Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:07:43.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Union Online Consultations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Anne Rasmussen  and
Brendan J. Carroll
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 445 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Public Administration, Leiden University (e-mail: [email protected]). The authors acknowledge financial support from the Montesquieu Institute in the Netherlands for data gathering. They are particularly grateful to Vlad Gross for his participation in the project, and they wish to thank Gert-Jan Lindeboom and his fellow students for excellent research assistance. Finally, they are grateful to the participants in the Transformation of the State Conference in Oxford in May 2011, the Agenda setting Conference in Catania in June 2011 and the ECPR General Conference in Reykjavik in August 2011 for comments on earlier drafts. Data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123412000750.

References

ALTER-EU. 2012. Dodgy Data: Time to Fix the EU's Transparency Register. Available from http://www.alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/documents/Dodgy-data.pdf, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R, et al. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. Leech, Beth L.. 2001. Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics. Journal of Politics 63:1191–1213.Google Scholar
Berkhout, Joost Lowery, David. 2008. Counting Organized Interests in the European Union: A Comparison of Data Sources. Journal of European Public Policy 15:489–513.Google Scholar
Berkhout, Joost Lowery, David. 2010. The Changing Demography of the EU Interest System since 1990. European Union Politics 11:447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozzini, Emanuela. 2007. The Role of Civil Society Organisations in Written Consultation Processes: From the European Monitoring Centre to the European Fundamental Rights Agency. Pp. 93–109 in Governance and Civil Society in the European Union, Volume 2: Exploring Policy Issues, edited by Vincent Della Sala and Carlo Ruzza. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Broscheid, Andreas Coen, David. 2007. Lobbying Activity and Fora Creation in the EU: Empirically Exploring the Nature of the Policy Good. Journal of European Public Policy 14:346–365.Google Scholar
Chabanet, Didier, Trechsel, Alexander H. 2011. EU Member States’ Consultation with Civil Society on European Policy Matteres. EUDO Report. Available from http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/19357, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
Drew, Elizabeth. 2000. The Corruption of American Politics: What Went Wrong and Why. Woodstock, N.Y.: The Overlook Press.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2001. European Governance: A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 Final. Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0428:EN:NOT, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2002. Communication from the Commission: 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 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52002DC0704:EN:NOT, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2008. Communication from the Commission: European Transparency Initiative – a Framework for Relations with Interest Representatives (Register and Code of Conduct), COM(2008) 323 Final. Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0323:EN:NOT, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2009. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council European – Transparency Initiative: The Register of Interest Representatives, One Year after, COM(2009) 612. Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0612:EN:NOT, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia Lowery, David. 1993. The Diversity of State Interest Group Systems. Political Research Quarterly 46:81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia Lowery, David. 1994. Interest Group System Density and Diversity: A Research Update. International Political Science Review 15:5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Virginia Lowery, David. 2000. The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia Lowery, David. 2001. The Expression of Density Dependence in State Communities of Organized Interests. American Politics Research 29:374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, Justin. 2011. Interest Representation in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. The Political System of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hüller, Thorsten. 2008. Gut Beraten? Die Online-Konsultationen Der EU Kommission. Zeitschrift für Politikberatung 1:359–382.Google Scholar
Kardasheva, Raya. 2009. Legislative Package Deals in EU Decision-Making 1999–2007. Doctoral dissertation, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P.J. 1985. Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lowery, David Brasher, Holly. 2004. Organized Interests and American Government. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lowery, David Gray, Virginia. 2004. Bias in the Heavenly Chorus. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16:5–29.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. Review: American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics 16:677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1972. Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice. Public Administration Review 32:298–310.Google Scholar
Messer, Anne, Berghout, Joost Lowery, David. 2011. The Density of the EU Interest System: A Test of the ESA Model. British Journal of Political Science 41:161–190.Google Scholar
OECD. 2006. Background Document on Public Consultation. Available from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/43/36785341.pdf, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
Papke, Leslie E. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M.. 1996. Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401 (K) Plan Participation Rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11:619–632.Google Scholar
Persson, Thomas. 2007. Democratizing European Chemicals Policy: Do Consultations Favour Civil Society Participation? Journal of Civil Society 3:223–238.Google Scholar
Quittkat, Christine. 2011. The European Commission's Online Consultations: A Success Story? Journal of Common Market Studies 49:653–674.Google Scholar
Quittkat, Christine, Finke, Barbara. 2008. The EU Commission Consultation Regime in Opening EU-Governance to Civil Society – Gains and Challenges. Available from http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/index.php?id=641, accessed 12 August 2012.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne, Gross, Vlad. 2012. Biased Access? Exploring Selection to the Advisority Committees of the European Commission. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Antwerp.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Anne, Toshkov, Dimiter. 2013. The Effect of Stakeholder Involvement: Consultation of External Actors and Legislative Duration. European Union Politics 14(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozell, Mark J Wilcox, Clyde. 1999. Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 1984. What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System. Journal of Politics 46:1006–1032.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman. 2012. Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus? The Shape of the Organized Interest System. Pp. 425–450 in Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, edited by L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffrey M. Berry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman Tierney, John T.. 1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, et al. 2008. Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus? Political Inequality and the Pressure System. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1979. Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Thomas, Clive S. Hrebenar, Ronald J.. 1990. Interest Groups in the States. Pp. 123–158 in Politics in the American States, edited by Virginia Gray, Herbert Jacob, and Robert Albritton. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
JrWalker, Jack L.. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1974. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wonka, Arndt, et al. 2010. Measuring the Size and Scope of the EU Interest Group Population. European Union Politics 11:463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeigler, Harmon. 1983. Interest Groups in the States. Pp. 97–132 in Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, edited by Virginia Gray, Herbert Jacob, and Kenneth Nelson Vines. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rasmussen Supplementary Material

Table 1

Download Rasmussen Supplementary Material(File)
File 38.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rasmussen Supplementary Material

Table 2

Download Rasmussen Supplementary Material(File)
File 104.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rasmussen Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Rasmussen Supplementary Material(File)
File 14.4 KB