Evaluating the breadth of policy engagement by organized interests

Public Administration

Volumn 90, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 582-599

  Halpin, Darren R ^a,b   Thomas, H F ^c  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LOBBYING; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY DEVELOPMENT;

SCOTLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

EID: 84866014853     PISSN: 00333298     EISSN: 14679299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02005.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baumgartner, F.R. and B.I. Leech 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Baumgartner, F.R. and B.I. Leech 2001. 'Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics', Journal of Politics, 63, 4, 1191-213.
3. Baumgartner, F.R., B.D. Jones and M.C. MacLeod 2000. 'The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions', Journal of Politics, 62, 2, 321-49.
4. Beales, D., A. Carter, J. Chrispin, et al. Forthcoming. 'Groups and the Limited Pluralism of the Set-Piece Consultation', British Journal of Politics and IR, in press.
5. Bevan, S. 2008. 'Effects on the Scope of Agendas: The Reasons Why the Dog Did Not Bark', Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Policy Agendas Projects in Barcelona, Spain, 19-21 June.
6. Boydstun, A.E. 2008. How Policy Issues Become Front-Page News. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
7. Browne, W.P. 1990. 'Organized Interests and Their Issue Niche: A Search for Pluralism in a Policy Domain', Journal of Politics, 52, 2, 477-509.
8. Cairney, P. 2008. 'Has Devolution Changed the "British Policy Style"?', British Politics, 1.
9. Cavanagh, M., M. Marsh and M. Smith 1995. 'The Relationship between Policy Networks and Sectoral and Subsectoral Levels: A Response to Jordan, Maloney and McLaughlin', Public Administration, 73, 1, 62-79.
10. Chaffee, S.H. and D.G. Wilson 1977. 'Media Rich, Media Poor: Two Studies of Diversity in Agenda-Holding', Journalism Quarterly, 54, 3, 466-76.
11. Christiansen, P.M. and H. Rommetvedt 1999. 'From Corporatism to Lobbyism? - Parliaments, Executives, and Organized Interests in Denmark and Norway', Scandinavian Political Studies, 22, 3, 195-220.
12. Culbertson, H.M. 1992. 'Measuring Agenda Diversity in an Elastic Medium: Candidate Position Papers', Journalism Quarterly, 69, 4, 938-46.
13. Finer, S. 1958. Anonymous Empire: A Study of the Lobby in Great Britain. London: Pall Mall.
14. Grant, W. 2008, 'The Changing Patterns of Group Politics in Britain', British Politics, 3, 2, 204-22.
15. Gray, V. and D. Lowery 2000 [1996]. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
16. Halpin D. 2011. 'Organized Interests and Cascades of Attention: Unpacking Policy Bandwagon Dynamics', Governance, 24, 2, 205-30.
17. Halpin, D. and G. Jordan Forthcoming. 'Estimating Group and Associational Populations: Endemic Problems but Encouraging Progress?', in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press.
18. Heaney, M.T. 2004. 'Outside the Issue Niche: The Multidimensionality of Interest Group Identity', American Politics Research, 32, 6, November.
19. Heaney, M.T. 2007. 'Identity Crisis: How Interest Groups Struggle to Define Themselves in Washington', in A.J. Cigler and B.A. Loomis (eds), Interest Group Politics, 7th edn. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp. 279-300.
20. Heinz, J.P., E.O. Laumann, R.L. Nelson and R.H. Salisbury 1993. The Hollow Core. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. John, P. 2006. 'The Policy Agendas Project: a Review', Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 7, 975-86.
22. Jordan, G. and W. Maloney 2001. 'Britain: Change and Continuity Within the New Realities of British Politics', in C. Thomas (ed.), Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 27-44.
23. Jordan, G. and J. Greenan Forthcoming. 'The Changing Contours of British Representation: Pluralism in Practice', in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press.
24. Lasorsa, D.L. 1991. 'Effects of Newspaper Competition on Public Opinion Diversity', Journalism Quarterly, 68, 1, 38-47.
25. Lowery, D. and V. Gray 1998. 'The Dominance of Institutions in Interest Representation: A Test of Seven Explanations', American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1, 231-55.
26. Lowery, D. and V. Gray 2004. 'A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests', Political Research Quarterly, 57, 1, 163-75.
27. May, T.C., J. McHugh and T. Taylor 1998. 'Business Representation in the UK since 1979: The Case of Trade Associations', Political Studies, 46, 2, 260-75.
28. McCombs, M. and J.-H. Zhu 1995. 'Capacity, Diversity, and Volatility of the Public Agenda: Trends from 1954 to 1994', Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 4, 495-525.
29. McKenzie, R.T. 1958. 'Parties, Pressure Groups and the British Political Process', Political Quarterly, 29, 1, reprinted in R. Kimber and J. Richardson (eds), Pressure Groups in Britain. London: Dent [1974], pp. 276-88.
30. Page, E.C. 2003. 'The Civil Servant as Legislator: Law Making in British Administration', Public Administration, 81, 4, 651-79.
31. Peter, F. and C.H. de Vreese 2003. 'Agenda-rich, Agenda-poor: A Cross-national Comparative Investigation of Nominal and Thematic Public Agenda Diversity', International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 1, 44-64.
32. Rasmussen, A. 2010. 'Diversity in Interest Representation in Denmark, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom', paper presented at the annual conference of the Dutch Public Administration Association, 25-26 November 2010.
33. Richardson, J.J. and A.G. Jordan 1979. Governing Under Pressure. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
34. Rose, R. 1984. Do Parties Make a Difference?, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan.
35. Richardson, J. 1999. 'Pressure Groups and Parties: A "Haze of Common Knowledge" or Empirical Advance of the Discipline?', in J. Hayward, B. Barry and A. Brown (eds), The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Salisbury, R.H. 1984. 'Interest Representation: The Dominance of Interest Groups', American Political Science Review, 78, 1, 64-78.
37. Schlozman, K. 2009. 'Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus? The Shape of the Organized Interest System', in J. Berry (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 425-50.
38. Shannon, C.E. 1950. 'Prediction and Entropy of Printed English', The Bell System Technical Journal, 30, 50-64.
39. Shannon, C.E. and M. Weaver 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
40. Sheingate, A.D. 2006. 'Structure and Opportunity: Committee Jurisdiction and Issue Attention in Congress', American Journal of Political Science, 50, 4, 844-59.
41. Scottish Executive. 2004. Consultation Good Practice Guidance. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
42. Skocpol, T. 1999. 'Advocates Without Members: The Recent Transformation of American Civic Life', in T. Skocpol and M.P. Fiorina (eds), Civic Engagement in American Democracy, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, pp. 461-509.
43. Talbert, J. and M. Potoski 2002. 'The Capacity, Complexity, and Volatility of the House Agenda', in F.R. Baumgartner and B.D. Jones (eds), Policy Dynamics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44. Walker, J.L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
45. Wolfe, M., A.E. Boydstun and F.R. Baumgartner 2009. 'Comparing the Topics of Front-Page and Full-Paper Stories in the New York Times', Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, 2-5 April.