By invitation only: on why do politicians bring interest groups into committees

References

• Acosta, A. M. (2009). Informal coalitions and policymaking in Latin America: Ecuador in comparative perspective. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Alemán, E., Calvo, E., Jones, M., & Kaplan, N. (2009). Comparing cosponsoring and roll-call ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(1), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298009787500358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anzia, S. F. (2011). Election timing and the electoral influence of interest groups. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381611000028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith, D. (1996). Interest groups: Money, information and influence. In D. Mueller (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice (pp. 296–321). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith, D., & Wright, J. R. (1994). Counteractive lobbying. American Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111334
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basabe-Serrano, S. (2018). Carreras legislativas discretas en contextos de débil institucionalización partidista: Propuesta teórica y evidencia empírica aplicada a la legislatura de Ecuador, 1979–2007. Revista de ciencia política (Santiago), 38(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2018000100001
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F., Breunig, C., & Grossman, E. (2019). The comparative agendas project: Intellectual roots and current developments. In F. Baumgartner, C. Breunig, & E. Grossman (Eds.), Comparative policy agendas: Theory, tools, data. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Marie Hojnacki, B. L. Leech, & Kimball, D. C. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bélanger, É., & Meguid, B. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2014.1000365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bos, L., Lefevere, J. M., Thijssen, R., & Sheets, P. (2017). The impact of mediated party issue strategies on electoral support. Party Politics, 23(6), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815626603
   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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejpr.2004.43.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Busemeyer, M. R., Franzmann, S. T., & Garritzmann, J. L. (2013). Who owns education? Cleavage structures in the partisan competition over educational expansion. West European Politics, 36(3), 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.753703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvo, E. (2014). Legislator success in fragmented congresses in Argentina: Plurality cartels, minority presidents, and lawmaking. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calvo, E., & Sagarzazu, I. (2011). Legislator success in committee: Gatekeeping authority and the loss of majority control. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2011.55.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, C., & Trivedi, P. (1990). Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model. Journal of Econometrics, 46(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(90)90014-K
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conaghan, C., & De la Torre, C. (2008). The permanent campaign of Rafael Correa: Making Ecuador's plebiscitary presidency. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208319464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2007). Legislative Leviathan: Party government in the House. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De la Torre, C. (2018). Latin America's shifting politics: Ecuador after correa. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0064
   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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freidenberg, F. (2006). Izquierda vs. derecha. Polarización ideológica y competencia en el sistema de partidos ecuatoriano. Política y gobierno, 13(2), 237–278.
   Google Scholar
• Frisch, S. A., & Kelly, S. Q. (2006). Committee assignment politics in the US House of Representatives. University of Oklahoma Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giger, N., & Klüver, H. (2016). Voting against your constituents? How lobbying affects representation. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2016.60.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez Vidal, A., & Vera, S. V. (2021). Ecuador: Individual incentives and the gendered path to power. In H. Back, M. Debus, & J. M. Fernandes (Eds.), The politics of legislative debates. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Green, J. (2011). A test of core vote theories: The British conservatives, 1997–2005. British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 735–764. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, J., & Hobolt, S. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27(3), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J. (2010). A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Political Analysis, 18(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpp034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenendyk, E. W., & Valentino, N. A. (2002). Of dark clouds and silver linings: Effects of exposure to issue versus candidate advertising on persuasion, information retention, and issue salience. Communication Research, 29(3), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029003004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2001). Special interest politics. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guinaudeau, I., & Persico, S. (2014). What is issue competition? Conflict, consensus and issue ownership in party competition. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 24(3), 312–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2013.858344
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, J. M. (1991). Gaining access: Congress and the farm lobby, 1919–1981. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helboe Pedersen, H., Halpin, D., & Rasmussen, A. (2015). Who gives evidence to parliamentary committees? A comparative investigation of parliamentary committees and their constituencies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 21(3), 408–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2015.1042292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hojnacki, M., & Kimball, D. C. (1999). The who and how of organizations' lobbying strategies in committee. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 999–1024. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2017). SpaCy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1212304
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. (1993). Agenda setting and beyond: Television news and the strength of political issues. In W. H. Riker (Ed.), Agenda formation. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, K. (2004). Legislative organization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533004773563467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, K. (2010). Information and legislative organization. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kubala, M. (2011). Select committees in the House of Commons and the media. Parliamentary Affairs, 64(4), 694–713. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsr014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leyden, K. M. (1995). Interest group resources and testimony at congressional hearings. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(3), 431–439. https://doi.org/10.2307/440230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, C., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2014). Partners in advocacy: Lobbyists and government officials in Washington. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1086/678389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, S. (2018). Party systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, decay, and collapse. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2006). Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In R. Kats & W. J. Crotty (Eds.), Handbook of party politics. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mustillo, T., & Polga-Hecimovich, J. (2020). Party, candidate, and voter incentives under free list proportional representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 32(1), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629819893023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemi, R. G., & Bartels, L. M. (1985). New measures of issue salience: An evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 47(4), 1212–1220. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardos-Prado, S., & Sagarzazu, I. (2016). The political conditioning of subjective economic evaluations: The role of party discourse. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 799–823. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00407.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polga-Hecimovich, J. (2019). La presidencia del ejecutivo unitario de Rafael Correa. Latin American Review of Comparative Politics/Revista Latinoamericana de Politica Comparada, 15, 99–122.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A., & Gross, V. (2015). Biased access? Exploring selection to advisory committees. European Political Science Review, 7(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., Albertson, B., & Rand, D. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open‐ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.2014.58.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saiegh, S. M. (2005). The role of legislatures in the policymaking process. In Inter-American Development Bank Workshop on State Reform, Public Policies and Policymaking Processes, February.
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, D. J. (2002). Pork barreling is not credit claiming or advertising: Campaign finance and the sources of the personal vote in Brazil. The Journal of Politics, 64(3), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez, O. (2009). Party non-systems: A conceptual innovation. Party Politics, 15(4), 487–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809334566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sides, J. (2006). The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 407–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123406000226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, U., & Höhmann, D. (2017). Shadow chairs as monitoring device? A comparative analysis of committee chair powers in Western European parliaments. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2017.1358980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, B. (1986). The role of committees in agenda setting in the US Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 11(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/439907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. (2007). The instrumental and educative effects of ballot measures: Research on direct democracy in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(4), 416–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolbert, C. J., Bowen, D. C., & Donovan, T. (2009). Initiative campaigns: Direct democracy and voter mobilization. American Politics Research, 37(1), 155–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08320185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trevor Thrall, A. (2006). The myth of the outside strategy: Mass media news coverage of interest groups. Political Communication, 23(4), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600600976989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• True, J. L., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1999). Punctuated equilibrium theory. In C. Weible & P. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 175–202). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, M., & Meyer, T. M. (2014). Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics, 37(5), 1019–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.911483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., & De Swert, K. (2004). The making of the (issues of the) Vlaams Blok. Political Communication, 21(4), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490522743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, S., Tresch, A., & Lefevere, J. (2015). The conceptualisation and measurement of issue ownership. West European Politics, 38(4), 778–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2015.1039381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar