Normann, Håkon Endresen 2017. Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 118, p. 80.
Hadden, Jennifer and Jasny, Lorien 2017. The Power of Peers: How Transnational Advocacy Networks Shape NGO Strategies on Climate Change. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
Contandriopoulos, Damien Benoît, François Bryant-Lukosius, Denise Carrier, Annie Carter, Nancy Deber, Raisa Duhoux, Arnaud Greenhalgh, Trisha Larouche, Catherine Leclerc, Bernard-Simon Levy, Adrian Martin-Misener, Ruth Maximova, Katerina McGrail, Kimberlyn Nykiforuk, Candace Roos, Noralou Schwartz, Robert Valente, Thomas W. Wong, Sabrina Lindquist, Evert Pullen, Carolyn Lardeux, Anne and Perroux, Melanie 2017. Structural analysis of health-relevant policy-making information exchange networks in Canada. Implementation Science, Vol. 12, Issue. 1,
Lizzi, Renata and Pritoni, Andrea 2017. The size and shape of the Italian interest system between the 1980s and the present day. Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, Vol. 47, Issue. 03, p. 291.
Vukasovic, Martina and Stensaker, Bjørn 2017. University alliances in the Europe of knowledge: Positions, agendas and practices in policy processes. European Educational Research Journal, p. 147490411772457.
varone, frédéric ingold, karin jourdain, charlotte and schneider, volker 2017. studying policy advocacy through social network analysis. European Political Science, Vol. 16, Issue. 3, p. 322.
Van Hecke, Matti Bursens, Peter and Beyers, Jan 2016. You'll Never Lobby Alone. Explaining the Participation of Sub-national Authorities in the European Commission's Open Consultations. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 54, Issue. 6, p. 1433.
Cullerton, K. Donnet, T. Lee, A. and Gallegos, D. 2016. Exploring power and influence in nutrition policy in Australia. Obesity Reviews, Vol. 17, Issue. 12, p. 1218.
Hermansson, Henrik 2016. The European Commission’s environmental stakeholder consultations: Is lobbying success based on what you know, what you own or who you know?. Interest Groups & Advocacy, Vol. 5, Issue. 3, p. 177.
Markard, Jochen Suter, Marco and Ingold, Karin 2016. Socio-technical transitions and policy change – Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 18, p. 215.
Fischer, Manuel Ingold, Karin Sciarini, Pascal and Varone, Frédéric 2016. Dealing with bad guys: actor- and process-level determinants of the “devil shift” in policy making. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 36, Issue. 02, p. 309.
Irwin, David and Githinji, Mary 2016. Business associations in Kenya: the success factors. Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 162.
Brown, Heath 2016. Does globalization drive interest group strategy? A cross-national study of outside lobbying and social media. Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 16, Issue. 3, p. 294.
Boucher, Maxime 2015. Note de recherche. L’effet Westminster : les cibles et les stratégies de lobbying dans le système parlementaire canadien. Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, Issue. 04, p. 839.
Van Ballaert, Bart 2015. The Politics of Policy Formulation within the European Commission. Journal of European Integration, Vol. 37, Issue. 4, p. 509.
Bunea, Adriana 2015. Sharing ties and preferences: Stakeholders’ position alignments in the European Commission’s open consultations. European Union Politics, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 281.
The degree to which interest groups gain access to policymakers has often been explained by focusing on the exchange of resources in a dyadic relation between interest groups and policymakers. This article argues that the position an interest group occupies within a coalition and the relations it has outside its coalition substantially affect the likelihood of gaining access to policymakers. Our empirical focus is on the Dutch interest group system for which we examine how coalitions among groups and the network position of interest groups within and between such coalitions shape access. The analysis, based on data collected among 107 Dutch interest groups and 28 policymakers, leads to the conclusion that network positions count differently for elected and non-elected officials, and that network ties that bridge different coalitions add significant explanatory leverage to resource-based explanations of access.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd February 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.