Advertisement

Civil associations and interest groups in the policy-making process: pluralisation and generalisation of interests

  • Andreas Nordang UhreEmail author
  • Hilmar Rommetvedt
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Modern societies have become more fragmented, complex and dynamic, making broad coalitions and public support imperative to achieving lobbying success. Thus, civil associations (CAs) and interest groups increasingly need to frame their arguments in more generalised ways, appealing to the public interest and downplaying their constituencies’ immediate self-interest. Previous scholars have argued that framing is primarily a reflection of an interest group’s type and constituency, thus indicating that framing is a rather static phenomenon. This article argues to the contrary that CAs are dynamic and agile, at least in the long term, when facing structural changes in their political environment. The study is based on content analyses of Norwegian CAs’ written submissions to ministerial consultations in alcohol and drug policy-making processes at three points in time over the last four decades.

Keywords

Corporatism Pluralism Framing Arguing Civil society Policy-making Welfare policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2017 ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops and the 2018 Norwegian Political Science Conference. The authors would like to thank the discussants at these events, Theresa Gessler and Per Selle, for excellent and constructive comments. We would also like to thank the members of the Pluralisation, the Welfare State and Civil Associations research group, particularly Anne Skorkjær Binderkrantz, PerOla Öberg and Gunnar Thesen, for comments and support. Finally, we would like to thank the staff at the National Archives of Norway for their help with our data collection, as well as three anonymous reviewers for the truly extraordinary set of comments and suggestions they provided.

Funding

This study has been funded by the Research Council of Norway’s Welfare, Working Life, and Migration programme (VAM) under Grant number 236690.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andersen, M., and Lauritsen, J. 1990. Organisasjonsarkivet: Ei brukarrettleiing. NSD-rapport no. 86. Bergen: Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste.Google Scholar
  2. Armingeon, K. 2002. Interest Intermediation: The Cases of Consociational Democracy and Corporatism. In Comparative Democratic Politics. 1st ed, ed. H. Keman, 143–165. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Arnesen, D., Sivesind, K., and Gulbrandsen, T. 2016. Fra medlemsbaserte organisasjoner til koordinert frivillighet? Det norske organisasjonssamfunnet fra 1980 til 2013. Report 2016:5. Oslo: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F., S. De Boef, and A. Boydstun. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F., and C. Mahoney. 2008. The Two Faces of Framing. Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue Definition in the European Union. European Union Politics 9(3): 435–449.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116508093492.Google Scholar
  6. Binderkrantz, A., L. Chaqués Bonafont, and D. Halpin. 2017. Diversity in the News? A Study of Interest Groups in The Media in the UK, Spain, and Denmark. British Journal of Political Science 47(2): 313–328.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123415000599.Google Scholar
  7. Binderkrantz, A., P. Christiansen, and H. Pedersen. 2015. Interest Group Access to The Administration, Parliament and Media. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 28(1): 95–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12089.Google Scholar
  8. Boräng, F., and D. Naurin. 2015. “Try to See it My Way!” Frame Congruence Between Lobbyists and European Commission Officials. Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 499–515.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008555.Google Scholar
  9. Christiansen, P., A. Nørgaard, H. Rommetvedt, T. Svensson, G. Thesen, and P. Öberg. 2010. Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21(1): 22–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9105-0.Google Scholar
  10. De Bruycker, I. 2017. Framing and Advocacy: A Research Agenda for Interest Group Studies. Journal of European Public Policy 24(5): 499–515.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1149208.Google Scholar
  11. Elster, J. 1992. Arguing and Bargaining in the Federal Convention and the Assemblée Constituante. In: Rationality and Institutions, eds., R. Malnes and A. Underdal, 13–50. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  12. Entman, R. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.Google Scholar
  13. Frausen, B., and D. Halpin. 2017. How do Interest Groups Legitimate Their Policy Advocacy? Reconsidering Linkage and Internal Democracy in Times of Digital Disruption. Public Administration 96(1): 23–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12364.Google Scholar
  14. Klüver, H., C. Mahoney, and M. Opper. 2015. Framing in Context: How Interest Groups Employ Framing to Lobby the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 481–498.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008550.Google Scholar
  15. Lijphart, A., and Crepaz, M. 1991. Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages. British Journal of Political Science, 21(2): 235–246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/193877.
  16. Lundberg, E. 2012. Changing Balance: The Participation and Role of Voluntary Organisations in the Swedish Policy Process. Scandinavian Political Studies 35(4): 347–371.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00292.x.Google Scholar
  17. Lundberg, E. 2014. A Pluralist State? Civil Society Organizations’ Access to the Swedish Policy Process 19642009. Doctoral thesis. Örebro University.Google Scholar
  18. Ministry of Finance. 2003. Tilleggsbevilgninger og omprioriteringer i statsbudsjettet medregnet folketrygden 2003. St.prp. nr. 65 (2002–2003). Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/stprp-nr-65-2002-2003-/id138427/. Accessed 29 November 2017.
  19. Ministry of Health and Care Services. 1982. Om lov om fylkeskommunalt ansvar for alkoholistinstitusjonene m v. Ot.prp.42 (1982–83). Oslo: Ministry of Health and Care Services.Google Scholar
  20. Ministry of Health and Care Services. 2012. Se meg!alkoholnarkotikadoping. Meld. St. 30 (2011–2012). Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld-st-30-20112012/id686014/. Accessed 29 November 2017.
  21. Ministry of Justice. 2003. Forslag til særlov om forsøksordning med lokaler for intravenøs bruk av narkotika”sprøyterom”, samt utkast til forskrift om gjennomføring av forsøksordningen. Letter from the MOJ describing the public hearing, dated 10.12.2003.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 1972. Alkoholistomsorgenutbygging, administrasjon og finansiering. NOU 1972:17. Available at: https://www.nb.no/items/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2011053005027. Accessed 29 November 2017.
  23. Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 1981. Fylkeskommunalt ansvar for alkoholistomsorgen. NOU 1981:6. Available at: https://www.nb.no/items/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2012102306141. Accessed 30 November 2017.
  24. Öberg, P., T. Svensson, P. Christiansen, A. Nørgaard, H. Rommetvedt, and G. Thesen. 2011. Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capability in Scandinavia. Government and Opposition 46(3): 365–391.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2011.01343.x.Google Scholar
  25. Rokkan, S. 1966. Norway: Numerical Democracy and Corporate Pluralism. In Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. 1st ed, ed. R. Dahl, 70–115. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rommetvedt, H. 2005. Norway: Resources Count, But Votes Decide? From Neo-Corporatist Representation to Neo-Pluralist Parliamentarism. West European Politics 28(4): 740–763.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380500216674.Google Scholar
  27. Rommetvedt, H. 2017a. Scandinavian Corporatism in Decline. In The Nordic Models in Political Science. 1st ed, ed. O. Knutsen, 171–192. Fagbokforlaget: Bergen.Google Scholar
  28. Rommetvedt, H. 2017b. Politikkens Allmenngjøring. 3rd ed. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  29. Rommetvedt, H., G. Thesen, P. Christiansen, and A. Nørgaard. 2013. Coping with Corporatism in Decline and the Revival of Parliament. Comparative Political Studies 46(4): 457–485.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453712.Google Scholar
  30. Schattschneider, E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  31. Schmitter, P. 1979. Still the Century of Corporatism? In Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. 1st ed, ed. P. Schmitter and G. Lembruch, 7–51. London: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Siaroff, A. 1999. Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement. European Journal of Political Research 36(2): 175–205.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00467.Google Scholar
  33. Standing Committee on Finance. 2002. Innstilling fra finanskomiteen om Tilleggsbevilgninger og Omprioriteringer i Statsbudsjettet Medregnet Folketrygden for 2002. Innstilling S no. 255 (2001–2002). Available at: https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Innstillinger/Stortinget/2001-2002/inns-200102-255/. Accessed 29 November 2017.
  34. Standing Committee on Finance. 2003. Innstilling fra Finanskomiteen om Tilleggsbevilgninger og Omprioriteringer i Statsbudsjettet Medregnet Folketrygden 2003 og Enkelte Endringer i Statsbudsjettet for 2003 i Forbindelse med Trygdeoppgjøret mv. Innstilling S. nr. 260 (2002–2003). Available at: https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Innstillinger/Stortinget/2002-2003/inns-200203-260/. Accessed 30 November 2017.
  35. Standing Committee on Health and Care Services. 1984. Innstilling fra Sosialkomiteen om Lov om Fylkeskommunalt Ansvar for Alkoholistinstitusjonene m.v. Innstilling O. nr. 33 (1983–84). Oslo: Stortinget.Google Scholar
  36. Standing Committee on Justice. 2004. Innstilling til Odelstinget fra Justiskomiteen til Ot.prp. nr. 56 (20032004). Innst. O. nr. 104 (2003–2004). Available at: https://www.stortinget.no/Global/pdf/Innstillinger/Odelstinget/2003-2004/inno-200304-104.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2017.
  37. Stoltenberg Commission. 2010. Rapport om narkotika. Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/hod/rappomnarkotika_nettversjon.pdf. Accessed 7 December 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NORCE Norwegian Research Centre ASStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations