Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 55–69 | Cite as

Interest groups in multiple streams: specifying their involvement in the framework

  • Patrycja Rozbicka
  • Florian Spohr
Research Article

Abstract

Although interests inhabit a central place in the multiple streams framework (MSF), interest groups have played only a minor role in theoretical and empirical studies until now. In Kingdon’s original conception, organized interests are a key variable in the politics stream. Revisiting Kingdon’s concept with a particular focus on interest groups and their activities—in different streams and at various levels—in the policy process, we take this argument further. In particular, we argue that specifying groups’ roles in other streams adds value to the explanatory power of the framework. To do this, we look at how interest groups affect problems, policies, and politics. The influence of interest groups within the streams is explained by linking the MSF with literature on interest intermediation. We show that depending on the number of conditions and their activity level, interest groups can be involved in all three streams. We illustrate this in case studies reviewing labor market policies in Germany and chemicals regulation at the European level.

Keywords

Chemicals regulation European Union Germany Interest groups Labor market Multiple streams 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Nikolaos Zahariadis and the participants of the “Ambiguity and Public Policy” Workshop, at the Department of Government, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA, November 14–15, 2014. We are also thankful to Tom Birkland, Laura Carsten-Mahrenbach, Hanno Hahn, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2001). Lobbying together: Interest group coalitions in legislative politics. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 475–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendel, P. (2006). Migrations- und Integrationspolitik der Europäischen Union: Widersprüchliche Trends und ihre Hintergründe. In S. Baringhorst, U. Hunger, & K. Schönwälder (Eds.), Politische Steuerung von Integrationsprozessen. Intentionen und Wirkungen (pp. 95–120). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyers, J. (2002). Gaining and seeking access: The European adaptation of domestic interest associations. European Journal of Public Research, 41(5), 585–612.Google Scholar
  5. Binderkrantz, A. (2005). Interest groups strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boscarino, J. E. (2009). Surfing for problems: Advocacy groups strategy in U.S. Forestry Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of Business Lobbying in the EU Institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouwen, P., & McCown, M. (2007). Lobbying versus litigation: Political and legal strategies of interest representation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 422–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bundgaard, U., & Vrangbæk, K. (2007). Reform by coincidence? Explaining the policy process of structural reform in Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(4), 491–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CEC. (2001). White Paper: Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy. COM (2001) 88 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. CEC. (2003). Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (Reach), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC). Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. CEC. (2007). REAH, Directorate General Environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm, last accessed 20/05/2011.
  14. Chalmers, A. W. (2011). Interests, influence and information: Comparing the influence of interest groups in the European Union. Journal of European Integration, 33(4), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christiansen, P. M., Nørgaard, A., Rommetvedt, H., Svensson, T., Thesen, G., Öberg, P. (2010). Varieties of democracy: Interest groups and corporatist committees in Scandinavian policy making, In: Voluntas, 21, pp 22–40.Google Scholar
  16. Coen, D. (1997). The evolution of the large firm as a political actor in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox, R. H. (2001). The social construction of an imperative. Why welfare reform happened in denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany. World Politics, 53(3), 463–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cram, L. (2001). Integration theory and the study of the European policy process. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 51–73). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Czada, R. (2003). Konzertierung in verhandlungsdemokratischen Politikstrukturen. In S. Jochem & N. Siegel (Eds.), Konzertierung, Verhandlungsdemokratie und Reformpolitik im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Das Modell Deutschland im Vergleich (pp. 35–69). Leske: Opladen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daviter, F. (2011). Policy framing in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. EC. (2004). Council of the European Union Ad hoc Working Party on chemicals. Outcome of Proceedings, 24 May 2004 9445/04.Google Scholar
  22. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe. EU Harmonization and Soft Law in the Member States. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fels, G., Heinze, R. G., Pfarr, H., Streeck, W. (1999). Bericht der Wissenschaftlergruppe der Arbeitsgruppe Benchmarking über Möglichkeiten zur Verbesserung der Beschäftigungschancen gering qualifizierter Arbeitnehmer, Bundesregierung.Google Scholar
  24. FoEE. (17/10/2006). EU Commission in Bed with Business. Press Release. http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_17_Oct_UNICE_bed_action.htm Accessed 26 March 2014.
  25. Greenwood, J. (1997). Representing interest in the European Union. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenwood, J. (2007). Interest representation in the European Union (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartz, P. et al. (2002). Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt. Vorschläge der Kommission zum Abbau der Arbeitslosigkeit und zur Umstrukturierung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.Google Scholar
  29. Heinze, R. G. (2006). Wandel wider Willen. Deutschland auf der Suche nach neuer Prosperität. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  30. Jochem, S. (2009). Skandinavische Beschäftigungspolitik—Stärken und Schwächen im internationalen Vergleich. WSI Mitteilungen, 1(2009), 3–9.Google Scholar
  31. Jordan, G. (1990). The pluralism of pluralism: An anti-theory? Political Studies, 38(2), 286–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston/Toronto: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Kjær, A. M. (2007). Rationality within REACH? On Functional Differentiation as the Structural Foundation of Legitimacy in European Chemical Regulation, EUI Working Papers.Google Scholar
