Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T10:19:15.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To inform, strategise, collaborate, or compete: what use do lobbyists make of lobby registers?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2020

Michele Crepaz Open the ORCID record for Michele Crepaz [Opens in a new window]
Michele Crepaz*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, 3 College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Governments claim to establish lobbying registers with the intent of giving citizens and the media the opportunity to see who is lobbying whom and for what purpose. This external scrutiny is expected to help prevent undue influence and corruption. Scholars, however, have noted that transparency might also serve internal scrutinizers by providing information to the lobbyists themselves. This study employed a survey of more than 300 interest groups in Ireland to test this alternative to the ‘armchair scrutiniser’ assumption, whereby transparency serves the purpose only of public scrutiny. The analysis found that a small but well-defined group of organizations routinely accesses the website of the Irish lobbying register and ‘consumes’ the information during the advocacy process. Interest-group characteristics, such as group type and material resources, help explain these trends. This study is relevant for scholars interested in the effects of transparency and how the availability of information is linked to lobbying strategies.

Keywords

transparencylobbyingadvocacylobby registerIreland
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , August 2020 , pp. 347 - 369
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austen-Smith, D. and Wright, J.R. (1994), ‘Counteractive lobbying’, American Journal of Political Science 38(1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baturo, A. and Arlow, J. (2018), ‘Is there a “revolving door” to the private sector in Irish politics?’, Irish Political Studies 33(3): 381–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J. (2004), ‘Voice and access: political practices of European interest associations’, European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.10.1177/1465116504042442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J. (2008), ‘Policy issues, organisational format and the political strategies of interest organisations’, West European Politics 31(6): 1188–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J., Bernhagen, P., Borang, F., Braun, C., Fink-Hafner, D., Heylen, F., Maloney, W., Naurin, D. and Pakull, D. (2016), Comparative Interest Group Survey Questionnaire (Edition: January 2016). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. and De Bruycker, I. (2018), ‘Lobbying makes (strange) bedfellows: explaining the formation and composition of lobbying coalitions in EU legislative politics’, Political Studies 66(4): 959–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J. and Hanegraaff, M. (2017), ‘Balancing friends and foes: explaining advocacy styles at global diplomatic conferences’, The Review of International Organizations 12(3): 461–484.10.1007/s11558-016-9262-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binderkrantz, A., Pedersen, H.H and Beyers, J (2017), ‘What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access’, European Political Science 16(1): 306–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bombardini, M. and Trebbi, F. (2012), ‘Competition and political organisation: Together or alone in lobbying for trade policy?’, Journal of International Economics 87(1): 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunea, A. (2018), ‘Regulating European Union lobbying: in whose interest?’, Journal of European Public Policy 26(11): 1–21.Google Scholar
Bunea, A. and Gross, V. (2019), ‘Regulating lobbying through voluntary transparency clubs: the connoisseurs’ assessment. Evidence from the European Union’, Public Administration: 1–17.Google Scholar
Chalmers, A.W. (2013), ‘Trading information for access: informational lobbying strategies and interest group access to the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chari, R., Murphy, G., Hogan, J. and Crepaz, M. (2019), Regulating Lobbying: A Global Comparison, 2nd edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Crepaz, M. and Hanegraaff, M. (2020), ‘The funding of interest groups in the EU: are the rich getting richer?’, Journal of European Public Policy 27(1): 102–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G.A. and Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017), ‘25 years of transparency research: evidence and future directions’, Public Administration Review 77(1): 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruycker, I. (2019), ‘Lobbying: an art and a science—Five golden rules for an evidence-based lobbying strategy’, Journal of Public Affairs e1949.Google Scholar
De Bruycker, I., Berkhout, J. and Hanegraaff, M. (2019), ‘The paradox of collective action: linking interest aggregation and interest articulation in EU legislative lobbying’, Governance 32(2): 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A., Bernhagen, P. and Marshall, D. (2015), ‘Interest group success in the European Union: when (and why) does business lose?,’ Comparative Political Studies 48(8): 951–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A. and Mateo, G. (2010), ‘Irish associations and lobbying on EU legislation: resources, access points, and strategies’, Irish Political Studies 25(1): 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A. and Mateo, G. (2012), ‘Who lobbies the European Union? National interest groups in a multilevel polity’, Journal of European Public Policy 19(7): 969–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dür, A. and Mateo, G. (2016), Insiders Versus Outsiders: Interest Group Politics in Multilevel Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraussen, B., Beyers, J and Donas, T (2015), ‘The expanding core and varying degrees of insiderness: institutionalised interest group access to advisory councils’, Political Studies 63(3): 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraussen, B. and Braun, C (2018), ‘‘De Lobby’ Aan Banden? Over Het