Advertisement

Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 270–290 | Cite as

No borders, no bias? Comparing advocacy group populations at the national and transnational levels

  • Joost BerkhoutEmail author
  • Marcel Hanegraaff
Original Article

Abstract

Why are some advocacy group populations biased towards business interest representatives? In this paper, we assess an underexplored source of variation in advocacy populations, namely the governance level at which advocacy populations are located. More precisely, we analyse whether national advocacy group populations are more likely to contain relatively large proportions of business interest associations compared to transnational advocacy group populations. We examine three competing hypotheses: (1) biases are stronger at the national level than the global level, (2) biases are more pronounced at the global level than the national level and (3) no differences emerge in business mobilization across the national and transnational levels. We test our hypotheses based on a novel dataset of national, European Union (EU) and global advocacy group populations. Our results indicate that the global level is different from the EU and national levels, in that it contains relatively low proportions of business interest representatives.

Keywords

Advocacy groups Interest groups INGOs Business bias Comparative politics 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Grant No. 451-12-017).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41309_2019_60_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 53 kb)

References

  1. Abbott, K.W., J.F. Green, and R.O. Keohane. 2016. Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization 70 (2): 247–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aizenberg, E., and M. Hanegraaff. 2019. Is politics under increasing corporate sway? A longitudinal study on the drivers of corporate access. West European Politics, early view.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1603849.Google Scholar
  3. Balme, R., and D. Chabanet. 2008. European governance and democracy: Power and protest in the EU. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, M., and M. Finnemore. 2004. Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F.R., H.A. Larsen-Price, B.L. Leech, and P. Rutledge. 2011. Congressional and presidential effects on the demand for lobbying. Political Research Quarterly 64 (1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkhout, J., J. Beyers, C. Braun, M. Hanegraaff, and D. Lowery. 2018. Making inference across mobilisation and influence research: Comparing topdownand bottom-up mapping of interest systems. Political Studies 66 (1): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkhout, J., B.J. Carroll, C. Braun, A.W. Chalmers, T. Destrooper, D. Lowery, S. Otjes, and A. Rasmussen. 2015. Interest organizations across economic sectors: explaining interest group density in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (4): 462–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkhout, J., M. Hanegraaff, and C. Braun. 2017. Is the EU different? Comparing the diversity of national and EU-level systems of interest organisations. West European Politics 40 (5): 1109–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkhout, J., and D. Lowery. 2008. Counting organized interests in the european union: A comparison of data sources. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (4): 489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beyers, J. 2002. Gaining and seeking access: The European adaptation of domestic interest associations. European Journal of Political Research 41 (5): 585–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beyers, J., A. Dür, D. Marshall, and A. Wonka. 2014. Policy-centred sampling in interest group research: Lessons from the INTEREURO project. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (2): 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bruycker, I., J. Berkhout, and M. Hanegraaff. 2019. The paradox of collective action: Linking interest aggregation and interest articulation in EUlegislative lobbying. Governance 32 (2): 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dellmuth, L.M., and E.A. Bloodgood. 2019. Advocacy group effects in global governance: Populations, strategies, and political opportunity structures. Interest Groups and Advocacy, this Special Issue.Google Scholar
  15. Dellmuth, L.M., and J. Tallberg. 2017. Advocacy strategies in global governance: Inside versus outside lobbying. Political Studies 65 (3): 705–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dür, A., and G. Mateo. 2014. The Europeanization of advocacy groups: Group type, resources and policy area. European Union Politics 15 (4): 572–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eising, R. 2009. The political economy of state-business relations in europe: Interest mediation, capitalism and European Union policy making. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnemore, M. 1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization 50 (2): 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray, V., and D. Lowery. 1996. The population ecology of interest representation lobbying communities in the American states. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenwood, J. 2007. Organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hacker, J.S., and P. Pierson. 2014. After the “Master Theory”: Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis. Perspectives on Politics 12 (3): 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halpin, D.R., and A.S. Binderkrantz. 2011. Explaining breadth of policy engagement: Patterns of advocacy groups mobilization in public policy. Journal of European Public Policy 18 (2): 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halpin, D., and G. Jordan (eds.). 2012. The scale of interest organization in democratic politics: Data and research methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Hanegraaff, M.C. 2018. Whose side are you on? Explaining the extent to which national interest groups support states in global politics? Journal of Common Market Studies. 57: 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanegraaff, M., and J. Berkhout. 2018. More business as usual? Explaining business bias across issues and institutions in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 26: 843–862. (early view).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanegraaff, M., J. Beyers, and C. Braun. 2012. Open the door to more of the same? The development of advocacy groups representation at the WTO. World Trade Review 10 (4): 447–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanegraaff, M.C. 2015. Transnational advocacy over time: Business and NGO mobilization at UN climate summits. Global Environmental Politics 15 (1): 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keck, M.E., and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Klüver, H. 2013. Lobbying in the European Union: interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kohler-Koch, B. 1994. Changing patterns of interest intermediation in the European Union. Government and Opposition 29 (2): 166–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kohler-Koch, B., Quittkat, C., and Kurczewska, U. 2013. Interest intermediation in the European Union revisited: Report on a survey study. Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung (MZES). Working Paper number 151.Google Scholar
  32. Kriesi, H. 2004. Political context and opportunity. In The Blackwell companion to social movements, ed. D.A. Snow, S.A. Soule, and H. Kriesi, 67–90. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Kriesi, H., A. Tresch, and M. Jochum. 2007. Going public in the European Union: Action repertoires of western European collective political actors. Comparative Political Studies 40 (1): 48–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leech, B., F.R. Baumgartner, T.L. Pira, and N. Semanko. 2005. Drawing lobbyists to Washington government activity and advocacy groups mobilization. Political Research Quarterly 58 (1): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lowery, D., and V. Gray. 2016. On the political origins of bias in the heavenly chorus. Interest Groups & Advocacy 5: 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowery, D., and V. Gray. 2004. Bias in the heavenly chorus: Interests in society and before government. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16 (1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowery, D., F.R. Baumgartner, J. Berkhout, J.M. Berry, D. Halpin, M. Hojnacki, et al. 2015. Images of an unbiased advocacy groups system. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (8): 1212–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neuendorf, K.A. 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Pedersen, H.H., D. Halpin, and A. Rasmussen. 2015. Who gives evidence to parliamentary committees? A comparative investigation of the impact ofinstitutions on external actor involvement in parliamentary committee work. Journal of Legislative Studies 21 (4).Google Scholar
  40. Saurugger, S. 2013. France. In Handbook of Business Interest Associations, firm size and governance: A comparative analytical approach, ed. F. Traxler and G. Huemer, 121. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  42. Steffek, J., C. Kissling, and P. Nanz (eds.). (2007). Civil society participation in European and global governance: A cure for the democratic deficit? Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Stroup, S.S., and W.H. Wong. 2017. The authority trap: Strategic choices of International NGOs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Uhre, A.N. 2014. Exploring the diversity of transnational actors in global environmental governance. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3 (1): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wessels, B. 2004. Contestation potential of interest groups in the EU: Emergence, structure, and political alliances. In European integration and political conflict, ed. G. Marks, and M.R. Steenbergen, 195–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woll, C. 2008. Firm interests: How governments shape business lobbying on global trade. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Woll, C. 2009. The demise of statism? Associations and the transformation of interest intermediation in France. In The French fifth republic at fifty: Beyond stereotypes, ed. S. Brouard, A.M. Appleton, and A.G. Mazur. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations