IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v41y2024i1p59-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

United in disagreement: Analyzing policy networks in EU policy making

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis Abel
  • Armin Mertens

Abstract

Shared belief systems are generally assumed to forge policy networks. Empirical evidence whether and to what extend shared policy core beliefs create ally networks and under which circumstances shared policy core beliefs are not necessary to form these networks, however, is limited. Based on a novel inferential network approach in combination with mediation analysis, this study investigates the role of belief systems as a link between interest group type and policy preference congruence, ultimately leading to ally networks in the European Union. In order to measure the intervening effect of policy core beliefs, automated text analysis is used. Our results suggest that shared policy core beliefs are a strong mediator for members of the same interest group. In addition, “strange bedfellow” networks between NGOs and businesses do, in fact, lack belief congruence and emerge on issues with low potential for intergroup conflict. This paper makes a contribution to our understanding of ally network formation and adds to the emerging line of research which combines quantitative text with inferential network analysis. 共享的信念系统通常被认为能形成政策网络。不过,很少有实证研究聚焦于共享政策核心信念是否以及在何种程度上创建盟友网络,以及在何种情况下共享政策核心信念对于形成这些网络而言是非必需的。基于一项独特的推理网络方法,并结合中介分析,本研究调查了信念系统作为利益集团类型和政策偏好一致性之间的联系所发挥的作用,这种联系最终在欧盟内形成盟友网络。为了衡量政策核心信念的干预效果,使用了自动文本分析。我们的结果表明,共享政策核心信念是同一利益集团成员的强大中介。此外,非政府组织和企业之间的“奇怪的伙伴关系”网络实际上确实缺乏信念一致性,并且出现在群体间冲突可能性较低的问题上。本文对理解盟友网络形成一事作贡献,并增加了将定量文本与推理网络分析相结合的新兴研究方向。 Generalmente se supone que los sistemas de creencias compartidas forjan redes de políticas. Sin embargo, la evidencia empírica de si las creencias fundamentales de las políticas compartidas crean redes de aliados y en qué medida no son necesarias para formar estas redes, es limitada. Basado en un nuevo enfoque de red inferencial en combinación con el análisis de mediación, este estudio investiga el papel de los sistemas de creencias como vínculo entre el tipo de grupo de interés y la congruencia de las preferencias políticas, lo que en última instancia conduce a redes aliadas en la Unión Europea. Para medir el efecto intermedio de las creencias fundamentales de la política, se utiliza el análisis de texto automatizado. Nuestros resultados sugieren que las creencias centrales de políticas compartidas son un fuerte mediador para los miembros del mismo grupo de interés. Además, las redes de "extraños compañeros de cama" entre las ONG y las empresas, de hecho, carecen de congruencia de creencias y surgen en temas con un bajo potencial de conflicto entre grupos. Este documento contribuye a nuestra comprensión de la formación de redes de aliados y se suma a la línea de investigación emergente que combina texto cuantitativo con análisis de redes inferenciales.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis Abel & Armin Mertens, 2024. "United in disagreement: Analyzing policy networks in EU policy making," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 59-82, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:1:p:59-82
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12546
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12546?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imai, Kosuke & Keele, Luke & Tingley, Dustin & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2011. "Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(4), pages 765-789, November.
    2. Salisbury, Robert H. & Heinz, John P. & Laumann, Edward O. & Nelson, Robert L., 1987. "Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1217-1234, December.
    3. John Wilkerson & David Smith & Nicholas Stramp, 2015. "Tracing the Flow of Policy Ideas in Legislatures: A Text Reuse Approach," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(4), pages 943-956, October.
    4. Christopher M. Weible & Tanya Heikkila, 2017. "Policy Conflict Framework," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(1), pages 23-40, March.
    5. Skyler J. Cranmer & Philip Leifeld & Scott D. McClurg & Meredith Rolfe, 2017. "Navigating the Range of Statistical Tools for Inferential Network Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 237-251, January.
    6. Wiebke Marie Junk, 2019. "When Diversity Works: The Effects of Coalition Composition on the Success of Lobbying Coalitions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(3), pages 660-674, July.
    7. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. & Christenson, Dino P., 2015. "Comparing membership interest group networks across space and time, size, issue and industry," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 78-97, March.
    8. Torbjørg Jevnaker & Jørgen Wettestad, 2017. "Ratcheting Up Carbon Trade: The Politics of Reforming EU Emissions Trading," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 105-124, May.
    9. Peter Nedergaard, 2008. "The reform of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy: an advocacy coalition explanation," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 179-195.
    10. Thomas T. Holyoke, 2009. "Interest Group Competition and Coalition Formation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 360-375, April.
    11. Mark Lubell & Richard C. Feiock & Edgar E. Ramirez De La Cruz, 2009. "Local Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 649-665, July.
    12. Elisabeth R. Gerber & Adam Douglas Henry & Mark Lubell, 2013. "Political Homophily and Collaboration in Regional Planning Networks," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 598-610, July.
    13. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    14. Minhas, Shahryar & Hoff, Peter D. & Ward, Michael D., 2019. "Inferential Approaches for Network Analysis: AMEN for Latent Factor Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 208-222, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder, 2024. "Perception and performance in environmental policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 6-11, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Nicola, Giacomo & Fritz, Cornelius & Mehrl, Marius & Kauermann, Göran, 2023. "Dependence matters: Statistical models to identify the drivers of tie formation in economic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 351-363.
    2. Marcel Hanegraaff & Andrea Pritoni, 2019. "United in fear: Interest group coalition formation as a weapon of the weak?," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 198-218, June.
    3. Jennifer A. Kagan & Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible & Duncan Gilchrist & Ramiro Berardo & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 573-594, September.
    4. Federico Holm & Ramiro Berardo, 2020. "Coalitional Architecture of Climate Change Litigation Networks in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 797-822, November.
    5. Benjamin C. K. Egerod & Wiebke Marie Junk, 2022. "Competitive lobbying in the influence production process and the use of spatial econometrics in lobbying research," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 193-215, April.
    6. Kathleen S. Bailey & Hongtao Yi & Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2023. "Policy conflicts in shale development in China and the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 589-605, July.
    7. Deslatte, Aaron & Szmigiel-Rawska, Katarzyna & Tavares, António F. & Ślawska, Justyna & Karsznia, Izabela & Łukomska, Julita, 2022. "Land use institutions and social-ecological systems: A spatial analysis of local landscape changes in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    8. Emily Kalah Gade & Michael Gabbay & Mohammed M. Hafez & Zane Kelly, 2019. "Networks of Cooperation: Rebel Alliances in Fragmented Civil Wars," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2071-2097, October.
    9. Hongshan Yang & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Frontiers of policy process research in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 484-489, July.
    10. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Explaining Causal Findings Without Bias: Detecting and Assessing Direct Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 512-529, August.
    11. Christoph Dworschak, 2024. "Bias mitigation in empirical peace and conflict studies: A short primer on posttreatment variables," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 462-476, May.
    12. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    13. Colombo, Emilio & Rotondi, Valentina & Stanca, Luca, 2018. "Macroeconomic conditions and health: Inspecting the transmission mechanism," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 29-37.
    14. Albano, Gian Luigi & Cipollone, Angela & Paolo, Roberto Di & Ponti, Giovanni & Sparro, Marco, 2024. "Scoring rules in experimental procurement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    15. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    16. Simon Fink & Eva Ruffing & Tobias Burst & Sara Katharina Chinnow, 2023. "Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 469-497, September.
    17. Belén González & Richard Traunmüller, 2024. "The political consequences of wartime sexual violence: Evidence from a list experiment," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 1035-1050, November.
    18. Cluver, L. & Shenderovich, Y. & Meinck, F. & Berezin, M.N. & Doubt, J. & Ward, C.L. & Parra-Cardona, J. & Lombard, C. & Lachman, J.M. & Wittesaele, C. & Wessels, I. & Gardner, F. & Steinert, J.I., 2020. "Parenting, mental health and economic pathways to prevention of violence against children in South Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    19. Mundt, Philipp, 2021. "The formation of input–output architecture: Evidence from the European Union," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 89-104.
    20. Fonseca, Camila & Jiang, Haiyue & Zeerak, Raihana & Zhao, Jerry Zhirong, 2024. "Explaining the adoption of electric vehicle fees across the United States," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 139-149.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:1:p:59-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.