Ongelijk Speelveld En De Regulering Van Belangenvertegenwoordiging’, Tijdschrift voor Toezicht 9(4): 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A., Graham, M. and Weil, D. (2007), Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1998), ‘To lobby alone or in a flock: foraging behavior among organized interests’, American Politics Quarterly 26(1): 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanegraaff, M., Beyers, J.A. and De Bruycker, I. (2016), ‘Balancing inside and outside lobbying: the political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences’, European Journal of Political Research 55(3): 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanegraaff, M. and Pritoni, A. (2019), ‘United in fear: interest group coalition formation as a weapon of the weak?’, European Union Politics https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116518824022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanegraaff, M., van der Ploeg, J. and Berkhout, J. (2019), ‘Standing in a crowded room: exploring the relation between interest group system density and access to policymakers’, Political Research Quarterly https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912919865938Google Scholar
Hazell, R., Bourke, G. and Worthy, B. (2012), ‘Open house? Freedom of information and its impact on the UK parliament’, Public Administration 90(4): 901–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heald, D. (2006), Varieties of Transparency, in Hood, C and Heald, D. Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? (Vol. 135). Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.Google Scholar
Jagers, S.C., Berlin, D. and Jentoft, S. (2012), ‘Why comply? Attitudes towards harvest regulations among Swedish fishers’, Marine Policy 36(5): 969–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C.L. and Aarset, B. (2008), ‘Explaining noncompliance in the Norwegian coastal cod fishery: an application of the multinomial logit’, Applied Economics 40(4): 505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, H. (2013), Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPira, T.M. and Thomas, H.F. (2014), ‘Revolving door lobbyists and interest representation’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(1): 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPira, T.M. and Thomas, H.F. (2017), Revolving Door Lobbying: Public Service, Private Influence, and the Unequal Representation of Interests. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, C. and Naurin, D. (2010), ‘Transparency is not enough: making transparency effective in reducing corruption’, International Political Science Review 31(3): 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, D. (2007), ‘Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying’, Polity 39(1): 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, D. and Gray, V. (2015), An introduction to the population ecology approach. In Lowery, D (ed.), The Organization Ecology of Interest Communities, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp: 1–15.Google Scholar
Lowery, D., Gray, V., Wolak, J., Godwin, E. and Kilburn, W. (2005), ‘Reconsidering the counter-mobilization hypothesis: health policy lobbying in the American states’, Political Behavior 27(2): 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, C. (2008), Brussels versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Maloney, W.A., Jordan, G. and McLaughlin, A.M. (1994), ‘Interest groups and public policy: the insider/outsider model revisited’, Journal of Public Policy 14(1): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, D. (2010), ‘Who to lobby and when: institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament committees’, European Union Politics 11(4): 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, A. and Yackee, S.W. (2007), ‘Interest group competition on federal agency rules’, American Politics Research 35(3): 336–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, A.J., Curtin, D. and Hillebrandt, M. (2012), ‘Open government: connecting vision and voice’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1): 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. (2010), ‘Influencing political decision-making: interest groups and elections in independent Ireland’, Irish Political Studies 25(4): 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Năstase, A. and Muurmans, C. (2018), ‘Regulating lobbying activities in the European Union: a voluntary club perspective’, Regulation & Governance. Open Access. https://doi:10.1111/rego.12200.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, A. and Carroll, B.J. (2014). ‘Determinants of upper-class dominance in the heavenly chorus: lessons from European Union online consultations’, British Journal of Political Science 44(2): 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SIPO (2018), Regulation of Lobbying in 2018: annual Report. Standard in Public Office Commission: Dublin. https://www.lobbying.ie/media/6218/annual-report-2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Strickland, J.M. (2019), ‘The Declining Value of Revolving-Door Lobbyists: evidence from the American States’. American Journal of Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12485.Google Scholar
Weiler, F. and Brändli, M. (2015), ‘Inside versus outside lobbying: how the institutional framework shapes the lobbying behaviour of interest groups’, European Journal of Political Research 54(4): 745–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woll, C. (2013) ‘Lobbying under Pressure: the Effect of Salience on European Union Hedge Fund Regulation’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 51(3): 555–572.Google Scholar
Worthy, B. (2012), ‘A powerful weapon in the right hands? how members of parliament have used freedom of information in the UK’, Parliamentary Affairs 67(4): 783–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worthy, B. (2015), ‘The impact of open data in the UK: complex, unpredictable, and political’, Public Administration 93(3): 788–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Crepaz supplementary material

Crepaz supplementary material

Download Crepaz supplementary material(File)
File 33.7 KB