Post-exceptionalism and corporate interests in US agricultural policy

References

• Adler, E. S. (2016) ‘Congressional District Data File, 92nd and 101st Congress’, University of Colorado, Boulder.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F.R., Berry, J., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. and Kimball, D. (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bellemare, M.F. and Carnes, N. (2015) ‘Why do members of congress support agricultural protection’, Food Policy 50: 20–34. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanes i Vidal, J., Draca, M. and Fons-Rosen, C. (2012) ‘Revolving door lobbyists’, American Economic Review 102(7): 3731–48. doi: 10.1257/aer.102.7.3731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002) Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Heath (2016) Pay-To-Play Politics: How Money Defines American Democracy, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, William P. (1990) ‘Organized interests and their issue niches: a search for pluralism in a policy domain’, The Journal of Politics 52: 477–509. doi: 10.2307/2131903
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chite, R.M. (2014) ‘The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): summary and side-by-side’, CRS Report R43076, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Daugbjerg, C. and Feindt, P.H. (2017) ‘Post-exceptionalism in public policy: transforming food and agricultural policy’, Journal of European Public Policy. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1334081
   Google Scholar
• Dimitri, C. (2005) ‘The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy’, Economic Information Bulletin, Number 3, Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, USDA.
   Google Scholar
• Drutman, L. (2015) The Business of America is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R.L. and Deardorff, A.V. (2006) ‘Lobbying as legislative subsidy’, American Political Science Review 100(1): 69–84. doi: 10.1017/S0003055406062010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanneman, R.A. and Riddle, M. (2005) Introduction to Social Network Methods, Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside, available at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/ (accessed April 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, J.M. (1991) Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heaney, M.T. and Lorenz, G.M. (2013) ‘Coalition portfolios and interest group influence over the policy process’, Interest Groups and Advocacy 2(3): 251–77. doi: 10.1057/iga.2013.7
   Google Scholar
• Heclo, H. (1978) ‘Issue networks and the executive establishment’, Public Administration: Concepts and Cases 413: 46–57.
   Google Scholar
• Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., Nelson, R.L. and Salisbury, R.H. (1997) The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hurwitz, M.S., Moiles, R.J. and Rohde, D.W. (2001) ‘Distributive and partisan issues in agriculture policy in the 104th house’, American Political Science Review 95(4): 911–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 22(4): 447–61. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaPira, T.M. and Thomas, H.F. (2017) Revolving Door Lobbying: Public Service, Private Influence, and the Unequal Representation of Interests, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Lowi, T.J. (1969) The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Maass, A. (1951) Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the Nation's Rivers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2015) ‘Partners in advocacy: lobbyists and government officials in Washington’, The Journal of Politics 77: 202–15. doi: 10.1086/678389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, T. and Orenstein, N. (2016) It’s Even Worse than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism, New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• McConnell, G. (1966) Private Power & American Democracy, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Nixon, R. (2014) ‘Farm bill compromise will change programs and reduce spending’, New York Times, January 28: A13.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2003) Farm Household Income: Issues and Policy Responses, Paris: OECD Publications Service.
   Google Scholar
• Sheingate, A.D. (2003) The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power in the United States, France, and Japan, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strach, P. (2007) All in the Family: The Private Roots of American Public Policy, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Truman, D.B. (1955) The Governmental Process, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• United States Bureau of Economic Analysis (2016) ‘Regional data: GDP and personal income’, available at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1 (accessed 10 October 2016).
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture (2016a) ‘Feed grains: yearbook tables’, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/feed-grains-yearbook-tables.aspx (accessed 10 April 2016).
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture (2016b) ‘Sugar and sweeteners: yearbook tables’, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx (accessed 10 April 2016).
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture (2016c) ‘ARMS farm financial and crop production practices’, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/arms-farm-financial-and-crop-production-practices.aspx (accessed 10 April 2016).
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture (2016d) ‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): participation and costs’, available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed 10 April 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Victor, J.N. and Koger, G. (2015) ‘Financing friends: how lobbyists create a web of relationships among members of Congress’, Paper presented at the Political Networks Workshops & Conference, American Political Science Association, Portland, OR, 17, June.
   Google Scholar
• Vyas, S. and Kumaranayake, L. (2006) ‘Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis’, Health Policy and Planning 21(6): 459–68. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czl029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, G.K. (1977) Special Interests and Policymaking: Agricultural Policies and Politics in Britain and the United States of America, 1956–1970, New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wonka, A., Baumgartner, F., Mahoney, C. and Berkhout, J. (2010) ‘Measuring the size and scope of the EU interest group population’, European Union Politics 11(3): 463–76. doi: 10.1177/1465116510369267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar