The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 461–484 | Cite as

Balancing friends and foes: Explaining advocacy styles at global diplomatic conferences

Article

Abstract

The growing attempts by non-state interests to influence global policy processes has attracted much scholarly interest in recent years. One important question thereby is what characterizes and explains the interactions of non-state advocates with policymakers. In order to clarify this matter, we analyse the advocacy strategies of non-state actors, more precisely whether and why they address opponents instead of more like-minded policymakers. For this purpose, we analyse evidence collected through 228 interviews with advocates who attended the WTO Ministerial Conferences (Geneva 2012) and the United Nations Climate Conferences (Durban 2011; Doha 2012). Our results show that transnational advocates predominantly target like-minded policymakers and that their activities are much less focused on their opponents. Variation in advocacy towards opponents or like-minded policymakers is explained by the alignment of non-state actors with policymakers, the salience of topics on the political agenda, group characteristics, and whether or not advocates hail from democratic countries.

Keywords

Transnational advocacy Lobbying WTO UNFCCC 

Supplementary material

11558_2016_9262_MOESM1_ESM.zip (248 kb)
ESM 1(ZIP 248 kb)

References

  1. Aaronson, S. A. (2001). Taking trade to the streets. The lost history of public efforts to shape globalisation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agné, H., Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2015). Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations? An empirical assessment of a normative theory. Review of International Organizations, 10(4), 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andonova, L. (2014). Boomerangs to partnerships? Explaining state participation in transnational partnerships for sustainability. Comparative Political Studies., 47(3), 481–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J. R. (1996). Theory and evidence for counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J. (1994). Counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, R. E., & Magee, C. S. (2000). Is trade policy for sale? Congressional voting on recent trade bill. Public Choice, 105(3), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, R. A., de Sola Pool, I., & Dexter, L. A. (1963). American business and public policy: the politics of foreign trade. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
  8. Beckfield, J. (2003). Inequality in the world polity: the structure of international organization. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., & Koubi, V. (2013). Is there a democracy–civil society paradox in global environmental governance? Global Environmental Politics, 13(1), 88–107.Google Scholar
  10. Bernhagen, P., & Bräuninger, T. (2005). Structural power and public policy: a signaling model of business lobbying in democratic capitalism. Political Studies, 53(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernhagen, P., Dür, A., & Marshall, D. (2015). Information or context: what accounts for positional proximity between the European Commission and lobbyists? Journal of European Public Policy, 22(4), 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2001). NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: a framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2008). NGO diplomacy: the influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bexell, M., Tallberg, J., & Uhlin, A. (2010). Democracy in global governance: the promises and pitfalls of transnational actors. Global Governance, 16(1), 81–101.Google Scholar
  15. Beyers, J., & Kerremans, B. (2007). The press coverage of trade issues. A comparative analysis of public agenda-setting and trade politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2008). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: much We study, little We know? West European Politics, 31(6), 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bloodgood, E. A. (2011). The interest group analogy: international non-governmental advocacy organizations in international politics. Review of International Studies, 37(1), 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bormann, N.-C., & Golder, M. (2013). Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946-2011. Electoral Studies, 32(1), 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: a comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burstein, P., & Linton, A. (2002). The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Social Forces, 81(2), 380–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burstein, P., & Sausner, S. (2005). The incidence and impact of policy-oriented collective action: competing views. Sociological Forum, 20(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Caldeira, G. A., Hojnacki, M., & Wright, J. R. (2000). The lobbying activities of organized interests in Federal Judicial Nominations. Journal of Politics, 62(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chalmers, A. (2013). Trading information for access: informational lobbying strategies and interest group access to the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conca, K. (2005). The hybridization of authority. In J. Barry & R. Eckersley (Eds.), The state and the global ecological crisis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Crombez, C. (2002). Information, lobbying and the legislative process in the European Union. European Union Politics, 3(1), 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dalton, R. J., Recchia, S., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). The environmental movement and the modes of political action. Comparative Political Studies, 36(7), 743–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis, C. L. (2004). International institutions and issue linkage: building support for agricultural trade liberalization. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (Eds.). (2005). Transnational protest and global activism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (2012). Interactive diffusion the coevolution of police and protest behavior with an application to transnational contention. Comparative Political Studies, 45(1), 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2015). The social legitimacy of international organizations: interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies, 41(3), 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisher, D. (2010). COP-15 in Copenhagen: how the merging of movements left civil society out in the cold. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Andresen, S. (2004). NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol: compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gullberg, A. T. (2008). Lobbying friends and foes in climate policy: the case of business and environmental interest groups in the EU. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2964–2972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haas, P. M., Keohane, R., & Levy, M. (1993). Institutions for the earth. Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hadden, J. (2015). Networks in contention. The divisive politics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. (2006). Lobbying as a legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Halpin, D. R. (2006). The participatory and democratic potential and practice of interest groups: between solidarity and representation. Public Administration, 84(4), 919–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanegraaff, M., Beyers, J., & Braun, C. (2011). Open the door to more of the same? The development of interest group representation at the WTO. World Trade Review, 10(4), 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hanegraaff, M. (2015). Transnational advocacy over time: business and NGO mobilization at UN climate summits. Global Environmental Politics, 15(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hanegraaff, M., Braun, C., De Bièvre, D., & Beyers, J. (2015). The domestic and global origins of transnational advocacy: explaining lobbying presence during WTO ministerial conferences. Comparative Political Studies, 48(12), 1591–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hanegraaff, M., Beyers, J., & De Bruycker, I. (2016a). Balancing inside and outside lobbying: the political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences. European Journal of Political Research. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12145.Google Scholar
  43. Hanegraaff, M., Poletti, A., & Beyers, J. (2016b). Explaining varying lobbying styles across the Atlantic an empirical test of the cultural and institutional explanations. Journal of Public Policy. doi:10.1017/S0143814X16000052.Google Scholar
  44. Hansen, J. M. (1991). Gaining access: congress and the farm lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hojnacki, M., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). Organized interest and the decision whom to lobby in congress. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 775–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hojnacki, M., & Kimball, D. C. (1999). The who and how of organizations lobbying strategies in committee. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 999–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holyoke, T. T. (2003). Choosing battlegrounds: interest group lobbying across multiple venues. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention. How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond Borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Keohane, R., & Levy, M. (Eds.) (1996). Institutions for environmental aid: pitfalls and promise. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kollman, K. (1997). Inviting friends to lobby: interest groups, ideological bias, and congressional committees. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 519–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lee, T. (2010). The rise of international nongovernmental organizations: a top-down or bottom-up explanation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(3), 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lijphart, A. (2009). Thinking about democracy: power sharing and majority rule in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Lipschutz, R., & Conca, K. (1993). The state and social power in global environmental politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Marshall, D. (2010). Who to lobby and when: institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament committees. European Union Politics, 11(4), 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin, L. (1994). Heterogeneity, linkage and commons problems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(4), 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Michaelowa, K., & Michaelowa, A. (2012). Negotiating climate change. Climate Policy, 12(5), 527–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J.-A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: multi-lateral economic institutions and global social movements. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poloni-Staudinger, L., & Ortbals, C. (2014). The domestic determinants of transnational activity: an examination of Women’s groups in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. International Studies Quarterly, 58(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (2010). Advocacy organizations and collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(2), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Risse, T. (2007). Transnational actors and world politics. Corporate ethics and corporate governance. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people. A Realist's view of democracy in America. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  65. Scholte, J. A. (2004). Civil society and democratically accountable global governance. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scholte, J. A. (2012). A more inclusive global governance? The IMF and civil society in Africa. Global Governance, 18(2), 185–206.Google Scholar
  67. Sell, S. K., & Prakash, A. (2004). Using ideas strategically: the contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly, 48(1), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith, J., & Wiest, D. (2005). The uneven geography of global civil society: national and global influences on transnational association. Social Forces, 84(2), 621–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (Eds.) (2007). Civil society participation in European and global governance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  70. Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: the strategies of independent policy institutes. Governance, 13(1), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., & Jönsson, C. (2014). Explaining the transnational Design of International Organizations. International Organization, 68(4), 741–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tallberg, J., Dellmuth, L. M., Agné, H., & Duit, A. (2015). NGO influence in international organizations: Information, access and exchange. British Journal of Political Science. Online first: September, 15, 2015.Google Scholar
  74. Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., & Squatrito, T. (2013). The opening up of international organizations: transnational access in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tarrow, S. (2001). Transnational politics: contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Young, O. (Ed.) (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Zajak, S. (2014). Pathways of transnational activism: A conceptual framework (No. 14/5). MPIfG Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  80. Zürn, M. (2014). The politicization of world politics and its effects: eight propositions. European Political Science Review, 6(1), 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations