Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why

By D. Randall. 2010

640 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Pharmacology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/266fe9a0e7a2c2ca0fca88c7bb98dac1256f1ce0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. H. Klüver
2. Adriana Bunea
3. Keith E. Schnakenberg
4. Frank R. Baumgartner
5. Karin Ingold
6. C. Mahoney
7. Philip Leifeld

In Pharmacology

1. H. Klüver
2. Adriana Bunea
3. Keith E. Schnakenberg
4. Frank R. Baumgartner
5. Karin Ingold
6. Philip Leifeld

Citations in the corpus

• Lobbying as a collective enterprise: winners and losers of policy formulation in the European Union (2013, background): “Similarly, whereas Eising (2007) demonstrates that resource endowment has a positive effect on interest group access to European institutions, Mahoney (2007) and Baumgartner et al. (2009) do not find any clear relationship between resources and lobbying success.”
• Issues, preferences and ties: determinants of interest groups' preference attainment in the EU environmental policy (2013, background): “The fourth aspect of the policy environment is that of the regulatory regime the decision-making event aims to create (Baumgartner et al. 2009; Mahoney 2008).”
• Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting (2015, background): “In Baumgartner et al. (2009), 61% of organizations relied on disseminating in-house research to policymakers and 46% relied on disseminating external research, while only 39% helped draft legislative language.9 Prominent case studies also lend support to the idea that lobbyists engage in persuasion.”
• Framing in context: how interest groups employ framing to lobby the European Commission (2015, background): “The way interest groups frame a debate has an impact on the policy options that are considered by decisionmakers and on the final outcome of a legislative debate (Baumgartner et al. 2009; Mahoney and Baumgartner 2008).”
• Ideas and Policy Change (2013, background): “I have written recently (with others) about the sticky nature of ideas within policy communities: Reframing an issue is not very easy because other experts within the community typically have strong attachments to the status quo definition of the issue (see Baumgartner et al. 2009).”
• Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation (2014, background): “Actors exchange resources and information in order to increase the impact of their lobbying on policy decisions (Leech et al. 2009; Baumgartner and Leech 2001).”