Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 141–164 | Cite as

Interest groups and policymaking: Evidence from Chile, 2006–2014

  • Ricardo GamboaEmail author
  • Carolina Segovia
  • Octavio Avendaño
Original Article

Abstract

This article focuses on two research questions: Which interest groups (IGs) participate in the Chilean legislative process? How successful are the different types of IGs in getting what they want from legislative decisions? On the basis of the main findings of academic research on IGs, we identified three hypotheses about their participation and success in the decision making process. In order to test them, we created a database consisting of 571 bills that had passed through the Chilean parliament between 2006 and 2014, which contains information regarding the content and type of bills and the IGs that participated in the discussion of those bills. We found that Chilean business IGs are the most active of any type of IG. Second, as expected, in the Chilean case the participation of business interest groups is more intense in legislative bills dealing with economic issues. In this context, we found that their participation diminished and/or fell into line with that of other group types when the issue areas under scrutiny were not economic. Third, our preference attainment study on 30 law-making processes shows, contrary to our expectation, that the policy success of business IGs is lower than that achieved by other groups.

Keywords

interest groups lobbying public policy influence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been possible thanks to Fondecyt-Conicyt Grant N° 1140639.

References

  1. Arriagada, G. (2004) Los empresarios y la política. Santiago: Lom.Google Scholar
  2. Baroni, L., Carroll, B., Chalmers, A., Muñoz, L. and Rasmussen, A. (2014) Defining and classifying interest groups. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 145–159.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. London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F. and Leech, B. (1998) Basic Interests. The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F. and Leech, B. (2001) Interests niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interests groups involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernhagen, P., Dür, A. and Marshall, D. (2014) Measuring lobbying success spatially. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binderkrantz, A. (2005) Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies 53 (4): 694–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binderkrantz, A., Christiansen, P. and Pedersen, H. (2014) A privileged position? The influence of business interests in government consultations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (4): 879–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bull, B. (2008) Policy networks and business participation in free trade negotiations in Chile. Journal of Latin American Studies 40 (2): 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campero, G. (1984) Los gremios empresariales en Chile 1970-1983. Santiago: ILET.Google Scholar
  11. Campero, G. (2003) La relación entre el gobierno y los grupos de presión: El proceso de la acción de bloques a la acción segmentada. Revista de Ciencia Política 23 (2): 159–176.Google Scholar
  12. Caramani, D. (2004) Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. De la Maza, G. (1999) Los movimientos sociales en la democratización de Chile. In: P. Drake and I. Jaksic (eds.) El modelo chileno. Democracia y desarrollo en los noventa. Santiago: LOM.Google Scholar
  14. Dür, A. (2008) Measuring interest influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics 9 (4): 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dür, A. and Mateo, G. (2012) Who lobbies the European Union? National interest groups in a multilevel polity. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (7): 969–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández, J. (2013) La Protesta Social en Chile (2006–2011): Conflicto Social y repertorios de acción en torno a los movimientos estudiantil, mapuche y ambiental. GIGAPP Estudios/Working Papers (WP-2013–27) Instituto Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar
  17. Furlong, S. and Kerwin, C. (2005) Interest group participation in rule-making: A decade of change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (3): 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamboa, R. (2008) Gobierno y Empresarios en la Formación de la Política Exterior Chilena. El caso del Acuerdo de Asociación Chile Unión Europea. Cuadernos de Estudios Latinoamericanos 3: 29–54.Google Scholar
  19. Garretón, M. et al (2011) Movimiento social, nuevas formas de hacer política y enclaves autoritarios. Los debates del Consejo Asesor para la Educación en el gobierno de Michelle Bachelet en Chile. Polis 10 (30): 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garretón, M. and Martínez, J. (eds.) (1985) Biblioteca del movimiento estudiantil. Santiago: Ediciones SUR.Google Scholar
  21. Golden, M. (1998) Interest groups in the rule-making process. Who participates? Whose voices get heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez, S. and Echeñique, J. (1986) Nuevos empresarios y empresas agrícolas en Chile. Santiago: FLACSO, Working Paper N. 277.Google Scholar
  23. Helboe, P.H. (2013) Is measuring interest group influence a mission impossible? The case of interest group influence in the Danish parliament. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (1): 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hojnacki, M., Marchetti, K.M., Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2015) Assessing business advantage in Washington lobbying. Interest Groups & Advocacy 4 (3): 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jarvis, L., Montero, C. and Hidalgo, M. (1993) El empresario fruticultor. Fortalezas y debilidades de un sector heterogéneo. Santiago: Cieplan, Notas Técnicas N 154.Google Scholar
  26. Kay, C. (1998) La Cuestión Agraria y el Campesinado en Chile Hoy. Debate Agrario 27: 79–110.Google Scholar
  27. Klüver, H. (2012) Biasing politics? Interest group participation in European policy-making. West European Politics 35 (5): 1114–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kollman, K. (1998) Outside Lobbying. Public Opinion and Interest Groups Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Larraín, B. and Sáez, A. (1989) Terratenientes de ayer y hoy. GIA, Cuadernillos de Información Agraria, N. 20. Santiago.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, D. (2013) Advocacy and influence: Lobbying and legislative outcomes in Wisconsin. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (2): 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowery, D. (2013) Lobbying influence: Meaning, measurement and missing. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the US and in the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 27 (1): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michalowitz, I. (2007) What determines influence? Assessing conditions for decision-making influence of interest groups in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (1): 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montero, C. (1997) La revolución empresarial chilena. Santiago: Dolmen-Cieplan.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Porras, J. (2003) La Estrategia Chilena de Acuerdos Comerciales: un análisis político. Santiago: Cepal, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  38. Scapini, J. (2006) Los gremios empresariales en Chile. Santiago: Tajamar Editores.Google Scholar
  39. Silva, E. (1996) From dictatorship to democracy: The business-state nexus in Chile’s economic transformation, 1975–1994. Comparative Politics 28 (3): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Silva, E. (2002) Capital and the Lagos presidency: Business as usual? Bulletin of Latin American Research 21 (3): 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ulianova, O. and Estenssoro, F. (2012) El ambientalismo chileno: la emergencia y la inserción internacional. Si Somos Americanos. Revista de Estudios Transfronterizos XII (1): 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valenzuela, S. (1986) El movimiento obrero bajo el régimen militar. In: F. Zapata (ed.) Clases sociales y acción obrera en Chile. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  43. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. and Brady, H. (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Yackee, J. and Yackee, S. (2006) A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the US bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zapata, F. (1986) La acción sindical en la gran minería del cobre. ¿Continuidad o ruptura? In: F. Zapata (ed.) Clases sociales y acción obrera en Chile. México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Gamboa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carolina Segovia
    • 2
  • Octavio Avendaño
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of International Studies, Universidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversidad Alberto HurtadoSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations