Assessing the prominence of interest groups in parliament: a supervised machine learning approach

References

• Allern, E. H., & Bale, T. (2012). Political parties and interest groups: Disentangling complex relationships. Party Politics, 18(1), 7–25. doi: 10.1177/1354068811422639
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailer, S. (2011). People’s voice or information pool? The role of, and reasons for, parliamentary questions in the Swiss Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(3), 302–314. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.595123
   Google Scholar
• Balla, S. J., & Wright, J. R. (2001). Interest groups, advisory committees, and Congressional control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 799–812. doi: 10.2307/2669325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bara, J., Weale, A., & Bicquelet, A. (2007). Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 577–605. doi: 10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00090.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Kimball, D. C., & Leech, B. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bawn, K., Cohen, M., Karol, D., Masket, S., Noel, H., & Zaller, J. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597. doi: 10.1017/S1537592712001624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, A. (2013). Deliberation, discourse, and the study of legislatures. In K. Strøm, T. Saalfeld, & S. Martin (Eds.), Oxford handbook of legislative studies (pp. 145–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berkhout, J., Beyers, J., Braun, C., Hanegraaff, M., & Lowery, D. (2017). Making inference across mobilisation and influence research: Comparing top-down and bottom-up mapping of interest systems. Political Studies, 66, 43–62. doi:10.1177/0032321717702400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhagen, P. (2012). Who gets what in British politics - and how? An analysis of media reports on lobbying around government policies, 2001–2007. Political Studies, 60(3), 557–577. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00916.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, J. M. (1999). The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beyers, J. (2002). Gaining and seeking access: The European adaptation of domestic interest associations. European Journal of Political Research, 41(5), 585–612. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.00023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyers, J. (2004). Voice and access - political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics, 5(2), 211–240. doi: 10.1177/1465116504042442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyers, J., Chaques Bonafont, L., Dur, A., Eising, R., Fink-Hafner, D., Lowery, D., & Naurin, D. (2014). The INTEREURO project: Logic and structure. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(2), 126–140. doi: 10.1057/iga.2014.8
   Google Scholar
• Beyers, J., De Bruycker, I., & Baller, I. (2015). The alignment of parties and interest groups in EU legislative politics. A tale of two different worlds? Journal of European Public Policy, 22(4), 534–551. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1008551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A. (2005). Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00552.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A. (2015). Balancing gains and hazards: Interest groups in electoral politics. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 4(2), 120–140. doi: 10.1057/iga.2014.20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A., Pedersen, H., & Beyers, J. (2017). What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access. European Political Science, 16, 306–321. doi:10.1057/eps.2016.17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binderkrantz, A. S., & Christiansen, P. M. (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: 10.1080/13501763.2014.1000365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouwen, P. (2002). Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 365–390. doi: 10.1080/13501760210138796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunea, A., & Ibenskas, R. (2017). Unveiling patterns of contestation over better regulation reforms in the European Union. Public Administration, 95(3), 589–604. doi: 10.1111/padm.12335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bütikofer, S., & Hug, S. (2015). Strategic behaviour in parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 21(3), 295–322. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2014.997988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bruycker, I., & Beyers, J. (2015). Balanced or biased? Interest groups and legislative lobbying in the European news media. Political Communication, 32(3), 453–474. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2014.958259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2017). Advocacy strategies in global governance: Inside versus outside lobbying. Political Studies, 65(3), 705–723. doi: 10.1177/0032321716684356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diermeier, D., Godbout, J.-F., Yu, B., & Kaufmann, S. (2012). Language and ideology in Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 31–55. doi: 10.1017/S0007123411000160
   Google Scholar
• Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their activity and organization in the modern state. London: Methuen & Company Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Eising, R. (2016). Studying interest groups: Methodological challenges and tools. European Political Science. doi:10.1057/eps.2016.14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraussen, B., Beyers, J., & Donas, T. (2015). The expanding core and varying degrees of insiderness: Institutionalised interest group access to advisory councils. Political Studies, 63(3), 569–588. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2016). Assessing the composition and diversity of the Australian interest group system. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(4), 476–491. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. R. (2018). Political parties and interest organizations at the crossroads: Perspectives on the transformation of political organizations. Political Studies Review, 16(1), 25–37. doi: 10.1177/1478929916644868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamson, W. A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114–125. doi: 10.1177/0002716293528001009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297. doi: 10.1093/pan/mps028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossmann, M. (2012). The not-so-special interests: Interest groups, public representation, and American governance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. (2011). Explaining policy bandwagons: Organized interest mobilization and cascades of attention. