European Political Science

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 322–336 | Cite as

studying policy advocacy through social network analysis

  • frédéric varone
  • karin ingold
  • charlotte jourdain
  • volker schneider
Symposium

Abstract

Social Network Analysis (SNA) conceptualizes a policy-making process as a network of actors. It can assess if an interest group (IGs) occupies a leading central position within this policy network, if it belongs to various ad hoc coalitions or if it plays a brokering role between different stakeholders. Such network variables are crucial to capture how IGs mobilize and gain access to policymakers, and to explain their goal achievements and potential policy influence as well. This article reviews recent studies applying the methodological tools of SNA. It then proposes an innovative research design to investigate how IGs seek to influence the course of a policy-making process across many institutional venues.

Keywords

interest group policy network advocacy strategy coalitions venues lobbying 

References

  1. Baumgartner, F. (2007) ‘EU Lobbying: A view from the US’, Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F. and Leech, B. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F., Berry, J., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. and Leech, B. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkhout, J. (2013) ‘Why interest organizations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 2(2): 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyers, J. (2008) ‘Policy issues, organisational format and the political strategies of interest organisations’, West European Politics 31(6): 1188–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. and Braun, C. (2013) ‘Ties that count. Explaining interest group access to policymakers’, Journal of Public Policy 34(1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyers, J. and Kerremans, B. (2012) ‘Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multilevel venue shopping in four EU member states’, Governance 25(2): 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binderkrantz, A. and Pedersen, H.H. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.17.Google Scholar
  9. Binderkrantz, A., Christiansen, P.M. and Pedersen, H.H. (2015) ‘Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament, and the media’, Governance 28(1): 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolleyer, N. and Börzel, T. (2010) ‘Non-hierarchical policy coordination in multilevel systems’, European Political Science Review 2(2): 57–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonacich, P. (1987) ‘Power and centrality: A family of measures’, American Journal of Sociology 92(5): 1170–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouwen, P. (2002) ‘Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access’, Journal of European Public Policy 9(3): 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Box-Steffensmeier, J. and Christenson, D. (2014) ‘The evolution and formation of amicus curiae networks’, Social Networks 36(0): 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Box-Steffensmeier, J., Christenson, D. and Hitt, M. (2013) ‘Quality over quantity: Amici influence and judicial decision making’, American Political Science Review 107(3): 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calanni, J.C., Siddiki, S., Weible, C. and Leach, M. (2015) ‘Explaining coordination in collaborative partnerships and clarifying the scope of the belief homophily hypothesis’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(3): 901–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carpenter, D., Esterling, K. and Lazer, D. (1998) ‘The strength of weak ties in lobbying networks’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Culpepper, P. (2011) Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eising, R. (2007) ‘The access of business interests to EU institutions: Towards elite pluralism’, Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 384–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eising, R. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Studying interest groups: Methodological challenges and tools’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.14.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer, M. (2014) ‘Coalition structures and policy change in a consensus democracy’, Policy Studies Journal 42(3): 344–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1998) ‘To lobby alone or in a flock: Foraging behavior among interest groups’, American Politics Quarterly 26(1): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halpin, D. and Binderkrantz, A. (2011) ‘Explaining breadth of policy engagement: Patterns of interest group mobilization in public policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 18(2): 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanneman, R. and Riddle, M. (2005) ‘Introduction to social network methods’, available at: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/, accessed 29 June 2015.
  24. Hansen, J. (1991) Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Henning, C.H. (2009) ‘Networks of power in the CAP system of the EU-15 and EU-27’, Journal of Public Policy 29(02): 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heaney, M. (2006) ‘Brokering health policy: Coalitions, parties, and interest group influence’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31(5): 887–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heaney, M. (2014) ‘Multiplex networks and interest group influence reputation: An exponential random graph model’, Social Networks 36(1): 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heaney, M. and Rojas, F. (2008) ‘Coalition dissolution, mobilization, and network dynamics in the American antiwar movement’, in G. Patrick and Coy (ed.) Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, Bingley: Emerald group publishing Volume 28, pp. 39–82.Google Scholar
