Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-bz9xj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-15T11:58:25.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Philip Leifeld  and
Sebastian Haunss
Philip Leifeld*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany
Sebastian Haunss
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz, Germany
*
Address for correspondence: Philip Leifeld, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Kurt‐Schumacher‐Str. 10, 53113 Bonn, Germany. E‐mail: Leifeld@coll.mpg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2005, the European Parliament rejected the directive ‘on the patentability of computer‐implemented inventions’, which had been drafted and supported by the European Commission, the Council and well‐organised industrial interests, with an overwhelming majority. In this unusual case, a coalition of opponents of software patents prevailed over a strong industry‐led coalition. In this article, an explanation is developed based on political discourse showing that two stable and distinct discourse coalitions can be identified and measured over time. The apparently weak coalition of software patent opponents shows typical properties of a hegemonic discourse coalition. It presents itself as being more coherent, employs a better‐integrated set of frames and dominates key economic arguments, while the proponents of software patents are not as well‐organised. This configuration of the discourse gave leeway for an alternative course of political action by the European Parliament. The notion of discourse coalitions and related structural features of the discourse are operationalised by drawing on social network analysis. More specifically, discourse network analysis is introduced as a new methodology for the study of policy debates. The approach is capable of measuring empirical discourses both statically and in a longitudinal way, and is compatible with the policy network approach.

Keywords

software patentsintellectual property rightspolitical discoursepolicy networkssocial network analysis

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 2012 , pp. 382 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Author(s) European Journal of Political Research © 2011 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adam, S. & Kriesi, H. (2007). The network approach. In Sabatier, P. A. (ed.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. & Jones, B.D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4): 1044–1074. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26(1): 611–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R.J. (1999). Business routes of influence in Brussels: Exploring the choice of direct representation. Political Studies 47: 240–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyers, J. (2004). Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research 43: 337–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D. & Busch, A. (1999). Public policy and political ideas. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, C. (2004). Codecision and the European Commission: A study of declining influence. Journal of European Public Policy 11(1): 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K. (1992). Extracting, representing and analyzing mental models. Social Forces 70(3): 601–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (COM) (1997). Promoting innovation through patents. Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe. Brussels: COM. Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (COM) (2002). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer‐implemented inventions. Brussels: COM. Google Scholar
Dür, A. (2008). Interest groups in the European Union: How powerful are they? West European Politics 31(6): 1212–1230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, J. et al. (2004). The use of newspaper data in the study of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology 30(1): 65–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eimer, T.R. (2008). Decoding divergence in software regulation: Paradigms, power structures and institutions in the United States and the European Union. Governance 21(2): 275–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eising, R. (2004). Multilevel governance and business interests in the European Union. Governance 17(2): 211–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M. & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology 99(6): 1411–1454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, W.R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs 51(1): 1–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, L.C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1: 215–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehlen, C. (2006). Lobbying in Brussels: The EU Directive on the patentability of computer‐implemented inventions (A). Fontainebleau: Insead. Google Scholar
Grande, E. (1996). The state and interest groups in a framework of multi‐level decision‐making: The case of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 3(3): 318–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P.M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M.A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (eds), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Google Scholar
Hajer, M.A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Hajer, M.A. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy making. European Political Science 2(1): 61–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P.A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunss, S. & Kohlmorgen, L. (2008). Codebook for the analysis of political claims in conflicts on intellectual property rights in Europe. Available online at: http://www.ipgovernance.eu/publications/IPGovCodebook.pdfGoogle Scholar
Haunss, S. & Kohlmorgen, L. (2009). Lobbying or politics? Political claims‐making in IP conflicts. In Haunss, S. & Shadlen, K.C. (eds), The politics of intellectual property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunss, S. & Kohlmorgen, L. (2010). Conflicts about intellectual property claims: The role and function of collective action networks. Journal of European Public Policy 17(2). Available online at: http://ssrn.com/paper=1162209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haunss, S. & Shadlen, K.C. (eds) (2009). Politics of intellectual property: Contestation over the ownership, use and control of knowledge and information. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes‐Renshaw, F. & Wallace, H. (1997). The Council of Ministers. Basingstoke: Macmillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenis, P. & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In Marin, B. & Mayntz, R. (eds), Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Google Scholar
Kliment, T. (1998). Durch Dramatisierung zum Protest? Theoretische Grundlegung und empirischer Ertrag des Framing‐Konzepts. In Hellmann, K. & Koopmans, R. (eds), Paradigmen der Bewegungsforschung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar
Kohler‐Koch, B. (1997). Organized interests in the EC and the European Parliament. European Integration Online Papers 1(9). Available online at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=302669Google Scholar
Koopmans, R. (2002). Codebook for the analysis of political mobilisation and communication in European public spheres. Available online at: http://europub.wz‐berlin.de/Data/Codebooks%20questionnaires/D2‐1‐claims‐codebook.pdfGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (1999). Political claims analysis: Integrating protest event and political discourse approaches. Mobilization 4(2): 203–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A. & Leifeld, P. (2009). Die Netzwerkanalyse in der Policy‐Forschung. Eine theoretische und methodische Bestandsaufnahme. In Janning, F. & Toens, K. (eds), Die Zukunft der Policy‐Forschung. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar
Leifeld, P. (2009). Die Untersuchung von Diskursnetzwerken mit dem Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA). In Schneider, V.et al. (eds), Politiknetzwerke. Modelle, Anwendungen und Visualisierungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar
Leifeld, P. (2010a). Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA) manual. Available online at: http://www.philipleifeld.de/discourse‐network‐analyzer‐dna/manual/. Google Scholar
Leifeld, P. (2010b). Political Discourse Networks: The Missing Link in the Study of Policy‐oriented Discourse. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Ideas, Policy Design and Policy Instruments: Casting Light on the Missing Link’, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Münster, 22–27 March. Available online at: http://www.philipleifeld.de. Google Scholar
Polletta, F. (1998). Contending stories: Narrative in social movements. Qualitative Sociology 21(4): 419–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, C. & Bourgine, P. (2005). Epistemic communities: Description and hierarchic categorization. Mathematical Population Studies 12(2): 107–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. & Weible, C.M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework. In Sabatier, P. A. (ed.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. & Radaelli, C.M. (2004). Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics 27(2): 183–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, D.A. & Benford, R.D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance and participant mobilization. In Klandermans, B., Kriesi, H. & Tarrow, S. (eds), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
Snow, D.A. & Benford, R.D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In Morris, A. D. & Mueller, C. M. (eds), Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
Snow, D.A. et al. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Revue 51(4): 464–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensland, B. (2008). Why do policy frames change? Actor‐idea coevolution in debates over welfare reform. Social Forces 86(3): 1027–1054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar