{"title":"From rhetoric to regulation: inferring lobbying influence on EU efforts to regulate $$\\text {CO}_2$$ emissions of cars using network analysis","authors":"Harald Sick","doi":"10.1057/s41309-023-00195-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study shows how the automotive industry was able to influence the final legislation of the Community Strategy to reduce $${CO}_{2}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>CO</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:math> emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles , even though the European Commission’s introductory comments were supported by a competing interest group coalition: environmentalist NGOs. To operationalize and analyze the influence of lobbying on the EU policy formulation process, I utilize an approach not yet widely used in interest group research: discourse network analysis and inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. This methodological combination allows me to parse the political debate within different phases of the EU policy process to gain insights into how automotive lobbyists were able to shape the final legislation in accordance with their interests and which political decision-makers empowered them to do so. Surprisingly, the party affiliation of Members of the European Parliament played only a subordinate role, whereas the origin of the MEPs was a significant predictor of whether they supported the proposals of environmentalist NGOs or the automotive industry. The latter’s proposals were adopted in the European Commission’s proposal and subsequently in the final regulation. Since the method can be easily applied to case studies from different policy areas, it provides a promising framework for the analysis of EU lobbying in general. Moreover, the network approach is easily extendable, allowing future research to integrate different strands of EU lobbying research that go beyond influence analysis.","PeriodicalId":45513,"journal":{"name":"Interest Groups & Advocacy","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interest Groups & Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-023-00195-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract This study shows how the automotive industry was able to influence the final legislation of the Community Strategy to reduce $${CO}_{2}$$ CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles , even though the European Commission’s introductory comments were supported by a competing interest group coalition: environmentalist NGOs. To operationalize and analyze the influence of lobbying on the EU policy formulation process, I utilize an approach not yet widely used in interest group research: discourse network analysis and inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. This methodological combination allows me to parse the political debate within different phases of the EU policy process to gain insights into how automotive lobbyists were able to shape the final legislation in accordance with their interests and which political decision-makers empowered them to do so. Surprisingly, the party affiliation of Members of the European Parliament played only a subordinate role, whereas the origin of the MEPs was a significant predictor of whether they supported the proposals of environmentalist NGOs or the automotive industry. The latter’s proposals were adopted in the European Commission’s proposal and subsequently in the final regulation. Since the method can be easily applied to case studies from different policy areas, it provides a promising framework for the analysis of EU lobbying in general. Moreover, the network approach is easily extendable, allowing future research to integrate different strands of EU lobbying research that go beyond influence analysis.
期刊介绍:
Interest Groups & Advocacy will engage broadly with the politics of interests. It will record and analyze how advocacy by groups, movements and lobbying professionals shapes policy, and it will address important debates about how such interests are mobilized and maintained. It will cast a wide net across politics and society to identify the forces, strategies, and tactics that determine policy change. Open to diverse methodologies, it welcomes studies that address theoretical issues, report rigorous empirical work, and deliver insight on the range of change agents and their behaviour and impact.
Although this is a field traditionally dominated by American political science, in recent years there has been a widening geographical range as scholarly attention has reflected the growth of numbers, lobbyists have proliferated, and spending has increased in Europe, and in many states, provinces and localities around the world. Such territorial expansion of focus has been accompanied by broadened interest in the number and type of advocacy organizations, (far from the textbook stereotypes of interest groups), such as multi-national corporations, NGOs, and social movements, that seek to influence public policies.
With the active assistance of a diverse and experienced editorial board, the Editors explicitly seek to create a visible, well-regarded journal with the highest standards.
Whether in addressing historical issues or recent events, prospective articles should be sophisticated and of interest to a wide audience. We seek incisive, well-researched, and well-written articles. These qualities are especially important given our desire to attract contributions and attention from practitioners in the worlds of lobbying and group organization. Alongside the Editorial Board there is a Practice Panel to ensure our contents are credible in the world of practice.
Although this journal is anchored within political science, these aims will not be addressed satisfactorily without submissions from other disciplines, such as economics, sociology, law, and history. Social movement scholarship clearly falls under the broad field; likewise, public affairs makes up a major component of the process of competitive advocacy that is now commonplace as a proxy for democratic contestation.
The Editors and the editorial board welcome contributions in this broad area and intend to respond promptly to authors, with a goal of communicating decisions in no more than six weeks.
Although these matters have long received scholarly attention, they have never commanded the attention of a single journal and specialist reviewing. We look forward to establishing Interest Groups & Advocacy as this focal point.