All too often, research on the relationship between political parties and interest groups has followed different paths. In a research field dominated by multiple and disconnected approaches, an overview of where we stand and what we know is pertinent. This study reviews and assesses the empirical evidence brought forward through a systematic analysis of 182 studies on the topic. We address three key questions. What are the analytical and theoretical perspectives employed in this scholarship? What is the focus of the research? What are the research strategies used to assess party-group relations? We answer these questions by analyzing an original, built-for-purpose dataset providing information on the analytical frameworks, research designs, and focus employed in recent studies. The analysis shows that this field of research has grown significantly over the last decade and that multiple research strategies have been employed, with a predominance of qualitative and case study approaches. The findings also suggest that different conceptualizations of party-group relations have been adopted, while the American literature tends to adopt a distinct theoretical perspective from European studies. Finally, the analytical focus has privileged economic organizations, but it has moved progressively away from the study of organizational linkages.

对政党和利益集团之间关系的研究往往走不同的道路。在一个由多种且相互关联的方法主导的研究领域中，概述我们所处的位置和我们所知道的内容是相关的。本研究通过对 182 项关于该主题的研究的系统分析，回顾和评估了所提出的经验证据。我们解决三个关键问题。该奖学金采用了哪些分析和理论观点？研究的重点是什么？用于评估党群关系的研究策略是什么？我们通过分析一个原始的、为目的而构建的数据集来回答这些问题，该数据集提供了有关分析框架、研究设计和最近研究中采用的重点的信息。分析表明，该研究领域在过去十年中显着增长，并且采用了多种研究策略，主要是定性和案例研究方法。研究结果还表明，党派关系的不同概念已经被采用，而美国文学倾向于采用与欧洲研究截然不同的理论视角。最后，分析重点赋予经济组织特权，但它已逐渐远离对组织联系的研究。而美国文学倾向于采用与欧洲研究截然不同的理论视角。最后，分析重点赋予经济组织特权，但它已逐渐远离对组织联系的研究。而美国文学倾向于采用与欧洲研究截然不同的理论视角。最后，分析重点赋予经济组织特权，但它已逐渐远离对组织联系的研究。