IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ginixx/v49y2023i6p935-961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lobbying, Access Points, and the Protection of Human Rights in Democracies

Author

Listed:
  • Sean D. Ehrlich
  • Kimberly R. Frugé
  • Jillienne Haglund

Abstract

Why do some democracies better protect human rights than other democracies? Although research shows that democracies engage in fewer human rights abuses than nondemocracies, we know less about what explains the variation in respect for rights among democracies. Using Access Point Theory, we argue that the number of points of access for interest groups in democracies leads to better protection of physical integrity rights but has weaker or no effects on worker rights. By increasing the amount of access provided to interest groups, lobbying becomes cheaper which enables human rights organizations to lobby for better rights protection but, on worker rights, also enables businesses to lobby against those protections. We examine these expectations using data on all democracies from 1980 to 2002, as well as a new latent measure of worker rights constructed using item response theory.¿Por qué algunas democracias protegen mejor los derechos humanos que otras? Aunque la investigación muestra que las democracias cometen menos abusos contra los derechos humanos que las no democracias, existe una menor cantidad de información referente a los motivos que explican la variación en el respeto de los derechos entre las democracias. Argumentamos, mediante el uso de la teoría del punto de acceso, que el número de puntos de acceso existentes para los grupos de interés en las democracias provoca una mejor protección de los derechos en materia de integridad física, pero que tiene efectos más débiles, o incluso nulos, sobre los derechos de los trabajadores. Al aumentar el grado de acceso que se proporciona a los grupos de interés, la presión política se vuelve menos onerosa, lo que permite a las organizaciones de derechos humanos presionar en favor de una mejor protección de los derechos. Sin embargo, en lo que se refiere a los derechos de los trabajadores, esto también permite a las empresas presionar contra esas protecciones. Estudiamos estas expectativas utilizando tanto datos procedentes de todas las democracias desde 1980 hasta 2002, como una nueva medida, latente, de derechos económicos que fue creada utilizando la teoría de respuesta al ítem.Pourquoi certaines démocraties protègent-elles mieux les droits de l’Homme que d’autres? Bien que la recherche montre que les démocraties présentent moins de violations des droits de l’Homme que les pays non démocratiques, nous ne savons pas très bien expliquer les variations relatives aux droits dans les démocraties. À l’aide de la théorie des points d’accès (Access Point Theory), nous affirmons que plus le nombre de points d’accès des groupes d’intérêts dans les démocraties augmente, meilleure est la protection de l’intégrité physique des droits, mais que les effets sur les droits des travailleurs sont minimes, voire inexistants. En augmentant l’accès fourni aux groupes d’intérêts, le lobbying coûte moins cher. Les organisations des droits de l’Homme peuvent donc promouvoir plus facilement la protection des droits, mais, s’agissant des droits des travailleurs, les entreprises peuvent également faire pression contre ces protections. Nous analysons ces prédictions à l’aide de données sur toutes les démocraties entre 1980 et 2002, ainsi qu’une nouvelle mesure latente des droits économiques créée à l’aide de la théorie des réponses aux items.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean D. Ehrlich & Kimberly R. Frugé & Jillienne Haglund, 2023. "Lobbying, Access Points, and the Protection of Human Rights in Democracies," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(6), pages 935-961, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ginixx:v:49:y:2023:i:6:p:935-961
    DOI: 10.1080/03050629.2023.2254461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03050629.2023.2254461
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03050629.2023.2254461?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:ginixx:v:49:y:2023:i:6:p:935-961. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GINI20 .

    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.