even counter-productive. At the root of some of this might lie a yearning for their own childhood when things were simpler and slower. They can be rallied to oppose modern agriculture, genetic modification, new buildings, new modes of transport and new lifestyle freedoms. There are many groups who would not accept the description as conservative, but which nonetheless oppose many of the trappings of the modern world. This is not necessarily because they oppose the content of the proposed reform, just that they oppose change itself. Those of a conservative disposition who feel unsettled by change might well be prevailed upon to oppose measures that threaten to upset the status quo and replace it with something unknown. Those committed ideologically to promoting equality might well oppose any measures which could allow some to prosper more than others and thus bring about greater disparity. There are, in addition, interest groups composed of those who share an ideological view and who are prepared to defend it against legislative changes that might run counter to it. A proposal to end academic tenure in the United States might open up many employment and promotion opportunities to young academics, but it would meet with determined opposition from organizations that represent those who either have tenure or who perceive themselves to be on the brink of securing it. It is also common to see interest groups lobby against proposed changes in public policy because they perceive a threat to the continued well-being of their members, or some undermining of advantages they currently enjoy. A large established firm can afford the cost of meeting regulatory requirements more readily than can a start-up would-be competitor. Much lobbying for new regulation is of this form, seeking to benefit current practitioners at the expense of new ones.

By limiting the numbers of competitors, it facilitates higher prices than would prevail otherwise. A proposal that hairdressers should licensed, and that only qualified ones should be allowed to practise their trade, is one that brings advantages to existing hairdressers at the expense of those who might otherwise enter that trade in the future. This often takes the form of rent-seeking, in which the aim is to use legislation to secure improvements for their members that would not be attained in its absence. Thirdly, it is sometimes the interest groups which take the lead in lobbying for legislative changes that will benefit their members. Some politicians have made a policy of assembling sufficient support from interest groups to build a majority, even though their support of some interest groups has adverse effects on others. All things being equal, they would rather have members of interest groups vote for them rather than against them. Some do this because those interest groups include numbers of their constituents whom the legislator wishes to represent properly, while others take account of the likely electoral impact. Secondly, the legislators who are to determine public policy will take account of how interest groups might respond to it. A proposal to open foreshore areas to ramblers will benefit those who might take advantage of their new-found rights, but might impact negatively on those who have previously enjoyed exclusive access. They consider the likely effect on the population as a whole, which is normally beneficial, but also consider any sub-groups of that population which might be adversely affected. Firstly, when legislation is being prepared, those drafting it consider the likely impact upon any specific and identifiable groups. Interest groups impact upon public policy in several ways.

Interest group politics definition