1 / 18

Mapping interest group populations

Joost Berkhout, post doctoral researcher, department of political science. Mapping interest group populations. ECPR Summer School on Interest Group Politics. Contents. Group populations: so what? Knoke, and more State of the field; top-down vs bottom up Descriptive efforts: data challenges

ranger
Download Presentation

Mapping interest group populations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joost Berkhout, post doctoral researcher, department of political science Mapping interest group populations ECPR Summer School on Interest Group Politics

  2. Contents • Group populations: so what? • Knoke, and more • State of the field; top-down vs bottom up • Descriptive efforts: data challenges • Brulle et al, Halpin et al, Wonka et al • Examining and explaining the EU population • Berkhout, Lowery, Messer (2/3 articles) Joost Berkhout

  3. Interest populations: So what? • Typical raw data • Knoke (and others): who are in positions of power? • Links to stages in influence production process: • on strategies, policy success, • and organizational survival/maintenance. • Lowery: theoretically interesting in itself Joost Berkhout

  4. Population data in your PhD project: • In your research: • As independent or dependent variable? • Of a specific (policy) sector or issue? Of a specific type of organization? Comparing countries? Snapshot or time-series? • Research strategies? Joost Berkhout

  5. Top-down or bottom-up nature of registers (1): • Top-down: • Priority to policy-related activities • E.g. consultation lists, entry-registers (or other lobby disclose rules), lobby offices • Suitable for questions about strategies and influence Other activity-related sources: police registers on protest, newspaper coverage, negotiating actors in corporatist bargaining Joost Berkhout

  6. Top-down or bottom-up nature of registers (2): • Bottom-up: • Priority to collective action • E.g. directories of associations, formal registers related to legal status (tax, commerce) • Suitable for questions about mobilisation and populations Joost Berkhout

  7. State of the field; top-down, policy perspective • US origin, recent EU, Scottish and comparative work • Common findings: • Institutions numerically dominate • Volatile / fluid: ‘political hibernation’, EU tourists, policy amateurs • Increase of ‘social interests’ • Arena matters Joost Berkhout

  8. State of the field: bottom-up, collective action perspective • Studies of social movement organizations • Common findings: • Cross-sector, cross-issue, cross guild variation • Density dependence • Variation in political interest Joost Berkhout

  9. US environmental movement, Brulle et al. • About 100 years • Required a large number of directories, ‘bottom up’ • Defined by aim: ‘organization that seeks to bring about improvement of natural environment’ (257). And: exc.: representatives of ‘for profit’ or ‘government’ organizations Joost Berkhout

  10. Mapping Organised Interests, Halpin and Baxter • Consultation registers in Scotland. • Support for: • Salisbury (1984): institutions dominate the system • Scholzman (2009): Fluid system, ‘non-political’ organizations briefly take ‘political’ roles Joost Berkhout

  11. EU data set by Wonka et al. • Snapshot of organizations seemingly active in the EU policy process in 2008 • Combination of: • Public Affairs Directory (Dod´s / Landmarks) • EP register (from EP website) • CONECCS (EC stopped in summer 2007, started new register in 2008) Joost Berkhout

  12. The changing demography of the EU interest system since 1990 (1) • EUP, 11(3), 2010 • Patched-up design of multiple directories, 1996 • Use of samples to estimate overlap Joost Berkhout

  13. The changing demography of the EU interest system since 1990 (2) • Findings: • Growth in early nineties, then stability • From end of nineties: Larger proportion of ‘public’ interests and change in organizational forms; think tanks, regional representations. Joost Berkhout

  14. Short-Term Volatility in the EU Interest Community • JEPP, 18(1), 2011 • EP entry register (and a bit of CONECCS), sample • ‘Surprisingly volatile’ • Typical age-distribution: ‘old bulls’ vs ‘tourists’ Joost Berkhout

  15. The Density of the EU Interest System: A Test of the ESA Model • BJPS, forthcoming • Variation in numbers of organizations per interest guild explained by: • Area (supply): Value added // potential membership • Energy (demand): legislation, consultation • Difficult empirical integration of social and economic interests; contrasting underlying mechanisms Joost Berkhout

  16. Joost Berkhout

  17. Joost Berkhout

  18. Recap: Population data in your PhD project: • In your research: • As independent or dependent variable? • Of a specific (policy) sector or issue? Of a specific type of organization? Comparing countries? Snapshot or time-series? • Research strategies? Joost Berkhout

More Related