Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 202–218 | Cite as

Measuring lobbying success spatially

  • Patrick Bernhagen
  • Andreas Dür
  • David Marshall
Original Article

Abstract

The measurement of the political success of organized interests continues to be among the thornier tasks faced by political scientists. The methodological challenges include determining the preferences of key actors and the extent to which these are satisfied by the policy outcome. We examine how interest group success has been measured in the literature and develop an alternative, spatial approach to measuring lobbying success. We present and compare different spatial measures of success using simulations and new data from the INTEREURO project. We demonstrate that the choice of measurement has implications for the findings generated by studies of interest group success. Assessments of success differ according to whether or not they consider a reversion point. However, different modes of incorporating the reversion point lead to largely similar findings.

Keywords

interest groups INTEREURO European Union interest group influence lobbying success spatial analysis 

References

  1. Baron, D.P. (2006) Competitive lobbying and supermajorities in a majority-rule institution. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 108 (4): 607–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, F.R. and Leech, B.L. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoit, K. (2005) How qualitative research really counts. Qualitative Methods Newsletter 3 (1): 9–12.Google Scholar
  5. Bernhagen, P. (2012) Who gets what in British politics – and how? Analyzing media reports on lobbying around government policy, 2001–2007. Political Studies 60 (3): 557–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. et al (2014a) The INTEREURO project: Logic and structure. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyers, J., Dür, A., Marshall, D. and Wonka, A. (2014b) Policy-centred sampling in interest group research: Lessons from the INTEREURO project. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyers, J., Braun, C., De Bruycker, I. and Marshall, D. (2014c) Let’s talk! On the practice and method of interviewing policy experts. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 174–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bouwen, P. (2009) The European commission. In: D. Coen and J. Richardson (eds.) Lobbying the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  10. Bueno de Mesquita, B. and Stokman, F.N. (eds.) (1994) European Community Decision Making: Models, Applications and Comparisons. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crombez, C. (2002) Information, lobbying and the legislative process in the European Union. European Union Politics 3 (1): 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahl, R.A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowding, K. (1996) Power. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dür, A. (2008a) Interest groups in the European Union: How powerful are they? West European Politics 31 (6): 1212–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dür, A. (2008b) Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics 9 (4): 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edgell, J.M. and Thomson, K.J. (1999) The influence of UK NGOs on the common agricultural policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (1): 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Golub, J. (2012) How the European Union does not work: National bargaining success in the Council of Ministers. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (9): 1294–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., Nelson, R.L. and Salisbury, R.H. (1993) The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hinich, M.J. and Enelow, J.M. (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jordan, G., Halpin, D. and Maloney, W. (2004) Defining interests: Disambiguation and the need for new distinctions. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (2): 195–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Junge, D. and König, T. (2007) What’s wrong with EU spatial analysis? The accuracy and robustness of empirical applications to the interpretation of the legislative process and the specification of preferences. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (4): 465–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klüver, H. (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. König, T., Lindburg, B., Lechner, S. and Pohlmeier, W. (2007) Bicameral conflict resolution in the European Union: An empirical analysis of conciliation committee bargains. British Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. König, T. and Bräuninger, T. (1998) The formation of policy networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10 (4): 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loomis, B.A. and Cigler, A.J. (1995) Introduction: The changing nature of interest group politics. In: A.J. Cigler and B.A. Loomis (eds.) Interest Group Politics. Washington DC: CQ Press, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  26. Lowery, D. and Gray, V. (1995) The population ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the natural regulation of interest group numbers in the American states. American Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowery, D. (2013) Lobbying influence: Meaning, measurement and missing. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacCallum, R.C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K.J. and Rucker, D.D. (2002) On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods 7 (1): 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 27 (1): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKay, A. (2012) Buying policy? The effects of lobbyists’ resources on their policy success. Political Research Quarterly 65 (4): 908–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S.E. (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomson, R. (2011) Resolving Controversy in the European Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomson, R., Stokman, F.N., Achen, C.H. and König, T. (2006) The European Union decides. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomson, R. et al (2012) A new dataset on decision-making in the European Union before and after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements (DEUII). Journal of European Public Policy 19 (4): 604–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verschuren, P. and Arts, B. (2004) Quantifying influence in complex decision making by means of paired comparisons. Quality & Quantity 38 (5): 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Victor, J. (2012) Gridlock lobbying: Breaking, creating, and maintaining legislative stalemate. In: A.J. Cigler and B. Loomis (eds.) Interest Group Politics, 8th edn. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ward, H. (2004) Pressure politics: A game-theoretical investigation of lobbying and the measurement of power. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16 (1): 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber, M. (1978[1922]) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. Whiteley, P.F. and Wingard, S.J. (1987) Pressure for the Poor: The Poverty Lobby and Policy Making. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Bernhagen
    • 1
  • Andreas Dür
    • 2
  • David Marshall
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Social Sciences, University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Department of Political Science and SociologyUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  3. 3.Department of Political Science and SociologyUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations