Advertisement

Improving Interest Group Accountability. LogFrame: A Framework for Evaluating Lobbying Campaigns

  • Paul A. Shotton
Chapter

Abstract

Interest groups in the European Union and elsewhere are increasingly coming under scrutiny for the practices, but also for their results. Much has been done to promote transparency, for example, through the European Union’s transparency registry. There is much less published on the monitoring and evaluation of their interest group activities. This chapter presents an approach to fill this gap. Drawing from established practices, this chapter seeks to build bridges between interest group literature and established nonprofit evaluation methodologies. Combining a LogFrame approach and interest group theory, we offer a planning tool for describing, in a systematic and where possible quantified way, the objectives that interest groups pursue in seeking influence to the decision-making process, the methods they use to pass messages and exert influence, and the impact of the results obtained when set against the original objectives.

References

  1. AusAID. (2005). AusAID guidelines.Google Scholar
  2. Austen-Smith, D. (1998). Allocating access for information and contributions. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 14(2), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakewell, O., & Garbutt, A. (2005). The use and abuse of the logical framework approach. Stockholm: Sida.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C. (2008). Forum section: The two faces of framing individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union. European Union Politics, 9(3), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyers, J. (2004). Voice and access political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics, 5(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyers, J. (2008). Policy issues, organisational format and the political strategies of interest organisations. West European Politics, 31(6), 1188–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyers, J., & Kerremans, B. (2012). Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multilevel venue shopping in four EU member states. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 25(2), 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2008a). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics, 31(6), 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2008b). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics, 31(6), 1103–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Binderkrantz, A. S., Pedersen, H. H., & Beyers, J. (2016). What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access. European Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2016.17.
  11. Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouwen, P. (2004a). The logic of access to the European parliament: Business lobbying in the committee on economic and monetary affairs. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(3), 473–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bouwen, P. (2004b). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chalmers, A. W. (2011). Interests, influence and information: Comparing the influence of interest groups in the European Union. Journal of European Integration, 33(4), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chalmers, A. W., & Shotton, P. A. (2016). Changing the face of advocacy? Explaining interest organizations’ use of social media strategies. Political Communication, 33(3), 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman, J., & Wameyo, A. (2001). Monitoring and evaluating advocacy: A scoping study. ActionAid.Google Scholar
  18. Cotton, C. (2012). Pay-to-play politics: Informational lobbying and contribution limits when money buys access. Journal of Public Economics, 96(3–4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cugelman, B., & Otero, E. (2010). Evaluation of Oxfam GB’s climate change campaign. Oxfam Rep.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, R. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of DFID’s influence with multilaterals. Part A: A review of NGO approaches to the evaluation of advocacy work.Google Scholar
  21. Dür, A. (2007). The question of interest group influence. Journal of Public Policy, 27(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dür, A. (2008a). Interest groups in the European Union: How powerful are they? West European Politics, 31(6), 1212–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dür, A. (2008b). Measuring interest group influence in the EU a note on methodology. European Union Politics, 9(4), 559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2013). Gaining access or going public? Interest group strategies in five European countries. European Journal of Political Research, 52(5), 660–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eising, R. (2007). The access of business interests to EU institutions: Towards elite pluralism? Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 384–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grant, J. (1978). Insider groups, outsider groups and interest group strategies in Britain, volume 19 of Warwick University, Department of Political Science, Working papers 19.Google Scholar
  27. Guthrie, K., Louie, J., David, T., & Foster, C. C. (2005). The challenge of assessing policy and advocacy activities: Strategies for a prospective evaluation approach. Los Angeles: The California Endowment.Google Scholar
  28. Kelly, L. (2002). International Advocacy: Measuring performance and effectiveness. Praxis Consultants, Australia.Google Scholar
  29. Klüver, H. (2009). Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics, 10(4), 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klüver, H. (2012). Biasing politics? Interest group participation in EU policy-making. West European Politics, 35(5), 1114–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klüver, H., Braun, C., & Beyers, J. (2015). Legislative lobbying in context: Towards a conceptual framework of interest group lobbying in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(4), 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mahoney, C. (2007). Networking vs. allying: The decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 366–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7), 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ri, P., & Forder, J. E. (1996). Can campaigning be evaluated? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(2), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Voltolini, B., & Eising, R. (2016). Framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: Case study and process-tracing methods. European Political Science.Google Scholar
  36. Whelan, J. (2008). Advocacy evaluation: Review and opportunities. Brisbane: The Change Agency.Google Scholar
  37. Woll, C. (2007). Leading the dance? Power and political resources of business lobbyists. Journal of Public Policy, 27(01), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hague University of Applied SciencesThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations