Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 44–67 | Cite as

Behind success stories: goal attainment in global trade and climate negotiations

  • Kirsten LucasEmail author
Original Article


How successful are transnational advocates? If they are successful, is this due to their advocacy efforts or because of a favourable policy context? This paper examines the policy success of transnational advocates. In doing so, it focuses on the positions interest groups adopt, the strategies they develop, and how these interact with the context of specific policy issues. Based on 467 interviews with non-state actors who were involved in 17 transnational policy issues in the fields of international climate change and trade policy, I assess the success of individual advocates by comparing the final policy outcome of each issue with the advocated policy positions. The findings demonstrate that it is not so much the strategies that lobbyists develop that explain success at global diplomatic conferences, but rather the degree of preferred policy change and whether these demands for change are endorsed by the groups’ national governments.


Transnational advocacy Policy success Non-state actors International diplomatic conferences UNFCCC WTO 



Funding was provided by European Research Council (Grant No. 2013-CoG 616702-iBias).

Supplementary material

41309_2018_38_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 34 kb)


  1. Barry, B. 1980a. Is it better to be powerful or lucky? Part 1. Political Studies 28: 183–194.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, B. 1980b. Is it better to be powerful or lucky? Part 2. Political Studies 28: 338–352.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, C.M., S.R. Bell, K.C. Clay, et al. 2015. Choosing the best house in a bad neighborhood: Location strategies of human rights INGOs in the Non-Western World. International Studies Quarterly 59(1): 86–98.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F.R., and B.L. Leech. 2001. Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. The Journal of Politics 63(4): 1191–1213.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F.R., J.M. Berry, M. Hojnacki, et al. 2009. Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bernauer, T., T. Boehmelt, and V. Koubi. 2013. The democracy: Civil society paradox in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 13(1): 88.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, J.M. 1977. Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berry, J.M. 1989. The interest group society. Boston: Scott, Foresman/Little Brown.Google Scholar
  9. Betsill, M.M., and E. Corell. 2001. NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics 1(4): 65–86.Google Scholar
  10. Beyers, J. 2004. Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.Google Scholar
  11. Beyers, J., and M. Hanegraaff. 2017. Balancing friends and foes: Explaining advocacy styles at global diplomatic conferences. Review of International Organizations 12(3): 461–484.Google Scholar
  12. Beyers, J., and B. Kerremans. 2012. Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multilevel venue shopping in four EU member states. Governance 25(2): 263–290.Google Scholar
  13. Beyers, J., R. Eising, and W. Maloney. 2008. Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics 31(6): 1103–1128.Google Scholar
  14. Binderkrantz, A. 2005. Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies 53(4): 694–715.Google Scholar
  15. Binderkrantz, A.S., and H.H. Pedersen. 2015. A tale of two worlds ? The political success of citizen groups and economic groups.Google Scholar
  16. Binderkrantz, A.S., P.M. Christiansen, and H.H. Pedersen. 2014. A privileged position? The influence of business interests in government consultations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(4): 879–896.Google Scholar
  17. Björkbom, L. 1999. Negotiations over transboundary air pollution: The case of Europe. International Negotiation 4(3): 389–411.Google Scholar
  18. Bunea, A. 2013. Issues, preferences and ties: Determinants of interest groups’ preference attainment in the EU environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy 20(4): 552–570.Google Scholar
  19. Burstein, P. 2014. American public opinion, advocacy and policy in congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Carpenter, R.C. 2007. Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly 51(1): 99–120.Google Scholar
  21. Chalmers, A.W. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Corell, E., and M.M. Betsill. 2001. A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental Politics 1(4): 86–107.Google Scholar
  23. Della Porta, D., and M. Diani. 2006. Social movements: An introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Dellmuth, L.M., and J. Tallberg. 2017. Advocacy strategies in global governance: Inside versus outside lobbying. Political Studies 65(3): 705–723.Google Scholar
  25. Dür, A. 2008. Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics 9(4): 559–576.Google Scholar
  26. Dür, A., and D. De Bièvre. 2007. Inclusion without influence? NGOs in European trade policy. Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 79–101.Google Scholar
  27. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2013. Gaining access or going public? Interest group strategies in five European countries. European Journal of Political Research 52(5): 660–686.Google Scholar
  28. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2014. The Europeanization of interest groups: Group type, resources and policy area. European Union Politics 15(4): 572–594.Google Scholar
  29. Dür, A., P. Bernhagen, and D. Marshall. 2015. Interest group success in the European Union: When (and why) does business lose? Comparative Political Studies 48(8): 951–983.Google Scholar
  30. Eising, R. 2007. Institutional context, organizational resources and strategic choices: Explaining interest group access in the European Union. European Union Politics 8(3): 329–362.Google Scholar
  31. Evans, P.B., H.K. Jacobson, and R.D. Putnam. (eds). 1993. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Frieden, J.A. 1999. Actors and preferences in international relations. In Strategic Choice and International Relations, ed. D. Lake and R. Powell, 39–76.Google Scholar
  33. Gareau, B.J. 2012. The limited influence of global civil society: International environmental non-governmental organisations and the Methyl Bromide Controversy in the Montreal Protocol. Environmental Politics 21(1): 88–107.Google Scholar
  34. Guiraudon, V. 2000. European integration and migration policy: Vertical policy-making as venue shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies 38(2): 251–271.Google Scholar
  35. Hadden, J. 2015. Networks in contention: The divisive politics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hall, R.L., and A.V. Deardorff. 2006. Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review 100(1): 69–84.Google Scholar
  37. Hanegraaff, M. 2014. All the world’s a stage: interest group politics at WTO and UNFCCC negotiation conferences. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  38. Hanegraaff, M. 2015. Transnational advocacy over time: Business and NGO mobilization at UN climate summits. Global Environmental Politics 15(1): 83–104.Google Scholar
  39. Hanegraaff, M., and A. Poletti. 2017. The stakeholder model paradox: How the globalisation of politics fuels domestic advocacy. Review of International Studies 44(2): 367–391.Google Scholar
  40. Hanegraaff, M., J. Beyers, and C. Braun. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Hanegraaff, M., C. Braun, D. De Bièvre, et al. 2015. The domestic and global origins of transnational advocacy: Explaining lobbying presence during WTO ministerial conferences. Comparative Political Studies 48(12): 1591–1621.Google Scholar
  42. Hanegraaff, M., J. Beyers, and I. De Bruycker. 2016. Balancing inside and outside lobbying: The political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences. European Journal of Political Research 55(3): 568–588.Google Scholar
  43. Heaney, M.T. 2006. Brokering health policy: Coalitions, parties, and interest group influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31(5): 887–944.Google Scholar
  44. Helboe Pedersen, H. 2013. Is measuring interest group influence a mission impossible? The case of interest group influence in the Danish parliament. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(1): 27–47.Google Scholar
  45. Hojnacki, M. 1997. Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 61–87.Google Scholar
  46. Hojnacki, M., and D.C. Kimball. 1999. The who and how of organizations’ lobbying strategies in committee. The Journal of Politics 61(4): 999–1024.Google Scholar
  47. Jinnah, S. 2011. Climate change bandwagoning: The impacts of strategic linkages on regime design, maintenance, and death. Global Environmental Politics 11(3): 1–9.Google Scholar
  48. Jönsson, C., and J. Tallberg (eds.). 2010. Transnational actors in global governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. Kaufman, J. 2012. China’s evolving AIDS policy: The influence of global norms and transnational non-governmental organizations. Contemporary Politics 18(2): 225–238.Google Scholar
  50. Kaunert, C., and S. Léonard. 2012. The development of the EU asylum policy: Venue-shopping in perspective. Journal of European Public Policy 19(9): 1396–1413.Google Scholar
  51. Keck, M.E., and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Keck, M.E., and K. Sikkink. 1999. Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal 51(159): 89–101.Google Scholar
  53. Kemfert, C. 2004. Climate coalitions and international trade: Assessment of cooperation incentives by issue linkage. Energy Policy 32(4): 455–465.Google Scholar
  54. Klüver, H. 2009. Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics 10(4): 535–549.Google Scholar
  55. Klüver, H. 2011. The contextual nature of lobbying: Explaining lobbying success in the European Union. European Union Politics 12(4): 483–506.Google Scholar
  56. Klüver, H. 2013. Lobbying as a collective enterprise: Winners and losers of policy formulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 59–76.Google Scholar
  57. Kohler-Koch, B. 1997. Organized interests in the EC and the European parliament. European Integration Online Papers 1(9): 1–27.Google Scholar
  58. Kollman, K. 1998. Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kriesi, H., A. Tresch, and M. Jochum. 2007. Going public in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 40(1): 48–73.Google Scholar
  60. Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The science of "Muddling Through". Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.Google Scholar
  61. Lowery, D. 2007. Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity 39(1): 29–54.Google Scholar
  62. Lowery, D. 2013. Lobbying influence: Meaning, measurement and missing. Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
  63. Lowery, D., and V. Gray. 2004. Bias in the heavenly chorus: Interests in society and before government. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(1): 5–30.Google Scholar
  64. Mahoney, C. 2007. Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 35–56.Google Scholar
  65. Mahoney, C., and F.R. Baumgartner. 2015. Partners in advocacy: Lobbyists and government officials in Washington. The Journal of Politics 77(1): 202–215.Google Scholar
