Government, Interest Groups and Policy Change

By J. Richardson. 2000

404 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/814b6677080096da116be8d92bea70bbb5a3ef60

How researchers see this paper

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

In Political Science and International Relations

1. N. Zahariadis
2. Gemma Mateo
3. Andreas Dür
4. D. Coen
5. H. Klüver
6. S. Meijerink
7. G. Wilson
8. I. Bailey

In Strategy and Management

1. N. Zahariadis
2. Gemma Mateo
3. H. Klüver
4. Andreas Dür
5. D. Coen
6. S. Meijerink
7. G. Wilson
8. I. Bailey

Citations in the corpus

• Lobbying as a collective enterprise: winners and losers of policy formulation in the European Union (2013, background): “The European Union (EU) constitutes a promising political opportunity structure for organized interests (Richardson 2000).”
• Converging Agendas? Energy and Climate Change Policies in the UK (2009, background): “…networks are still seen as operating within the boundaries of particular policy domains (see, for further discussion, Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b; also Richardson, 2000; Richardson and Jordan, 1979), as Richardson (2000, emphasis added: 1008) describes: ‘… policy communities and networks may become…”
• Understanding policy stability and change. the interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–20031 (2005, background): “new perceptions or frames of the issues at stake, and are able to exploit successfully the multiple venues that are generally present in a policy domain (Pralle 2003; True et al. 1999; Richardson 2000).”
• Networks, Conflict and Collaborative Communities (2006, background): “Under the influence of these broad developments in the social sciences, it was not until the 1970s that the concept entered into policy analysis literature, with both American and British researchers claiming formative development (for a full discussion of British and American antecedents see marsh,”
• Agenda-setting in the European Union: a theoretical exploration and agenda for research (2007, background): “Mazey and Richardson (2001) and Richardson (2000) have argued that European interest groups often try to Europeanize an issue if that increases their chances of success.”
• Legislative lobbying in context: towards a conceptual framework of interest group lobbying in the European Union (2015, neutral): “The EU therefore constitutes a promising opportunity structure offering a multitude of access points to interest groups (Richardson 2000).”
• Who lobbies the European Union? National interest groups in a multilevel polity (2012, background): “…written on the EU lobbying activities of national associations (Beyers 2002; Beyers and Kerremans 2012; Constantelos 2007; Eising 2009; Greer et al. 2008; Klüver 2010; Richardson 2000), only a few of them address the question of variation across national associations in the amount of EU lobbying.”
• Ambiguity and choice in European public policy (2008, background): “Interest groups regularly engage in this type of behavior (Richardson 2000).”
• Empirical and theoretical studies in EU lobbying (2007, background): “While most large European firms achieve insider status from their cross-border production or size, public interests find themselves insiders on specific Commission forums because of sympathetic political leanings of directors of directorates (Richardson 2000).”
• The role of ideas in policy transfer: the case of UK smoking bans since devolution (2009, neutral): “Competition to establish ‘how the world works’ and therefore what solutions are acceptable (Cairney 2009a; Campbell 2002; John 1998; Richardson 2000).”
• Lobbying activity and fora creation in the EU: empirically exploring the nature of the policy good (2007, background): “If the number of interest representatives is too large, we can talk about access overload (Coen 1997; Richardson 2000): the number of interest representatives dilutes non-policy incentives to such a degree that there is little informative lobbying and lots of babbling.”
• Theorising Transitional Pathways in Response to Climate Change: Technocentrism, Ecocentrism, and the Carbon Economy (2009, background): “…shocks may force decision makers and society at large to confront the inadequacies of the prevailing paradigm, their basic contention remained that policy and social change involves a complex interplay of institutions, actors, interests, policy legacies, and policy styles (also Richardson, 2000).”
• Informational Lobbying in the European Union: The Effect of Organisational Characteristics (2012, background): “Moreover, through frequent interaction with Commission officials working in their policy area they become part of ‘policy communities’ which ensure a constant flow of information and good contacts with Commission officials (Richardson 2000).”