Corporate lobbying in the European Union: the logic of access

By Pieter Bouwen. 2002

733 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Public Administration, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/949c90576e2646c85ea297c6e4edf1886553cf4e

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. Cornelia Woll
2. R. Eising
3. D. Coen
4. C. Mahoney
5. J. Beyers
6. Caelesta Braun
7. A. Broscheid
8. Bart. Kerremans

In Public Administration

1. D. Coen
2. Cornelia Woll
3. R. Eising
4. C. Mahoney
5. J. Beyers
6. Caelesta Braun
7. A. Broscheid
8. Bart. Kerremans

In Strategy and Management

1. D. Coen
2. J. Beyers
3. Caelesta Braun
4. Cornelia Woll
5. Bart. Kerremans
6. R. Eising
7. C. Mahoney
8. A. Broscheid

Citations in the corpus

• Ties that count: explaining interest group access to policymakers (2013, background): “…to provide interest group access (Poppelaars 2009b; Braun 2012) and earlier research on how different types of expertise 116 B E Y E R S A N D B R A U N are needed in order to obtain access to different EU officials (Beyers 2002; Bouwen 2002; Eising 2004, 2007; Beyers and Kerremans 2012).”
• Networking vs. allying: the decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU (2007, background): “…on their own (Salisbury 1984; Coen 1997), sometimes pursue their lobbying goals through their associations or federations (McLaughlin et al. 1993; Pollack 1997; Bouwen 2002; Walker 1991), and other times opt to work through a hired lobbying firm (McLaughlin et al. 1993; Bouwen 2002; Lahusen 2002).”
• Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation (2018, unknown): “Thus, innovation intermediaries, in collaboration with other actors in the innovation system, often engage in helping to shape the strategic policy direction, which results in convergence around the interests of actors within the region or nation (Bouwen, 2002).”
• Empirical and theoretical studies in EU lobbying (2007, background): “While few grasped the measurement of influence, good progress has been made in mapping the access to the EU policy process (Coen 1997, 1998; Bouwen 2002, 2004a ), and developing a rationale for the utilization of political channels (Eising 2004; Saurugger 2003).”
• The access of business interests to EU institutions: towards élite pluralism? (2007, background): “Pieter Bouwen (2002b: 20) considered only ‘insider groups’ with access to the EU institutions in his analysis.”
• Lobbying in the European Union: From sui generis to a comparative perspective (2006, background): “…authors have tried to identify the phases of the policy process where lobbying will be effective (Crombez 2002), the reasons for using different channels of representation (Eising 2004), or the conditions which enable private actors to gain access to the policy process (Bouwen 2002, 2004a, 2004b).”
• Lobbying versus litigation: political and legal strategies of interest representation in the European Union (2007, unknown): “Two major political strategies can be distinguished at the EU level and have been characterized by the labels ‘access’ and ‘voice’ ( Bouwen 2002; Beyers 2004).”
• Lobbying activity and fora creation in the EU: empirically exploring the nature of the policy good (2007, background): “As a technical bureaucracy it does not seek funds for re-election but rather looks for a policy community that may provide a source of grass-roots and European-level information ( Bouwen 2002; Coen 1997).”
• Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of domestic interest groups (2007, background): “Most organizations are not internally self-sufficient and maintaining sufficient resources is a daily concern for them (Bouwen 2002).”