  29. Heaney, M. and Rojas, F. (2011) ‘The partisan dynamics of contention: Demobilization of the antiwar movement in the United States, 2007–2009’, Mobilization 16(1): 45–64.Google Scholar
  30. Heaney, M. and Lorenz, G. (2013) ‘Coalitions portfolios and interest group influence over the policy process’, Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(3): 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henry, A. (2011) ‘Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks’, Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Henry, A.D., Lubell, M. and McCoy, M. (2011) ‘Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 39(3): 361–383.Google Scholar
  33. Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D., Baumgartner, F., Berry, J. and Leech, B. (2012) ‘Studying organizational advocacy and influence: Reexamining interest group research’, Annual Review of Political Science 15(9): 1–12.Google Scholar
  34. Holyoke, T. (2003) ‘Choosing battlegrounds: Interest groups Lobbying across multiple venues’, Political Research Quarterly 56(3): 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ibarra, H. (1993) ‘Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles’, The Academy of Management Journal 36(3): 471–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ingold, K. (2011) ‘Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy’, Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingold, K. and Varone, F. (2012) ‘Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(2): 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ingold, K., Varone, F. and Stokman, F. (2013) ‘A social network-based approach to assess de facto independence of regulatory agencies’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(10): 1464–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kenis, P. and Schneider, V. (1991) ‘Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing A New Analytical toolbox’, in B. Marin and R. Mayntz (eds.) Policy networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, Boulder, CO: Westview, pp. 25–59.Google Scholar
  40. Klijn, E. and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2000) ‘Public management and policy networks: Foundations of a network approach to governance’, Public Management 2(2): 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knoke, D., Pappi, F.U., Broadbent, J. and Tsujinaka, Y. (1996) Comparing Policy Networks. Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koger, G., Masket, S. and Noel, H. (2009) ‘Partisan webs: Information exchange and party networks’, British Journal of Political Science 39(3): 633–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Koger, G., Masket, S. and Noel, H. (2010) ‘Cooperative party factions in American politics’, American Politics Research 38(1): 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leifeld, P.H. and Schneider, V. (2012) ‘Information Exchange in Policy Networks’, American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowery, D. and Gray, V. (2004) ‘A neopluralist perspective on research on organized interests’, Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lubell, M. and Fulton, A. (2007) ‘Local policy networks and agricultural watershed management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 673–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mahoney, C. (2007) ‘Networking vs. allying: The decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU’, Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pappi, F. and Henning, C. (1998) ‘Policy networks: More than a metaphor?’ Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pappi, F. and Henning, C. (1999) ‘The organization of influence on the EC’s common agricultural policy: A network approach’, European Journal of Political Research 36(2): 257–281.Google Scholar
  51. Pedersen, H.H., Binderkrantz, A.S. and Christiansen, P.M. (2014) ‘Lobbying across arena: Interest group involvement in the legislative process in Denmark’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 9(2): 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pralle, S. (2006) Branching Out, Digging in: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sabatier, P.A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  54. Stokman, F. and van den Bos, J. (1992) ‘A Two-Stage Model of Policy Analysis with an Empirical Test in the U.S. Energy Policy Domain’, in G. Moore and J.A. Whitt (eds.) The Political Consequences of Social Networks. Research in Politics and Society, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 219–253.Google Scholar
  55. Vannoni, M. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Studying preference attainment using spatial models’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.13.Google Scholar
  56. Varone, F., Ingold, K. and Jourdain, C. (2016) ‘Defending the status quo across venues and coalitions: Evidence from California Interest Groups’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  57. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Method and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wright, J. (1996) Interest Groups and Congress: Lobbying, Contributions, and Influence, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • frédéric varone
    • 1
  • karin ingold
    • 2
  • charlotte jourdain
    • 1
  • volker schneider
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of GenevaGenèveSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Political Science, University of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Chair of Empirical Theory of the State, University of KonstanzFach D 81Germany

Personalised recommendations