IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v16y2015i3p429-455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative text analysis and the study of EU lobbying and interest groups

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Bunea
  • Raimondas Ibenskas

Abstract

Interest groups’ policy position documents constitute an important data source for estimating their policy positions and lobbying success. We examine applications of quantitative text analysis to research these documents in the context of the European Commission’s open consultations. We show a considerable degree of incongruity between this method’s assumptions and the text characteristics of EU position documents. We examine how these incongruities affect the validity of position estimates and conduct an empirical analysis of documents submitted in one consultation on CO 2 car emissions. We compare estimates derived on both quantitative and qualitative content analysis and find relatively limited correspondence between the two. These observed differences matter substantively: they result in different findings concerning levels of interest groups’ lobbying success.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:3:p:429-455
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116515577821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116515577821
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116515577821?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. Geoff Masters, 1982. "A rasch model for partial credit scoring," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 149-174, June.
    2. Diermeier, Daniel & Godbout, Jean-François & Yu, Bei & Kaufmann, Stefan, 2012. "Language and Ideology in Congress," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 31-55, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    5. Carl Roberts, 2000. "A Conceptual Framework for Quantitative Text Analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-274, August.
    6. Lowe, Will & Benoit, Kenneth, 2013. "Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 298-313, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Jonathan B. Slapin & Sven‐Oliver Proksch, 2008. "A Scaling Model for Estimating Time‐Series Party Positions from Texts," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 705-722, July.
    9. Sven‐Oliver Proksch & Jonathan B. Slapin, 2012. "Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 520-537, July.
    10. Lowe, Will, 2008. "Understanding Wordscores," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 356-371.
    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. Polk, Andreas, 2017. "Lobbyism in Germany: What do we know?," Beiträge zur Jahrestagung 2016 (Witten/Herdecke) 175190, Verein für Socialpolitik, Ausschuss für Wirtschaftssysteme und Institutionenökonomik.

    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. Born, Andreas & Janssen, Aljoscha, 2022. "Does a district mandate matter for the behavior of politicians? An analysis of roll-call votes and parliamentary speeches," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Sami Diaf & Jörg Döpke & Ulrich Fritsche & Ida Rockenbach, 2020. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions of German economic research institutes based on text mining techniques," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 202001, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    3. Martin Haselmayer & Marcelo Jenny, 2017. "Sentiment analysis of political communication: combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2623-2646, November.
    4. Pierre-Marc Daigneault & Dominic Duval & Louis M. Imbeau, 2018. "Supervised scaling of semi-structured interview transcripts to characterize the ideology of a social policy reform," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2151-2162, September.
    5. Diaf, Sami & Döpke, Jörg & Fritsche, Ulrich & Rockenbach, Ida, 2022. "Sharks and minnows in a shoal of words: Measuring latent ideological positions based on text mining techniques," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Born, Andreas & Janssen, Aljoscha, 2020. "Does a District-Vote Matter for the Behavior of Politicians? A Textual Analysis of Parliamentary Speeches," Working Paper Series 1320, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    7. Snorre Sylvester Frid-Nielsen, 2018. "Human rights or security? Positions on asylum in European Parliament speeches," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 344-362, June.
    8. Gavin Abercrombie & Riza Batista-Navarro, 2020. "Sentiment and position-taking analysis of parliamentary debates: a systematic literature review," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 245-270, April.
    9. Miriam Barnum & James Lo, 2020. "Is the NPT unraveling? Evidence from text analysis of review conference statements," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 740-751, November.
    10. Anna Calissano & Simone Vantini & Marika Arena, 2020. "Monitoring rare categories in sentiment and opinion analysis: a Milan mega event on Twitter platform," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 29(4), pages 787-812, December.
    11. Richard Hanania, 2021. "The Humanitarian Turn at the UNSC: Explaining the development of international norms through machine learning algorithms," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 655-670, July.
    12. Pongsak Luangaram & Yuthana Sethapramote, 2016. "Central Bank Communication and Monetary Policy Effectiveness: Evidence from Thailand," PIER Discussion Papers 20, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Hanna Bäck & Marc Debus & Wolfgang C. Müller, 2016. "Intra-party diversity and ministerial selection in coalition governments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 355-378, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Anselm Hager & Hanno Hilbig, 2020. "Does Public Opinion Affect Political Speech?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 921-937, October.
    16. Anustubh Agnihotri & Rahul Verma, 2019. "Content Analysis of Digital Text and Its Applications," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 7(1), pages 83-89, June.
    17. Thomas Winzen & Rik de Ruiter & Jofre Rocabert, 2018. "Is parliamentary attention to the EU strongest when it is needed the most? National parliaments and the selective debate of EU policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 481-501, September.
    18. Hager, Anselm & Hilbig, Hanno, 2020. "Does Public Opinion Affect Political Speech?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 64(4), pages 921-937.
    19. Rebecca Cordell & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Florian G Kern & Laura Saavedra-Lux, 2020. "Measuring institutional variation across American Indian constitutions using automated content analysis," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 777-788, November.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:3:p:429-455. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.