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 24(2), 205–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01522.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. (2015). ‘Still in the shadows? Interest groups and political parties in the Australian political system’. In A. Gauja, N. Miragliotta, & R. Smith (Eds.), Resilient and defiant: Reflections on contemporary Australian party organizations (pp. 103–114). Melbourne: Monash University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, D. R., & Fraussen, B. (2017). Conceptualising the policy engagement of interest groups: Involvement, access and prominence. European Journal of Political Research, 56(3), 723–732. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpin, D., & Thomas, H. (2012). Evaluating the breadth of policy engagement by organized interests. Public Administration, 90(3), 582–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02005.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heaney, M. T. (2012). Linking political parties and interest groups. In L. S. Maisel & J. M. Berry (Eds.), The state of research on political parties and interest groups (pp. 568–587). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heinz, J. P. (1993). The hollow core : Private interests in national policy making. Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395–412. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mug028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B., & Thomas, T. (2012). Bounded rationality and public policy decision-making. In Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 273–286). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D., & Thomas, H. F. (2013). Bounded rationality and public policy decision-making. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu, (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 291–304). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jurka, T. P., Collingwood, L., Boydstun, A. E., Grossman, E., & van Atteveldt, W. (2013). RTexttools: A supervised learning package for text classification. The R Journal, 5(1), 6–12.
   Google Scholar
• Key, V. O. (1942). Politics, parties and pressure groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, H. (2009). Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics, 10(4), 535–549. doi: 10.1177/1465116509346782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaPira, T. M., Thomas, H. F., & Baumgartner, F. (2014). The two worlds of lobbying: Washington lobbyists in the core and on the periphery. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(3), 1–27. doi: 10.1057/iga.2014.4
   Google Scholar
• Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S., & Laver, M. (2011). Scaling policy preferences from political text. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 123–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-9162.2010.00006.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowery, D., Baumgartner, F., Berkhout, J., Berry, J. M., Halpin, D., Hojnacki, M., & Schlozman, K. L. (2015). Images of an unbiased interest system. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(8), 1212–1231. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2015.1049197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (2004). Bias in the heavenly chorus - interests in society and before government. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(1), 5–29. doi: 10.1177/0951629804038900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Monroe, B. L., & Schrodt, P. A. (2008). Introduction to the special issue: The statistical analysis of political text. Political Analysis, 16(4), 351–355. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpn017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H., Halpin, D., & Rasmussen, A. (2015). Who gives evidence to parliamentary committees? A comparative investigation of parliamentary committees and their constituencies. Journal of Legislative Studies, 21(3), 408–427. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2015.1042292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., & Gross, V. (2015). Biased access? Exploring selection to advisory committees. European Political Science Review, 7(3), 343–372. doi: 10.1017/S1755773914000228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., & Lindeboom, G. (2013). Interest group-party linkage in the twenty-first century: Evidence from Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research, 52(2), 264–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02069.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Hilton, N. Z. (2010). The violence risk appraisal guide and sex offender risk appraisal guide for violence risk assessment and the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment and domestic violence risk appraisal guide for wife assault risk assessment. In R. Otto & K. Douglas (Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment tools (pp. 99–120). New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. (1948). Pressure groups versus political parties. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 259, 17–23. doi: 10.1177/000271624825900104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. A realist's view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2012). The unheavenly chorus: Unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tresch, A. (2009). Politicians in the media: Determinants of legislators’ presence and prominence in Swiss newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 67–90. doi: 10.1177/1940161208323266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process; political interests and public opinion. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• van der Pas, D. J., van der Brug, W., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Political parallelism in media and political agenda-setting. Political Communication, 34(4), 491–510. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2016.1271374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., & Dejaeghere, Y. (2017). Surviving information overload: How elite politicians select information. Governance, 30(2), 229–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, E. T., McCarthy, J. D., & Baumgartner, F. (2011). Replacing members with managers? Mutualism among membership and nonmembership advocacy organizations in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1284–1337. doi: 10.1086/655753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkerson, J., & Casas, A. (2017). Large-Scale computerized text analysis in political science: Opportunities and challenges. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 529–544. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yackee, J., & Yackee, S. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 128–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00375.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar