IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v7y2019i1p139-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organised Interests in the Energy Sector: A Comparative Study of the Influence of Interest Groups in Czechia and Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Brigitte Horváthová

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany)

  • Michael Dobbins

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany)

Abstract

In this article, we explore civil society mobilisation and the impact of organised interests on the energy policies of two post-communist countries—Hungary and Czechia—and specifically nuclear energy. Drawing on numerous hypotheses from the literature on organised interests, we explore how open both political systems are for civil society input and what interest group-specific and socio-economic factors mediate the influence of organised interests. Based on the preference attainment method, our case studies focus on the extent to which organised interests have succeeded bringing nuclear energy legislation in line with their preferences. We find that while both democracies are open to civil society input, policy-making is generally conducted in state-industrial circles, whereby anti-nuclear and renewable energy advocates are at best able to make minor corrections to already pre-determined policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Brigitte Horváthová & Michael Dobbins, 2019. "Organised Interests in the Energy Sector: A Comparative Study of the Influence of Interest Groups in Czechia and Hungary," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 139-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v7:y:2019:i:1:p:139-151
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v7i1.1784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/1784
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v7i1.1784?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. Anna Vari & Zoltan Ferencz, 2007. "Radioactive Waste Management In Hungary: Changing Approaches And Conflicts," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 185-209.
    2. Mahoney, Christine, 2007. "Lobbying Success in the United States and the European Union," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 35-56, May.
    3. Gerald Schneider & Konstantin Baltz, 2003. "The Power of Specialization: How Interest Groups Influence EU Legislation," Rivista di Politica Economica, SIPI Spa, vol. 93(1), pages 253-288, January-F.
    4. Kitschelt, Herbert P., 1986. "Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 57-85, January.
    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. Kacper Szulecki & Dag Herald Claes, 2019. "Towards Decarbonization: Understanding EU Energy Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-5.

    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. Brigitte Horváthová & Michael Dobbins, 2019. "Organised Interests in the Energy Sector: A Comparative Study of the Influence of Interest Groups in Czechia and Hungary," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 139-151.
    2. Andreas Dür, 2008. "Measuring Interest Group Influence in the EU," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(4), pages 559-576, December.
    3. Jung-In Jo & Hyun Jin Choi, 2019. "Enigmas of grievances about inequality: Effects of attitudes toward inequality and government redistribution on protest participation," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 348-368, December.
    4. Newton, Kenneth & Giebler, Heiko, 2008. "Patterns of participation: Political and social participation in 22 nations," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Democracy and Democratization SP IV 2008-201, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Sierra, Jazmin & Hochstetler, Kathryn, 2017. "Transnational activist networks and rising powers: transparency and environmental concerns in the Brazilian National Development Bank," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 79089, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Livia Johannesson & Noomi Weinryb, 2021. "How to blame and make a difference: perceived responsibility and policy consequences in two Swedish pro-migrant campaigns," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, March.
    7. Wu, Jing & Chang, I-Shin & Yilihamu, Qimanguli & Zhou, Yu, 2017. "Study on the practice of public participation in environmental impact assessment by environmental non-governmental organizations in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 186-200.
    8. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/8523 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Frederik Stevens & Iskander De Bruycker, 2020. "Influence, affluence and media salience: Economic resources and lobbying influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 728-750, December.
    10. Rucht, Dieter, 1994. "Öffentlichkeit als Mobilisierungsfaktor für soziale Bewegungen," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 337-358.
    11. Zorn, Annika, 2002. "Wie die Löffelente bis nach Brüssel kam - oder: Wie sucht man nach europäischen Bewegungen?," Discussion Papers, Working Group Political Communication and Mobilization P 02-701, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    12. Michaël Tatham & Mads Thau, 2014. "The more the merrier: Accounting for regional paradiplomats in Brussels," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 255-276, June.
    13. Scott L. Greer & Elize Massard da Fonseca & Christopher Adolph, 2008. "Mobilizing Bias in Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 403-433, September.
    14. Jale Tosun & Aurel Croissant, 2016. "Policy Diffusion: A Regime-sensitive Conceptual Framework," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(4), pages 534-540, November.
    15. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian Kelleher Richter, 2013. "Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying," NBER Working Papers 19698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Sergio Belda-Miquel & Jordi Peris Blanes & Alexandre Frediani, 2016. "Institutionalization and Depoliticization of the Right to the City: Changing Scenarios for Radical Social Movements," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 321-339, March.
    17. Norbert Walter & Steffen Kern, 2011. "Politikberatung im EU-Finanzbinnenmarkt: vom Lamfalussy-Prozess zur europäischen Aufsicht," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(1), pages 91-105.
    18. Kimberly Turner, 2023. "A win or a flop? Measuring mass protest successfulness in authoritarian settings," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(1), pages 107-123, January.
    19. Kim, Seongcheol, 2022. "Von Lefort zu Mouffe. Populismus als Moment und Grenze radikaler Demokratie [From Lefort to Mouffe: Populism as moment and limit of radical democracy]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 767-786.
    20. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    21. Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun & Bert Fraussen, 2023. "Explaining why public officials perceive interest groups as influential: on the role of policy capacities and policy insiderness," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 191-209, June.

    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:cog:poango:v7:y:2019:i:1:p:139-151. 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: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    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.