IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jnlpup/v37y2017i01p1-26_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defending the status quo across venues and coalitions: evidence from California interest groups

Author

Listed:
  • Varone, Frédéric
  • Ingold, Karin
  • Jourdain, Charlotte

Abstract

This study investigates the conditions under which pro-status quo groups increase their advocacy success during an entire policymaking process. It scrutinises whether pro-status quo defenders who are involved in multiple institutional venues and who join many coalitions of interest groups are able to achieve their policy preferences. A case study focussing on the regulation of stem cell research in California traces the policymaking process and the related advocacy activities of interest groups in legislative, administrative, judicial and direct democratic venues. The empirical results, which are based on a formal social network analysis, reveal that very few groups are multivenue players and members of several coalitions. In addition, occupying a central network position is insufficient for the pro-status quo groups to improve their advocacy success.

Suggested Citation

  • Varone, Frédéric & Ingold, Karin & Jourdain, Charlotte, 2017. "Defending the status quo across venues and coalitions: evidence from California interest groups," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jnlpup:v:37:y:2017:i:01:p:1-26_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0143814X16000179/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nicole Lemke & Philipp Trein & Frédéric Varone, 2023. "Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: issue and instrument priorities across venues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 633-655, December.

    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:cup:jnlpup:v:37:y:2017:i:01:p:1-26_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pup .

    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.