  66. Mckay, A., and S. Webb Yackee. 2007. Interest group competition on federal agency rules. American Politics Research 35(3): 336–357.Google Scholar
  67. Mendelsohn, R., A. Dinar, and L. Williams. 2006. The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Environment and Development Economics 11(2): 159–178.Google Scholar
  68. Murdie, A., and D. Peksen. 2015. Women’s rights INGO shaming and the government respect for women’s rights. Review of International Organizations 10(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  69. O’Brien, R., A.M. Goetz, and J.A. Scholte, et al. 2000. Contesting Global Governance: multilateralism and global social movements. In Contesting global governance: Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  70. Pallas, C.L., and A. Uhlin. 2014. Civil society influence on international organisations: Theorizing the state channel. Journal of Civil Society 10(2): 184–203.Google Scholar
  71. Paterson, M. 1996. Global warming and global politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Poloni-Staudinger, L.M. 2008. The domestic opportunity structure and supranational activity: An explanation of environmental group activity at the European union level. European Union Politics 9(4): 531–558.Google Scholar
  73. Pralle, S.B. 2006. Timing and sequence in agenda-setting and policy change: A comparative study of lawn care pesticide politics in Canada and the US. Journal of European Public Policy 13(7): 987–1005.Google Scholar
  74. Putnam, R.D. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42(3): 427–460.Google Scholar
  75. Rahman, A., and A. Roncerel. 1994. A view from the ground up. In Negotiating climate change: The inside story of the Rio convention, ed. I.M. Mintzer and J.A. Leonard, 239–273.Google Scholar
  76. Risse, T. 2002. Transnational actors and world Politics. In Handbook of international relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B.A. Simmon, 255–274.Google Scholar
  77. Risse, T. 2012. Transnational actors and world politics. In Handbook of International Relations, W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B.A. Simmons. 2nd edn. 426–452.Google Scholar
  78. Schattschneider, E.E. 1975. The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in america. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schmitter, P.C. and W. Streeck. 1999. The organization of business interests. Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. MPifG Discussion Paper 99(1): 1–95.Google Scholar
  80. Scholte, J.A. 1999. Global civil society: Changing the world? CSGR Working Paper 31: 1–35.Google Scholar
  81. Sell, S.K., and A. Prakash. 2004. Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly 48(1): 143–175.Google Scholar
  82. Skodvin, T., and S. Andresen. 2004. Nonstate Influence in the International Whaling Commission, 1970–1990. Global Environmental Politics 3(4): 61–86.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, J., and D. Wiest. 2005. The uneven geography of global civil society: National and global influences on transnational association. Social Forces 84(2): 621–651.Google Scholar
  84. Smith, M. 2000. American business and political power: Public opinion, elections and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Steinberg, R.H. 2002. In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization 56(2): 339–374.Google Scholar
  86. Stroup, S.S., and W.H. Wong. 2017. The authority trap—strategic choices of international NGOs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Tallberg, J., T. Sommerer, T. Squatrito, et al. 2014. Explaining the transnational design of international organizations. International Organization 68(4): 741–774.Google Scholar
  88. Tallberg, J., L.M. Dellmuth, H. Agné, et al. 2018. NGO influence in international organizations: Information, access and exchange. British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 213–238.Google Scholar
  89. Tarrow, S. 2001. Transnational politics: Contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  90. Tresch, A., and M. Fischer. 2015. In search of political influence: Outside lobbying behaviour and media coverage of social movements, interest groups and political parties in six Western European countries. International Political Science Review 36(4): 355–372.Google Scholar
  91. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Uhre, A.N. 2014. Exploring the diversity of transnational actors in global environmental governance. Interest Groups and Advocacy 3(1): 59–78.Google Scholar
  93. Varone, F., K. Ingold, and C. Jourdain. 2017. Defending the status quo across venues and coalitions: Evidence from California interest groups. Journal of Public Policy 37(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
  94. Vormedal, I. 2008. The influence of business and industry NGOs in the negotiation of the kyoto mechanisms: The case of carbon capture and storage in the CDM. Global Environmental Politics 8(4): 36–65.Google Scholar
  95. Weiler, F., and M. Brändli. 2015. Inside versus outside lobbying: How the institutional framework shapes the lobbying behaviour of interest groups. European Journal of Political Research 54(4): 745–766.Google Scholar
  96. Woll, C. 2007. Leading the dance? Power and political resources of business lobbyists. Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 57–78.Google Scholar
  97. World Bank 2016. GDP in current US dollars. Accessed 20 August 2018.
  98. Wright, B. 2000. Environmental NGOs and the Dolphin-Tuna Case. Environmental Politics 9(4): 82–103.Google Scholar
  99. Zahrnt, V. 2008. Domestic constituents and the formulation of WTO negotiating positions: what the delegates say. World Trade Review 7(2): 393–421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations