IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v52y2014i6p1224-1241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Interest Groups' Articulation of Policy Preferences in the European Commission's Open Consultations: An Analysis of the Environmental Policy Area

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Bunea

Abstract

Why do some interest groups express more policy preferences than others during open consultations organized by the European Commission? This article examines this question by testing an explanatory framework that emphasizes the inter‐organizational context in which lobbying takes place and interest groups' resource endowment. The empirical analysis focuses on environmental policy‐making. The findings show that interest groups' preference articulation behaviour is largely influenced by the number of inter‐organizational linkages they have with other stakeholders. Resource endowment matters in that resource‐rich interest organizations are found to be less likely to articulate their preferences via open consultations. Interest groups' organizational form is also a relevant predictor of the likelihood they articulate preferences: in consultations, European federations voice more preferences than national or individual organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Bunea, 2014. "Explaining Interest Groups' Articulation of Policy Preferences in the European Commission's Open Consultations: An Analysis of the Environmental Policy Area," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(6), pages 1224-1241, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:52:y:2014:i:6:p:1224-1241
    DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jcms.12151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christine Quittkat, 2011. "The European Commission's Online Consultations: A Success Story?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 653-674, May.
    2. Rasmussen, Anne & Carroll, Brendan J., 2014. "Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Union Online Consultations," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 445-459, April.
    3. David Marshall, 2010. "Who to lobby and when: Institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament committees," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(4), pages 553-575, December.
    4. Schmitter, Philippe C. & Streeck, Wolfgang, 1999. "The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies," MPIfG Discussion Paper 99/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    5. Patrick Bernhagen & Neil J. Mitchell, 2009. "The Determinants of Direct Corporate Lobbying in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 155-176, June.
    6. Anne Rasmussen & Petya Alexandrova, 2012. "Foreign Interests Lobbying Brussels: Participation of non-EU Members in Commission Consultations," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 614-631, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matti Van Hecke & Peter Bursens & Jan Beyers, 2016. "You'll Never Lobby Alone. Explaining the Participation of Sub-national Authorities in the European Commission's Open Consultations," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 1433-1448, November.
    2. Adriana Bunea & Raimondas Ibenskas, 2015. "Quantitative text analysis and the study of EU lobbying and interest groups," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 429-455, September.
    3. Adriana Bunea, 2015. "Sharing ties and preferences: Stakeholders’ position alignments in the European Commission’s open consultations," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 281-299, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adriana Bunea, 2015. "Sharing ties and preferences: Stakeholders’ position alignments in the European Commission’s open consultations," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 281-299, June.
    2. Matti Van Hecke & Peter Bursens & Jan Beyers, 2016. "You'll Never Lobby Alone. Explaining the Participation of Sub-national Authorities in the European Commission's Open Consultations," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 1433-1448, November.
    3. Massaro, Maria, 2019. "Is business lobbying in the European Union context-dependent? Evidence from the policy field of radio spectrum," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10).
    4. Fink, Simon & Ruffing, Eva, 2020. "Learning in iterated consultation procedures – The example of the German electricity grid demand planning," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Jan Beyers & Sarah Arras, 2021. "Stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of regulatory decision‐making: A survey experiment in Belgium," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 877-893, July.
    6. Barber Benjamin & Weschle Simon & Pierskalla Jan, 2014. "Lobbying and the collective action problem: comparative evidence from enterprise surveys," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-26, August.
    7. Maja Kluger Rasmussen, 2015. "The Battle for Influence: The Politics of Business Lobbying in the European Parliament," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 365-382, March.
    8. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "It's economic size, stupid! How global advocacy mirrors state power," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1326-1349, October.
    9. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
    10. Kenworthy, Lane, 2000. "Quantitative indicators of corporatism: A survey and assessment," MPIfG Discussion Paper 00/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    11. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01019642, HAL.
    12. Plehwe, Dieter & Schlögl, Matthias, 2014. "Europäische und zivilgesellschaftliche Hintergründe der euro(pa)skeptischen Partei Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)," Discussion Papers, Project Group Modes of Economic Governance SP III 2014-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. In Jun & Peter Sheldon, 2006. "Looking beyond the West? The Korea Employers' Federation and the Challenges of Membership Adhesion and Cohesion," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 17(1), pages 203-225, September.
    14. Vetulani-Cęgiel, Agnieszka, 2020. "(Nad)reprezentacja interesów w procesie kształtowania polityki publicznej na przykładzie obszaru prawno-autorskiego w Polsce," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 1-22, July.
    15. Adam William Chalmers, 2014. "In over their heads: Public consultation, administrative capacity and legislative duration in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 595-613, December.
    16. repec:ers:journl:v:v:y:2017:i:2:p:14-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/8523 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Sarah Arras & Jan Beyers, 2020. "Access to European Union Agencies: Usual Suspects or Balanced Interest Representation in Open and Closed Consultations?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 836-855, July.
    19. Sophie Jacquot & Cornelia Woll, 2003. "Usage of European Integration - Europeanisation from a Sociological Perspective," Post-Print hal-01019642, HAL.
    20. Joost Berkhout & Jan Beyers & Marcel Hanegraaff, 2023. "The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 50-64.
    21. Marta Martínez Matute & Pedro S. Martins, 2022. "How representative are social partners in Europe? The role of dissimilarity," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 36(4), pages 424-444, December.
    22. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8523 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Adriana Bunea & Raimondas Ibenskas, 2015. "Quantitative text analysis and the study of EU lobbying and interest groups," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 429-455, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:52:y:2014:i:6:p:1224-1241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.