Interest group mobilization and lobbying patterns in Britain: A newspaper analysis
Interest group mobilization and lobbying patterns in Britain: A newspaper analysis
复制标题
英国的利益集团动员和游说模式：报纸分析
DOI：
10.1057/iga.2012.2
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Bernhagen P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bernhagen P
有组织的利益集团是如何围绕政府的政策举措动员起来的？他们是试图对抗竞争对手或对手的游说努力，还是从反补贴利益集团那里寻找几乎没有竞争的利基市场？不同类型的倡导者是否或多或少平等地利用了任何问题利基，或者商业游说者在这里比其他群体更突出？这些动员模式是如何反映在新闻媒体上的？迄今为止，围绕公共政策动员有组织的利益的研究主要集中在美国(美国)。在其他国家的实际政策问题中，关于有组织利益的动员模式的经验仍然知之甚少。本文通过分析2001年至2007年期间联合王国(联合王国)政府提出的1000多项政策建议中报道的有组织利益集团的政治参与的报纸报道，解决了这种不平衡问题。目标有两个：第一，描述和评估一个新的数据集，用于分析英国政坛的游说活动；第二，反驳主要在美国背景下形成的关于利益集团动员的既定主张。在对英国七份主要大报进行档案搜索的基础上，该项目专注于183项政府政策建议，这些建议在一篇报纸文章中提到了一个或多个社会参与者。行为者根据既定的分类方案进行编码，从而能够探索它们在政策建议中的分布情况。研究结果表明，首先，在绝大多数报道新政府政策计划的报纸中，没有相关利益集团活动的报道，这表明大多数政策建议没有明显的争议性。其次，记者筛选不同类型游说者的外表可能导致的偏见似乎是有限的。第三，在极少数情况下，据报道，有两个或更多团体围绕一个问题进行游说。这证实了美国早些时候的研究结果，即利基游说是最常见的动员模式。在这些利基问题上，游说者更有可能是非商业行为者，而不是在更明显有争议的提案的背景下。因此，与美国的研究结果相反，商业参与者似乎并未主导英国的利基问题。在英国报纸上，最有可能出现在问题利基背景下的是非商业团体，而不是商业行为者。报纸对利益集团围绕英国政策问题动员的报道，与美国发现的问题利基模式非常相似。相比之下，这两个政治体系在问题利基领域的商业主导程度的差异，表明英国和美国在政策过程中的差异，以及不同抽样战略可能存在的选择偏差。
How do organized interests mobilize around governmental policy initiatives? Do they attempt to counter the lobbying efforts of their competitors or opponents, or do they seek out niches with little competition from countervailing interests? Are any issue niches utilized more or less equally by different kinds of advocates, or are business lobbyists more prominent here than other groups? And how are these mobilization patterns reflected in the news media? Research into the mobilization of organized interests around public policy to date has mainly focused on the United States (US). Little is still known empirically about the mobilization patterns of organized interests in the context of actual policy issues in other countries. This article addresses this imbalance by analysing newspaper reports on the reported political involvement of organized interests in the context of over 1000 policy proposals advanced by United Kingdom (UK) governments between 2001 and 2007. The goal is twofold: first, to describe and evaluate a new data set for the analysis of lobbying activities in British politics, and second, to confront established claims, mainly developed within the US context, about interest group mobilization. On the basis of an archival search of seven major UK broadsheets, the project focuses on 183 governmental policy proposals for which one or more societal actors are mentioned in a newspaper article. The actors are coded according to established classification schemes, allowing an exploration of their distribution across the policy proposals. The findings show, first, that in the overwhelming majority of newspaper reporting on new governmental policy plans, there are no reports of related interest group activity, suggesting that most policy proposals are not visibly contested. Second, the possible biases that may result from journalists filtering the appearance of different types of lobbyists seem to be limited. Third, in a very small number of cases, two or more groups are reported as lobbying around an issue. This confirms earlier findings from US research that niche lobbying is the most frequently observed mobilization pattern. In these issue niches, lobbyists are more likely to be non-business actors than in the context of more visibly contested proposals. Thus, contrary to findings from the US context, business actors do not appear to dominate niche issues in the UK. In British newspapers, it is non-business groups rather than business actors that are most likely to make an appearance in the context of issue niches. Newspaper reporting on interest group mobilization around UK policy issues closely resembles patterns of issue niches found in the US. By contrast, the difference in levels of business dominance in issue niches between these two political systems points to differences in the policy process between the UK and US, as well as to possible selection biases of the different sampling strategies.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1985
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Richardson;A. Jordan
通讯作者：
A. Jordan
24 个工业民主国家的法团主义：意义与衡量
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Alan. Siaroff
通讯作者：
Alan. Siaroff
决定新闻内容：对 CBS 晚间新闻、NBC 晚间新闻、新闻周刊和《时代》杂志的研究
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
H. Gans
通讯作者：
H. Gans
分析公共政策
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
P. John
通讯作者：
P. John
民主政治中利益组织的规模：数据与研究方法
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
D. Halpin;Grant Jordan
通讯作者：
Grant Jordan