“Europeanization” of Think Tanks in the EU Interest Group Politics

The article reveals the characteristics of think tanks as actors of the interest group politics in the European Union (EU). In this policy, they inspire public debate, conduct research, encourage new legislation and more effective public administration. A large number of European think tanks is engaged in interest group politics both at the national and supranational level of the EU governance, encouraging integration processes among the EU countries and Europeanization, which is the subject of analysis of this study. The strengthening of the role and importance of interest groups in EU policy is largely due to the increased power of the Unions institutions, since the introduction of new legislation and regulation common to all EU countries leads to the feedback from various groups that represent both public and private interests. Obviously, these groups, when interacting with the power institutions of the EU, strive for the most effective protection of their interests. For this purpose their representatives hold meetings with officials of the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as other structures of the Union. This interaction, aiming at promoting their interests by means of lobbying and advocacy, has been regulated since 2011 by the Transparency Register, jointly created by the European Commission and the European Parliament. The purpose of this study is to analyze the quantitative performance of think tanks in the EU and to develop on its basis the Ranking of EU countries, according to the level of Europeanization of the think tanks representing them. From the research methods perspective, the study is based on the matching of statistical data from the Transparency Register and the Global Go To Think Tank Index, which serves the basis for this Ranking. The study of the ranking makes it possible to identify groups of countries with a high, medium and low level of Europeanization of think tanks in all EU countries as of January 31, 2019. The results revealed on the basis of the analysis demonstrate the heterogeneous nature of the Europeanization process of think tanks in different EU countries.

Comparative Analysis of American NGOs in China and Chinese NGOs in the U.S.

This article analyzes the activities of American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in China and Chinese NGOs in the United States in the context of global competition between the United States and China for the leadership in the future model of the world order. In International Relations theory, especially in its theoretical paradigm of realism, the consideration of states as actors in international relations dominates scholarship. However, in recent decades it has become apparent that researchers have a significant interest in non-state actors, such as interest groups and NGOs, and their impact on international relations. NGOs in China and the United States have different historical backgrounds, environments, and government institutions in different ways. Still, but in terms of comparative analysis they represent comparable categories. The analysis offered in this study shows that, firstly, despite the strict regulation of the activities of NGOs in place in China, American NGOs have more opportunities to work in this environment than Chinese NGOs do in the United States, where the situation for their activities is apparently more favorable. Secondly, despite the advantages that partnerships provide, neither American nor Chinese NGOs form partnership networks and therefore, lose momentum for their own development. Thirdly, although the conditions for their activities differ in both countries, American and Chinese NGOs have equal opportunities to pursue their goals. Finally, American NGOs in China are less dependent on their government than Chinese NGOs in the United States are on the Chinese government. The study is comparative and takes as its units of analysis Chinese NGOs in the United States and American NGOs in China. Developments in the field of interest group politics serve as the theoretical framework for this research. The investigation uses methods of comparative quantitative analysis and social network analysis, while the interdisciplinary nature of the methods allow them to take advantage of the analytical capabilities of Comparative Political Science, Interest Group Politics, and International Relations.

Listening to the Public: An Inductive Analysis of the Good Citizen in a Deliberative System

Significant research has demonstrated that deliberative participation has a number of benefits for participants, leaving them more informed, efficacious, and engaged. Unfortunately, this model of the good citizen may be at odds with both what citizens want out of engagement and what might be most beneficial for self-empowerment. Activism, rather than deliberation, might be a more effective means of influencing public decisions, but traits associated with activism are often considered antithetical to deliberative participation. This paper utilizes a case study to ask what participants want out of engagement and whether their conception of the good citizen aligns with theoretical deliberative norms. Findings suggest that participants in a hybrid model of engagement that blends deliberative discussion with interest group politics want opportunities for public input that center interest formation and recognition, equity, and empowerment. These results suggest a need to better integrate the voices of citizens in normative deliberative theory and research.

Interest Group Politics and Its Transformation in Japan

The political reforms that have been going on since the 1990s have drastically changed the face of politics in Japan. The most significant of these reforms was the change of government, which brought an end, albeit only once, to the long-standing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) regime. These changes were expected to change the power structure by altering the contact of interest groups with political elites. I examine this issue based on a longitudinal survey conducted in four rounds between 1997 and 2017. The results show a robust structure of interest group politics, although the features were weakening. That is, contacts with the LDP and the bureaucracy were sources of political influence for interest groups. The impact of the two-party system and its setbacks are seen in the change in contact with the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). However, The DPJ did not function as a source of interest representation.

Getting a Foot in the Door: Small-Firm Credit and Interest Group Politics in the Netherlands, 1900–1927

This article explores the link between the history of small-firm associations and the development of Dutch financial infrastructure geared toward small firms. In particular, it tests Verdier’s thesis about the origins of state banking using an in-depth case study of the Dutch small-firm movement. This article shows that Dutch small-firm associations did not simply became politically relevant and use their power to lobby for state banking, but rather used the topic of insufficient access to credit to rally support, mobilize members, and obtain subsidies from the government. During this associational process, they had to navigate local contexts and power structures that, in turn, also shaped the financial system. State banking was initially not demanded by small firms, but arose as the result of failed experiments with subsidized banking infrastructure and a changing position of the government on how to intervene in the economy.

Interest Group Politics

This chapter examines the unfolding of interest representation and intermediation, from 1974 to 2018 by focusing mostly on the organization of wage labour, farmers, and the liberal professions and their respective ties to the political system. State–society relations in Greece have undergone a number of transformations since the transition to democracy in 1974, but until 2010 these were mostly of a path-dependent nature. Legacies of authoritarianism and clientelism contributed to the formation of close ties between organized interests and political actors, and the model of interest representation and intermediation that emerged after 1974 did not fit with either the pluralist nor the neo-corporatist models that prevailed in other Western European states in the 1970s and 1980s. The particularistic ties formed between interest groups and political parties was seen as part of the problem that led Greece to the verge of default in 2010, which in turn contributed to a dismantling of the existing model. Given that policies during the 2010–18 period were for the most part dictated by the bailout agreements, the role of interest groups inevitably subsided, but a clear alternative to the previous model has not yet emerged.

Growth and the Subsidy Raj in India

The Political Economy and Development of India (PEDI) proposes what is now a very well-known hypothesis about the reasons for the low-growth regime that India experienced from the 60s to the early 80s: interest-group politics in a democracy leads to populism and subsidies, choking off resources for accumulation through public investment in infrastructure. This political economy of constraints, according to Bardhan, seems to have blocked the economy’s escape from a low-level equilibrium trap of low growth. This chapter looks at a part of Bardhan’s argument, namely the relationship between subsidies and growth. The chapter studies the patterns of growth in income per capita and subsidies over the period 1980–81 to 2013–14 and finds, contrary to PEDI, that both economic growth and subsidies increased. Put together, these trends do not provide evidence in favour of the ‘Bardhan subsidy hypothesis’ that the subsidy Raj was the most important binding constraint to economic growth in the 1980s.

Which Countries Send More Delegates to Climate Change Conferences? Analysis of UNFCCC COPs, 1995–2015

The size of national delegations at the most critical intergovernmental climate change conferences—the annual gatherings of the Conference of the Parties (COPs) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—vary greatly. The literature has emphasized the importance of national delegation size (NDS) for states’ formal and informal participation in climate change negotiations. To our knowledge, however, this is the first paper to comprehensively examine the determinants of NDS from 1995–2015. The findings highlight a country's resources and its interest in the mitigation of fossil fuel emissions as important determinants of its NDS. In contrast, the evidence for a connection between vulnerability to climate change and NDS is limited. Interest group politics appear more important than civil society or bureaucratic influence in determining NDS. In terms of policy implications, the distance between the country and the COP location is a robust deterrent of larger delegations, and there is a nonlinear relationship between NDS and financial capacity. Further, there are differences across Annex I and non-Annex I countries.