IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v68y2016icp88-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors of political power — The example of forest owners associations in Slovakia

Author

Listed:
  • Šálka, Jaroslav
  • Dobšinská, Zuzana
  • Hricová, Zuzana

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyse the potential of forest owners associations (FOAs) to influence forest policymaking using power theory. Firstly, the paper examines the concept of power and the political power of interest groups. Interest groups seek to be able to use their power through influencing policy outcomes and framing the underlying dimensions that define policy issues. In the next step the paper defines factors of dispositional political power: formal, informal, internal, and external. Formal factors are primarily based constitutionally or legislatively and are ensured through the right to associate and form associations to advocate common interests. Informal factors represent the abilities of interest groups to operate in the political process. Internal factors represent the ability of interest groups to work within the group and external factors represent the behaviour towards other associations, government, non-governmental organisations, etc. Semi-structured questionnaires to former and present FOAs officials were used containing questions about the basic role of FOAs as they can be found in the scientific literature. The crucial internal factor limiting the dispositional power of FOAs is the lack of financial resources for providing services or necessary apparatus, which might strongly hinder the fulfilment and achievement of set goals in policymaking. The disinterest of the state bureaucracy towards non-state forests also limits FOAs' dispositional power. The most important external factor from the officials' perspective is the disinterest of the state bureaucracy towards non-state forests at the sectoral and cross-sectoral level. There is a common agreement between FOA officials that current strategies and tactics in the form of dialogue are inefficient. FOAs are considered as a partner in policy formulation, but their actual political power is low, due to the disunity among FOA leaders and ineffective strategies and tactics.

Suggested Citation

  • Šálka, Jaroslav & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Hricová, Zuzana, 2016. "Factors of political power — The example of forest owners associations in Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 88-98.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:68:y:2016:i:c:p:88-98
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300034
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glück, Peter & Avdibegovic, Mersudin & Cabaravdic, Azra & Nonic, Dragan & Petrovic, Nenad & Posavec, Stjepan & Stojanovska, Makedonka, 2010. "The preconditions for the formation of private forest owners' interest associations in the Western Balkan Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 250-263, April.
    2. Giessen, Lukas & Krott, Max & Möllmann, Torsten, 2014. "Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 97-104.
    3. Christophe Crombez, 2002. "Information, Lobbying and the Legislative Process in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 7-32, March.
    4. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    5. Denzau, Arthur T. & Munger, Michael C., 1986. "Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(1), pages 89-106, March.
    6. Bachrach, Peter & Baratz, Morton S., 1962. "Two Faces of Power1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 947-952, December.
    7. Juerges, Nataly & Newig, Jens, 2015. "How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-235.
    8. Bas Arts & Jan Tatenhove, 2004. "Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(3), pages 339-356, December.
    9. Elsasser, Peter, 2002. "Rules for participation and negotiation and their possible influence on the content of a National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 291-300, December.
    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. Brodrechtova, Yvonne, 2024. "Assessing actor power in the trade-offs between ecosystem services affecting forest management – A case study from Central Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Daniel Halaj & Klára Báliková & Yvonne Brodrechtová, 2022. "The perception of an image of the state forest enterprise by general public in chosen region of the Slovak Republic," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(1), pages 26-34.

    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. Winkel, Georg & Sotirov, Metodi, 2011. "An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 143-154.
    2. Logmani, Jacqueline & Krott, Max & Lecyk, Michal Tymoteusz & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 81-90.
    3. Marques, Marlene & Juerges, Nataly & Borges, José G., 2020. "Appraisal framework for actor interest and power analysis in forest management - Insights from Northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    5. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Baral, Srijana & Rumba, Yam Bahadur, 2020. "Re-centralisation through fake Scientificness: The case of community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    6. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Lamsal, Lok Nath & Rayamajhi, Santosh, 2018. "Legal-sounding bureaucratic re-centralisation of community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 5-18.
    7. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Živojinović, Ivana & Nedeljković, Jelena & Petrović, Nenad & Jarský, Vilém & Oliva, Jiří & Šálka, Jaroslav & Sarvašová, Zuzana & Weiss, Gerhard, 2020. "Actor power in the restitution processes of forests in three European countries in transition," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    9. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    10. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    11. Mareike Kleine, 2013. "Daniel Finke, Thomas König, Sven-Oliver Proksch and George Tsebelis. 2012. Reforming the European Union: Realizing the Impossible (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 111-115, March.
    12. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    13. Juerges, Nataly & Jahn, Stephanie, 2020. "German forest management stakeholders at the science-society interface: Their views on problem definition, knowledge production and research utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    14. Arnouts, Rikke & van der Zouwen, Mariëlle & Arts, Bas, 2012. "Analysing governance modes and shifts — Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 43-50.
    15. Stratmann, Thomas, 1998. "The Market for Congressional Votes: Is Timing of Contributions Everything?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 85-113, April.
    16. Fabio Padovano & Ilaria Petrarca, 2013. "When and how politicians take ‘scandalous’ decisions?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 336-351, December.
    17. Marcin Kalinowski, 2014. "Competition in politics," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 13(3), pages 389-402, September.
    18. Suzuki, Mao, 2020. "Profits before patients? Analyzing donors’ economic motives for foreign aid in the health sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    19. Fettke, Ulrike, 2018. "Etablierte und Außenseiter in der Kommunalpolitik? Eine Fallstudie zu Windkraft in einer badenwürttembergischen Kleinstadt," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2018-03, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    20. Patrick A. McLaughlin & Adam C. Smith & Russell S. Sobel, 2019. "Bootleggers, Baptists, and the risks of rent seeking," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 211-234, 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:eee:forpol:v:68:y:2016:i:c:p:88-98. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.