Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:03:59.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring interest group framing strategies in public policy debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2015

Heike Klüver  and
Christine Mahoney
Heike Klüver
Affiliation:
Department of Social Science and Economics, University of Bamberg, Germany E-mail: heike.kluever@uni-bamberg.de
Christine Mahoney
Affiliation:
Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia, USA E-mail: C.Mahoney@virginia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Framing plays an important role in lobbying, as interest groups strategically highlight some aspects of policy proposals while ignoring others to shape policy debates in their favour. However, due to methodological difficulties, we have remarkably little systematic data about the framing strategies of interest groups. This article therefore proposes a new technique for measuring interest group framing that is based on a quantitative text analysis of interest group position papers and official policy documents. We test this novel methodological approach on the basis of two case studies in the areas of environmental and transport policy in the European Union. We are able to identify the frames employed by all interest groups mobilised in a debate and assess their effectiveness by studying to what extent decision-makers move closer to their policy positions over the course of the policy debate.

Keywords

European Unionframinginterest groupsquantitative text analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 2015 , pp. 223 - 244
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Althaus, S. L. and Kim, Y. M. (2006) Priming Effects in Complex Information Environments: Reassessing the Impact of News Discourse on Presidential Approval. Journal of Politics 68(4): 960–976.Google Scholar
Bailey, A. and Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008) Does Deliberation Matter in FOMC Monetary Policymaking? The Volcker Revolution of 1979. Political Analysis 16(4): 404–427.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C. and Leech, B. L. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S. and Boydstun, A. (2008) The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Leech, B. L. (2001) Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics. Journal of Politics 63(4): 1191–1213.Google Scholar
Berinsky, A. J. and Kinder, D. R. (2006) Making Sense of Issues through Media Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis. Journal of Politics 68(3): 640–656.Google Scholar
Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. and Tanenbaum, E. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bunea, A. (2013) Issues, Preferences and Ties: Determinants of EU Interest Groups’ Preference Attainment in the Environmental Policy Area. Journal of European Public Policy 20(4): 552–570.Google Scholar
Dür, A. and De Bièvre, D. (2007) The Question of Interest Group Influence. Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 1–12.Google Scholar
Entman, R. M. (1991) Framing US Coverage of International news: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. J. (1984) Theory and Application of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J. (2010) A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases. Political Analysis 18(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. L., Budge, I. and McDonald, M. D. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klüver, H. (2009) Measuring Interest Group Influence using Quantitative Text Analysis. European Union Politics 10(4): 535–549.Google Scholar
Klüver, H. (2011) The Contextual Nature of Lobbying: Explaining Lobbying Success in the European Union. European Union Politics 12(4): 483–506.Google Scholar
Klüver, H. (2012) Biasing Politics? Interest Group Participation in European Policy-Making. West European Politics 35(5): 1114–1133.Google Scholar
Klüver, H. (2013a) Lobbying as a Collective Enterprise: Winners and Losers of Policy Formulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 59–76.Google Scholar
Klüver, H. (2013b) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions and Policy Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lancia, F. (2007) Word Co-occurrence and Similarity in Meaning: Some Methodological Issues, http://www.mytlab.com/wcsmeaning.pdf (accessed 15 June 2012).Google Scholar
Laver, M., Benoit, K. and Garry, J. (2003) Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts using Word as Data. American Political Science Review 97(2): 311–331.Google Scholar
Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying Success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 27(1): 35–56.Google Scholar
Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, M. M. (1997) Frame Mapping and Analysis of News Coverage of Contentious Issues. Social Science Computer Review 15(4): 367–378.Google Scholar
Peffley, M. and Hurwitz, J. (2007) Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 996–1012.Google Scholar
Quinn, K. M., Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. and Radev, D. (2010) How to Analyze Political Attention with Minimal Assumptions and Costs. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 209–228.Google Scholar
Riker, W. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2005a) Measuring Ideas More Effectively: An Analysis of Bush and Kerry’s National Security Speeches. PS: Political Science & Politics 38(4): 701–711.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2005b) Measuring Ideas More Effectively: An Analysis of Bush and Kerry’s National Security Speeches. PS: Political Science 38(4): 701–711.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2006) From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas, and Institutions in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008) The Congressional Debate on Partial-Birth Abortion: Constitutional Gravitas and Moral Passion. British Journal of Political Science 38(3): 383–410.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2012) Looking at Congressional Committee Deliberations from Different Perspectives: Is the Added Effort Worth It? Paper presented at the ESRC Methods Festival, Oxford, 5 July.Google Scholar
Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D. W., Domke, D. D. and Fan, D. P. (2002) News Framing and Cueing of Issue Regimes: Explaining Clinton’s Public Approval in Spite of Scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly 66(3): 339–370.Google Scholar
Sharp, E. B. and Joslyn, M. (2003) Individual and Contextual Effects on Attributions about Pornography. Journal of Politics 63(2): 501–519.Google Scholar
Slapin, J. B. and Proksch, S.-O. (2008) A Scaling Model for Estimating Time-Series Party Positions from Texts. American Journal of Political Science 52(3): 705–722.Google Scholar
Steinbach, M., Karypis, G. and Kumar, V. (2000) A Comparison of Document Clustering Techniques, Technical Report #00-034, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. (2011) Resolving Controversy in the European Union: Legislative Decision-Making Before and After Enlargement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weale, A., Bicquelet, A. and Bara, J. (2012) Debating Abortion, Deliberative Reciprocity and Parliamentary Advocacy. Political Studies 60(3): 643–667.Google Scholar
Yackee, S. W. (2005) Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 103–124.Google Scholar
Yackee, J. W. and Yackee, S. W. (2005) A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68(1): 128–139.Google Scholar