Alberto Bitonti, Giulia Mugellini, Claudia Mariotti, Mary Francoli, Jean-Patrick Villeneuve
{"title":"Citizens and the public perception of lobbying: do regulation and trust in political institutions make a difference?","authors":"Alberto Bitonti, Giulia Mugellini, Claudia Mariotti, Mary Francoli, Jean-Patrick Villeneuve","doi":"10.1057/s41309-025-00237-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In political studies, lobbying is portrayed as a vital process of political participation, contributing information, policy capacities, and political capital to policymaking, but also as a potential source of representation biases, undue influence, and policy capture. Given such Janus-faced nature of lobbying within democracy, the primary aim of this article is to investigate which perception prevails among citizens empirically. By analysing the primary data of two surveys of 4000 Canadian and 1600 Swiss citizens, it investigates the public perception of lobbying across countries with contrasting institutional and regulatory frameworks and different levels of trust in political institutions. Results show that citizens' perception of lobbying differs in the two contexts, being predominantly negative in Switzerland and positive in Canada. Additionally, Swiss citizens are significantly more likely than Canadians to view lobbying as inadequately regulated. Both trust in political institutions and the perception that lobbying is properly regulated have a significant and positive impact on the perception of lobbying. Interestingly, despite Switzerland's higher levels of trust in political institutions than Canada, this trust does not translate into a more positive perception of lobbying, suggesting that robust regulations may play a more decisive role than institutional trust in shaping public perceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":45513,"journal":{"name":"Interest Groups & Advocacy","volume":"14 3","pages":"270-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416409/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interest Groups & Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-025-00237-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In political studies, lobbying is portrayed as a vital process of political participation, contributing information, policy capacities, and political capital to policymaking, but also as a potential source of representation biases, undue influence, and policy capture. Given such Janus-faced nature of lobbying within democracy, the primary aim of this article is to investigate which perception prevails among citizens empirically. By analysing the primary data of two surveys of 4000 Canadian and 1600 Swiss citizens, it investigates the public perception of lobbying across countries with contrasting institutional and regulatory frameworks and different levels of trust in political institutions. Results show that citizens' perception of lobbying differs in the two contexts, being predominantly negative in Switzerland and positive in Canada. Additionally, Swiss citizens are significantly more likely than Canadians to view lobbying as inadequately regulated. Both trust in political institutions and the perception that lobbying is properly regulated have a significant and positive impact on the perception of lobbying. Interestingly, despite Switzerland's higher levels of trust in political institutions than Canada, this trust does not translate into a more positive perception of lobbying, suggesting that robust regulations may play a more decisive role than institutional trust in shaping public perceptions.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