  34. Knaggård, Å. (2015). The multiple streams framework and the problem broker. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knill, C., & Liefferink, D. (2007). Environmental politics in the European Union: Policy-making, implementation and patterns of multi-level governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kohler-Koch, B. (1994). Changing patterns of interest intermediation in the European Union. Government and Opposition, 29(2), 166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Korpi, W. (1983). The democratic class struggle. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Kresi, H., Adam, S., & Jochum, M. (2006). Comparative analysis of policy networks in Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(3), 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lowery, D., Poppelaars, C., & Berkhout, J. (2008). The European Union interest system in comparative perspective: A bridge too far? West European Politics, 31(6), 1231–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lucas, J. W. (2003). Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity. Sociological Theory, 21(3), 236–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Margossian, N. (2007). Le Reglement REACH. La reglementation europeene sur les produits chimiques. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  42. Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multi-level governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny & G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The State of the European Community (pp. 391–409). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  43. Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Blank, K. (1996). European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(3), 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2007). Environmental Groups and the EC: Challenges and opportunities. In A. Jordan (Ed.), Environmental Policy in the European Union. Actors, institutions & processes (pp. 106–124). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. Nagel, A. (2009). Politische Entrepreneure als Reformmotor im Gesundheitswesen: Eine Fallstudie zur Einführung eines neuen Steuerungsinstruments im Politikfeld Psychotherapie. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nedlund, A.-C., & Garpenby, P. (2014). Puzzling about problems: The ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy for handing influx of health technology. Policy Sciences, 47(4), 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Öberg, P., et al. (2011). Disrupted exchange and declining corporatism: Government authority and interest groups capability in Scandinavia. Government and Opposition, 46(3), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patzwaldt, K. (2007). Was leistete Politikberatung in den rot-grünen Arbeitsmarktreformen? In K. D. Wolf (Ed.), Staat und Gesellschaft – fähig zur Reform? (pp. 211–228). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  49. Pesendorfer, D. (2006). EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals Policy Change Between Antagonistic Goals? Environmental Politics, 15(1), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peters, G. (2001). Agenda setting the European Union. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union Power and Policymaking (pp. 77–94). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Pijnenburg, B. (1998). EU lobbying by ad hoc coalitions: An exploratory case study. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(2), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pollack, M. A. (2005). Theorizing EU policy-making. In W. Wallace & M. A. Pollack (Eds.), Policy-Making in the European Union (pp. 13–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Quittkat, Ch., & Kotzian, P. (2011). Lobbying via consultation—Territorial and functional interests in the commission’s consultation regime. Journal of European Integration, 33(4), 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Radaelli, C. M. (1999). Harmful tax competition in the EU: Policy narratives and advocacy coalitions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(4), 661–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rehder, B. (2009). Interessenvermittlung in Politikfeldern—ein vergleichendes Fazit 267. In B. Rehder, T. Winter, & U. Willems (Eds.), Interessenvermittlung in Politikfeldern Vergleichende Befunde der Policy- und Verbändeforschung (pp. 267–273). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rhodes, R. A. W., & Marsh, D. (1992). New directions in the study of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rietig, K. (2014). Neutral experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sciences, 47(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozbicka, P. (2013). Advocacy coalitions: Influencing the policy process in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 838–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rüb, F. W. (2009). Multiple-Streams-Ansatz: Grundlagen, Probleme und Kritik. In K. Schubert & N. C. Bandelow (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse 2.0 (pp. 348–376). München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  60. Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The Semisovereign people. A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  62. Schlager, E. (2007). A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 293–319). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  63. Schmid, G. (2003). Gestaltung des Wandels durch wissenschaftliche Beratung. Das ‚Bündnis für Arbeit’ und die ‚Hartz-Kommission. In S. Ramge & G. Schmid (Eds.), Management of Change in der Politik? Reformstrategien am Beispiel der Arbeitsmarkt- und Beschäftigungspolitik. Waxmann: Münster.Google Scholar
  64. Schmitter, P. C. (1989). Corporatism is dead! Long live corporatism! Government and Opposition, 24(1), 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schorling, I. (2004). REACH. The only planet guide to the secrets of chemicals policy in the EU. What happened and why?, Brussels, 2004.Google Scholar
  66. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  67. Spohr, F. (2015). Pfadwechsel in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Eine Analyse aktivierender Reformen in Großbritannien Deutschland und Schweden anhand des Multiple Streams Ansatzes. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  68. Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  69. Streeck, W. (2003). No longer the century of corporatism. Das Ende des “Bündnisses für Arbeit“, MPIfG Working Paper 03/4.Google Scholar
  70. Tiernan, A., & Burke, T. (2002). A load of old garbage: Applying Garbage-can theory to contemporary housing policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(3), 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Trampusch, Ch. (2003). Von Verbänden zu Parteien. Der Elitenwechsel in der Sozialpolitik, MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/3, Köln: MPIfG.Google Scholar
  72. Truman, D. B. (1951). The Governmental process. Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  73. Warleigh, A. (2000). The hustle: Citizenship practice, NGOs and policy coalitions in the European Union—the cases of auto oil, drinking water and unit pricing. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(2), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weible, C. M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P., & Sabatier, P. A. (2012). Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wonka, A. (2008). Europeanized convergence? British and German business associations’ European lobbying strategies in the formulation of REACH. In R. Grote, A. Lang, & V. Schneider (Eds.), Organised business interests in changing environments (pp. 179–199). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  76. Zahariadis, N. (1999). Ambiguity, time, and multiple streams. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 73–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy-process (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  78. Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and multiple streams. In P. Sabatier & Ch M Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 25–58). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Languages and Social SciencesAston UniversityAston Triangle, BirminghamEngland, UK
  2. 2.Faculty of Social SciencesRuhr University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations