References
- Bale, T., Green-Pedersen, C., Krouwel, A., Luther, K. and Sitter, N. (2010) ‘If you can’t beat them, join them?’, Political Studies 58 (3): 410–426. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00783.x
- Baumgartner, F. (2013) ‘Ideas and policy change’, Governance 26 (2): 239–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12007
- Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. (1993) Agendas and Instabilities in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Baumgartner, F. and Mahoney, C. (2008) ‘Forum section: The Two Faces of Framing’, European Union Politics 9 (3): 435–449. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116508093492
- Berkhout, J. (2013) ‘Why interest organizations do what they do: Assessing the explanatory potential of ‘exchange’ approaches’, Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (2): 227–250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2013.6
- Binderkrantz, A. (2019) ‘Interest group framing in Denmark and the UK: membership representation or public appeal?’, Journal of European Public Policy. doi:10.1080/13501763.2019.1599041.
- Binderkrantz, A. and Christiansen, P. (2015) ‘From classic to modern corporatism. interest group representation in Danish public committees in 1975 and 2010’, Journal of European Public Policy 22 (7): 1022–1039. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.1000365
- Binderkrantz, A., Christiansen, P. and Pedersen, H. (2015) ‘Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament, and the media’, Governance 28 (1): 95–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12089
- Boumans, J. (2018) ‘Subsidizing the news?’, Journalism Studies 19 (15): 2264–2282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1338154
- Brand, D., Saisana, M., Rynn, L.A., Pennoni, F. and Lowenfels, A.B. (2007) ‘Comparative analysis of alcohol control policies in 30 countries’, PLOS Medicine 4 (4): e151. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040151.
- Bruycker, I. (2017) ‘Framing and advocacy: a research agenda for interest group studies’, Journal of European Public Policy 24 (5): 775–787. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1149208
- Butler, S., Elmeland, K., Thom, B. and Nicholls, J. (2017) Alcohol, Power and Public Health: A Comparative Study of Alcohol Policy, London: Routledge.
- Daviter, F. (2009) ‘Schattschneider in Brussels: how policy conflict reshaped the biotechnology agenda in the European Union’, West European Politics 32 (6): 1118–1139. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903230595
- De Bruycker, I. (2019) ‘Blessing or Curse for advocacy? How news media Attention helps advocacy groups to Achieve their policy Goals’, Political Communication 36 (1): 103–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1493007
- Entman, R. (1993) ‘Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
- Euchner, E.-M., Heichel, S., Nebel, K. and Raschzok, A. (2013) ‘From ‘morality’ policy to ‘normal’ policy: framing of drug consumption and gambling in Germany and the Netherlands and their regulatory consequences’, Journal of European Public Policy 20 (3): 372–389. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.761506
- Fisker, H. (2015) ‘Dead or alive? Explaining the long-term survival chances of interest groups’, West European Politics 38 (3): 709–729. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.962246
- Hall, P. (1993) ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275–296. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/422246
- King, G., Robert, K. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Klüver, H., Mahoney, C. and Opper, M. (2015) ‘Framing in context: how interest groups employ framing to lobby the European Commission’, Journal of European Public Policy 22 (4): 481–498. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008550
- Mahoney, C. (2007) ‘Networking vs. allying: the decision of interest groups to join coalitions in the US and the EU’, Journal of European Public Policy 14 (3): 366–383. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701243764
- Meguid, B. (2008) ‘Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success’, American Political Science Review 99 (3): 347–359. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051701
- Miller, M. and Reichert, B. (2001) ‘The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance’, in S. Reese, O. Gandy and A. Grant (eds), Framing Public Life, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 107–122.
- Riker, W. (1996) The Strategy of Rhetoric. Campaigning for the American Constitution, New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Sagarzazu, I. and Klüver, H. (2017) ‘Coalition governments and party competition: political communication strategies of coalition parties’, Political Science Research and Methods 5 (2): 333–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.56
- Schattschneider, E. (1960) The Semisovereign People, New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston.
- Sigelman, L. and Buell, E. (2004) ‘Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in US presidential campaigns 1960–2000’, American Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 650–661. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00093.x