Framing in context: how interest groups employ framing to lobby the European Commission

Journal of European Public Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 481-498

  Klüver, Heike ^a   Mahoney, Christine ^b   Opper, Marc ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BAMBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Directorates General; European Commission; European Union; framing; interest groups; lobbying; quantitative text analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924278404     PISSN: 13501763     EISSN: 14664429     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008550     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bailey, A. and Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008) ‘Does deliberation matter in FOMC monetary policymaking? The Volcker Revolution of 1979’, Political Analysis 16(4): 404–27. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpn005
2. Baroni, L., Carroll, B.J., Chalmers, A., Marquez, L.M.M. and Rasmussen, A. (2014) ‘Defining and classifying interest groups’, Interest Groups and Advocacy 3(2): 141–59. doi: 10.1057/iga.2014.9
3. Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J.M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D.C. and Leech, B.L. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4. Baumgartner, F.R., De Boef, S. and Boydstun, A. (2008) The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Baumgartner, F.R. and Leech, B. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Baumgartner, F.R. and Mahoney, C. (2008) ‘The two faces of framing: individual-level framing and collective issue-definition in the EU’, European Union Politics 9 (3): 435–49. doi: 10.1177/1465116508093492
7. Bernhagen, P., Dür, A. and Marshall, D. (2015) ‘Information or context: what accounts for positional proximity between the European Commission and lobbyists?’, Journal of European Public Policy, doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008556.
8. Beyers, J. (2004) ‘Voice and access: political practices of European interest associations’, European Union Politics 5(2): 211–40. doi: 10.1177/1465116504042442
9. Beyers, J., de Bruycker, I. and Baller, I. (2015) ‘The alignment of parties and interest groups in EU legislative politics. A tale of two different worlds?’, Journal of European Public Policy, doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008551.
10. Boräng, F., Eising, R., Klüver, H., Mahoney, C., Naurin, D., Rasch, D. and Rozbicka, P. (2014) ‘Identifying frames: a comparison of research methods’, Interest groups & Advocacy 3(2): 188–201. doi: 10.1057/iga.2014.12
11. Chong, D. and Druckman, J.N. (2007) ‘Framing theory’, Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
12. Daviter, F. (2011) Policy Framing in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
13. Druckman, J.M. (2004) ‘Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects’, American Political Science Review 98(4): 671–86. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404041413
14. Dür, A. and Zimmermann, H. (2007) ‘Introduction: the EU in international trade negotiations’, Journal of Common Market Studies 45(4): 771–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00747.x
15. Entman, R.M. (1991) ‘Framing US coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents’, Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
16. European Commission (2002) ‘Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’, COM(2002) 704 final, available at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/docs/comm_standards_en.pdf (accessed April 2010).
17. Hartlapp, M., Metz, J. and Rauh, C. (2013) ‘Linking agenda setting to coordination structures: bureaucratic politics inside the European Commission’, Journal of European Integration 35(4): 425–41. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2012.703663
18. Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Klüver, H. (2009) ‘Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis’, European Union Politics 10(4): 535–49.
20. Klüver, H. (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions and Policy Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press
21. Klüver, H., Braun, C. and Beyers, J. (2015) ‘Legislative lobbying in context: towards a conceptual framework of interest group lobbying in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008792.
22. Klüver, H. and Mahoney, C. (2015) ‘Measuring interest group framing strategies in public policy debates’, Journal of Public Policy, doi: 10.1017/S0143814X14000294.
23. Kollman, K. (1998) Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. Lancia, F. (2009) ‘T-LAB Pro, Tools for text analysis, version 6.1’, available at http://www.tlab.it (accessed 4 May 2009).
25. Lancia, F. (2012) ‘The logic of the T-Lab tool explained’, Working paper, available at http://mytlab.com/textscope.pdf (accessed January 2014).
26. Lowery, D. (2007) ‘Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying’, Polity 39(1): 29–54. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300077
27. Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
28. Mahoney, C. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2008) ‘The two faces of framing: individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union’, European Union Politics 9(3): 435–49. doi: 10.1177/1465116508093492
29. McCarthy, J.D. and Zald, M.N. (1977) ‘Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory?’, American Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212–41. doi: 10.1086/226464
30. Morth, U. (2000) ‘Competing frames in the European Commission – the case of the defence industry and equipment issue’, Journal of European Public Policy 7(2): 173–89. doi: 10.1080/135017600343151
31. Ringe, N. (2005) ‘Policy preference formation in legislative politics: structures, actors and focal points’, American Journal of Political Science 49(4): 731–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00151.x
32. Ringe, N. (2009) Who Decides, and How? Preferences, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice in the European Parliament, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Schmitter, P.C. and Streeck, W. (1999) ‘The organization of business interests: studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies’, MPIfG Discussion Paper 99(1): 1–95.
34. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2008) ‘The Congressional debate on partial-birth abortion: constitutional gravitas and moral passion’, British Journal of Political Science 38(3): 383–10. doi: 10.1017/S0007123408000203
35. Steenbergen, M.R. and Jones, B.S. (2002) ‘Modeling multi-level data structures.’, American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 218–37. doi: 10.2307/3088424
36. Steinbach, M., Karypis, G. and Kumar, V. (2000) ‘A comparison of document clustering techniques’, Technical Report #00-034, Minneapolis, MN: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota.
37. Stewart, J.D. (1958) British Pressure Groups: Their Role in Relation to the House of Commons, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1987) ‘Rational choice and the framing of decisions’, in R.M. Hogarth and M.W. Reder (eds), Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology’, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 67–94.
39. Wonka, A., Baumgartner, F.R., Mahoney, C. and Berkhout, J. (2010) ‘Measuring the size of the EU interest group population’, European Union Politics 11(3): 463–76. doi: 10.1177/1465116510369267