Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

studying preference attainment using spatial models

  • SYMPOSIUM
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interest group influence represents the Higgs boson of contemporary social research. Scholars have tried to define and measure influence for decades: tens of different definitions are used in the literature and as many methods to measure it can be found. The literature has recently converged towards an agreement on how to study interest group influence: preference attainment. The latter has monopolised the research in the literature in the last years. Yet, a discussion on what preference attainment is, what it does and what it does not is still missing in the literature. This works aims to fill this gap by providing a theoretical and methodological informed discussion on interest group influence and preference attainment. In so doing, I propose a novel method to apply preference attainment in an effective and efficient manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Klüver (2009) the initial policy output is the Commission proposal issued before the consultations with stakeholders and the final policy output is the adopted proposal. Similarly, in Bernhagen (2012) the initial policy output is the government policy proposal and the final one is the enacted legislation.

  2. The measure used in this section for the reference point is what Bernhagen et al (2014) term improvement to reversion point. Nonetheless, it should be noted that I build on that measure only to account for the distance between the actor’s position and the reference point, as their measure does not take into consideration the status quo.

  3. An example of an explicit a priori approach can be found in Klüver’s (2009) (see, for instance, Table 1 on p. 541).

  4. Another option is Item Response Theory (IRT), initially used to analyse surveys and questionnaires and then adopted in several other fields.

  5. Documents providing information for actors’ preferences and policy outcomes can be analysed through various methods, such as (manual or computer assisted) content analysis and discourse analysis.

  6. Future applications of this approach should consider individual interest groups and derive coalitions empirically with MDS and not assuming them a priori as done in this section. Furthermore, the positions of institutional actors, such as the EP and individual member states in this case, can also be included in the analysis, as done in the Resolving Controversy in the EU project (Thomson, 2011). Nonetheless, the simplicity of the analysis is functional to the illustrative purposes of this work.

  7. As mentioned above, it should be noted that in ex post methodologies the choice of factors (but not dimensions) is theoretically driven.

  8. It should be noted that the reference point would be much closer to the tobacco industry preferences if only the dimension ‘EU intervention’ was taken into consideration.

  9. This conclusion needs to be taken with caution. The analysis in this section is for illustrative purposes only and it does not take into considerations several important aspects of the case under analysis, such as the fact that the directive was blocked for 7 years in the Council.

References

  • Adamini, S., Versluis, E. and Maarse, H. (2011) ‘European policymaking on the tobacco advertising ban: The importance of escape routes’, Health Economics, Policy and Law 6(1): 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R., Jolly, S. and Polk, J. (2012) ‘Complexity in the European party space: Exploring dimensionality with experts’, European Union Politics 13(2): 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B.L. and Kimball, D.C. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2012) ‘The dimensionality of political space: Epistemological and methodological considerations’, European Union Politics 13(2): 194–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhagen, P. (2012) ‘Who gets what in British politics – and how? An analysis of media reports on lobbying around government policies, 2001–7’, Political Studies 60(3): 557–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhagen, P., Dür, A. and Marshall, D. (2014) ‘Measuring lobbying success spatially’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 2047–7414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitton, A., Neuman, M. and Glantz, S. (2002) ‘Tobacco industry: Attempts to subvert european union tobacco advertising legislation’, Tobacco Control Policy Making: International, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education: UC San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boessen, S. and Maarse, H. (2009) ‘A Ban on Tobacco Advertising: the Role of Interest Groups’, in D. Coen and J. Richardson (eds.) Lobbying in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brazill, T.J. and Grofman, B. (2002) ‘Factor analysis versus multi-dimensional scaling: Binary choice roll-call voting and the US supreme court’, Social Networks 24(3): 201–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945–1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunea, A. and Ibenskas, R. (2016, this issue of European Political Science) ‘Estimating interest groups’ policy positions through content analysis: A discussion of automated and human-coding text analysis techniques applied to studies of EU lobbying’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.15.

  • Cairney, P. (2009) ‘The role of ideas in policy transfer: The case of UK smoking bans since devolution’, Journal of European Public Policy 16(3): 471–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, P., Studlar, D.T. and Mamudu, H.M. (2012) Global Tobacco Control: Power, Policy, Governance and Transfer, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D. (2011) ‘Understanding process tracing’, PS: Political Science & Politics 44(4): 823–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., Brady, H.E. and Seawright, J. (2010a) ‘Outdated views of qualitative methods: Time to move on’, Political Analysis 18(4): 506–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, D., Brady, H.E. and Seawright, J. (2010b) ‘Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology’, in H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 229–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, H., Gilmore, A.B., Peeters, S., McKee, M. and Stuckler, D. (2014) ‘Quantifying the influence of tobacco industry on EU governance: Automated content analysis of the EU Tobacco Products Directive’, Tobacco Control 23(6): 473–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, C.E. and Marks, G. (2012) ‘The struggle over dimensionality: A note on theory and empirics’, European Union Politics 13(2): 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A. (2008a) ‘Bringing economic interests back into the study of EU trade policy-making’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 10(1): 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A. (2008b) ‘Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology’, European Union Politics 9(4): 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dür, A. (2012) ‘Conceptualizing and measuring interest group influence’, Kristiansand Summer School on Interest Group Politics Group influence on policy agenda’s and political outcomes; Kristiansand Summer School on Interest Group Politics Group influence on policy agenda’s and political outcomes; 17–26 July; Kristiansand, Norway.

  • Frankenberg, G. (2004) ‘Between Paternalism and Voluntarism: Tobacco Consumption and Tobacco Control in Germany’, in E.A. Feldman and R. Bayer (eds.) Unfiltered: Conflicts Over Tobacco Policy and Public Health, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 161–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, M.J. and Hix, S. (2002) ‘Defining the eu political space an empirical study of the european elections manifestos, 1979–1999’, Comparative Political Studies 35(8): 934–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, M.J. and Huber, J.D. (2000) ‘Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data’, American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2008) ‘The mechanismic worldview: Thinking inside the box’, British Journal of Political Science 38(1): 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. and Page, B.I. (2014) ‘Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens’, Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe, J.H. (2001) ‘Causation, statistics, and sociology’, European Sociological Review 17(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruning, T., Strunck, C. and Gilmore, A.B. (2008) ‘Puffing away? Explaining the politics of tobacco control in Germany’, German Politics 17(2): 140–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausermann, S. (2006) ‘Changing coalitions in social policy reforms: The politics of new social needs and demands’, Journal of European Social Policy 16(1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2006) ‘Dimensions of politics in the european parliament’, American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 494–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Wilson, C.J. (2002) ‘Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?,’, Comparative Political Studies 35(8): 965–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingemann, H.D. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H. (2009) ‘Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis’, European Union Politics 10(4): 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H. (2011) ‘The contextual nature of lobbying: Explaining lobbying success in the European Union’, European Union Politics 12(4): 483–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver, H. (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J.B. (1964) ‘Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis’, Psychometrika 29(1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S.M. and Rokkan, S. (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, C. (2007) ‘Lobbying success in the United States and the European union’, Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. (2010) ‘After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research’, World Politics 62(1): 120–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmor, T.R. and Lieberman, E.S. (2004) ‘Tobacco Control In Comparative Perspective: Eight Nations In Search Of An Explanation’, in E.A. Feldman and R. Bayer (eds.) Unfiltered: Conflicts Over Tobacco And Public Health, London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N., Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (2008) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, M., Bitton, A. and Glantz, S. (2002) ‘Tobacco industry strategies for influencing European Community tobacco advertising legislation’, The Lancet 359(9314): 1323–1330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K.T. and Rosenthal, H. (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K.T. (2005) Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, G.B. (1975) ‘An introduction to nonmetric multidimensional scaling’, American Journal of Political Science 19(2): 343–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studlar, D.T. (2010) ‘What explains the paradox of tobacco control policy under federalism in the U.S. and Canada? Comparative federalism theory versus multi-level governance’, Publius: The Journal of Federalism 40(3): 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studlar, D.T. (2007) ‘Ideas, institutions and diffusion: What explains tobacco control policy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand?,’, Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 45(2): 164–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studlar, D.T. (2009) ‘Tobacco control policy in Western Europe: A case of protracted paradigm change’, in G. Capano and M. Howlett (eds.) Policy Dynamics and Policy Drivers: European and North American Experiences of Policy Change, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, R. (2011) Resolving Controversy in the European Union: Legislative Decision-Making Before and After Enlargement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, R., Arregui, J., Leuffen, D., Costello, R., Cross, J., Hertz, R. and Jensen, T. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, R., Stokman, F.N., Achen, C.H. and König, T. (2006) The European Union Decides, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk, C. and Rose, J. (2015) ‘Risky business: Factor analysis of survey data – Assessing the probability of incorrect dimensionalisation’, PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voltolini, B. (2016, in this issue of European Political Science) ‘Framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: Case study and process tracing methods’, European Political Science, doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.18.

  • Weisberg, H.F. (1974) ‘Dimensionland: An excursion into spaces’, American Journal of Political Science 18(4): 743–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessels, B. (2004) ‘Contestation Potential of Interest Groups in the EU: Emergence, Structure, and Political Alliances’, in G. Marks and M.R. Steenbergen (eds.) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels, B. (2005) ‘Cleavages, Social Alliances, and the Structure of Interest Group Systems in Western Europe’, WZB Conference: Interest Groups, Policy and Economic Performance, WZB Conference: Interest Groups, Policy and Economic Performance, 5 November, Berlin: Free University of Berlin.

  • Yackee, J.W. and Yackee, S.W. (2006) ‘A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy’, The Journal of Politics 68(1): 128–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackee, S.W. (2004) ‘Sweet-talking the fourth branch: The influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackee, S.W. (2006) ‘Assessing inter-institutional attention to and influence on government regulations’, British Journal of Political Science 36(4): 723–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, University College London, The Rubin Building, 29/31 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9QU, UK

    matia vannoni

  2. Department of Political Science and Sociology, University of Salzburg, Rudolfskai 42, 5020, Salzburg, Austria

    andreas dür

Authors
  1. matia vannoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. andreas dür
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supplementary information accompanies this article on the European Political Science website (www.palgrave-journals.com/eps)

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

vannoni, m., dür, a. studying preference attainment using spatial models. Eur Polit Sci 16, 369–382 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.13

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.13

Keywords

Search

Navigation