Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 231–252 | Cite as

Why do we have lobbying rules? Investigating the introduction of lobbying laws in EU and OECD member states

Original Article


Why do political systems introduce lobbying rules? Previous literature has analysed the determinants of the introduction of lobbying laws in the US states. However, the last 15 years have witnessed a booming popularity of lobbying laws across the world. Building upon the existing literature, this study seeks to explain the introduction of lobbying laws in EU and OECD member states from 1995 to 2014. The analysis considers variables related to the presence of lobbying scandals, the external promotion by international organizations and corporatism. The causal mechanisms follow the theoretical arguments developed in the literature on political agenda-setting effects, policy diffusion and theories of interest representation. The empirical investigation is based on an original dataset and a statistical investigation using event history analysis and multinomial regression models. The results suggest that policy diffusion variables influence the likelihood of passing lobbying laws. While scandals only affect the presentation of proposals for lobbying regulation in Parliament, corporatism shows no effects on the passage of such laws.


Lobbying Lobbying regulation Corporatism Pluralism Political agenda-setting Policy diffusion 



I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers as well as the editor for their constructive comments. I would also like to thank Raj Chari, Jan Beyers and Gail McElroy for their suggestions on earlier versions of this work. Finally, I acknowledge the support of the Irish Research Council, which funded this study.

Supplementary material

41309_2017_25_MOESM1_ESM.docx (111 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 111 kb)
41309_2017_25_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (127 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 127 kb)
41309_2017_25_MOESM3_ESM.docx (41 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 40 kb)


  1. Allern, E.H., N. Aylott, and F.J. Christiansen. 2007. Social Democrats and trade unions in Scandinavia: The decline and persistence of institutional relationships. European Journal of Political Research 46 (5): 607–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armingeon, K., Careja, R., Knöpfel, L., Weisstanner, D., Engler, S., Potolidis, P., and Gerber, M. 2016. Comparative political dataset Iv 19902013. Downloadable Last Accessed October 15, 2016).
  3. Bågenholm, A. 2013. Throwing the rascals out? The electoral effects of corruption allegations and corruption scandals in Europe 1981–2011. Crime, Law and Social Change 60 (5): 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F.R., B.D. Jones, and B.L. Leech. 1997. Media attention and congressional agendas. In Do the media govern? Politicians, voters and reporters in America, ed. S. Iyengar, and R. Reeves, 349–363. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Binderkrantz, A.S., and P.M. Christiansen. 2015. From classic to modern corporatism. Interest group representation in Danish public committees in 1975 and 2010. Journal of European Public Policy 22 (7): 1022–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blühdorn, I. 2007. Sustaining the unsustainable: Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. Environmental Politics 16 (2): 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowler, S. 2010. Private members’ bills in the UK Parliament: Is there an ‘electoral connection’? Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (4): 476–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., and B.S. Jones. 1997. Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science 41 (4): 1414–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chalmers, A.W. 2011. Interests, influence and information: Comparing the influence of interest groups in the European Union. Journal of European Integration 33 (4): 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chari, R., J. Hogan, and G. Murphy. 2010. Regulating lobbying: A global comparison. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Christiansen, P.M., A.S. Nørgaard, H. Rommetvedt, T. Svensson, G. Thesen, and P. Öberg. 2010. Varieties of democracy: Interest groups and corporatist committees in Scandinavian policy making. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 21 (1): 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crepaz, M.M. 1994. From semi sovereignty to sovereignty: The decline of corporatism and rise of parliament in Austria. Comparative Politics 27 (1): 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crepaz, M. 2016. Investigating the robustness of lobbying laws: Evidence from the Austrian case. Interest Groups & Advocacy 5 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crepaz, M., and R. Chari. 2014. The EU’s initiatives to regulate lobbyists: Good or bad administration? Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto 51 (1): 71–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahl, R.A. 1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dolowitz, D.P., and D. Marsh. 2000. Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance 13 (1): 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood, J., and C. Thomas. 1998. Introduction: Regulating lobbying in the western world. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenwood, J. 2011. Interest representation in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenwood, J., and J. Dreger. 2013. The transparency register: A European vanguard of strong lobby regulation? Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (2): 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, P.A., and D. Soskice. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, R.J. 1980. Pluralism and corporatism: The political evolution of modern democracies. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, W.B., and D.M. Branduse. 2014. The politics of bicameralism. In The oxford handbook of legislative studies, ed. S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, and K. Strøm, 332–351. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hicks, A.M., and D.H. Swank. 1992. Politics, institutions, and welfare spending in industrialized democracies, 1960–82. American Political Science Review 86 (3): 658–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holman, C., and W. Luneburg. 2012. Lobbying and transparency: A comparative analysis of regulatory reform. Interest Groups & Advocacy 1 (1): 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huber, E., C. Ragin, J.D. Stephens, D. Brady, and J. Beckfield. 2004. Comparative welfare states data set. Evanston: Northwestern University, University Of North Carolina, Duke University and Indiana University.Google Scholar
  26. Imbeau, L.M., F. Pétry, and M. Lamari. 2001. Left-right party ideology and government policies: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Political Research 40 (1): 1–29.Google Scholar
  27. Kanol, D. 2017. Knowledge of lobbying regulations and attitudes toward politics: Findings from a survey experiment in Cyprus. Public Integrity. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2017.1303882.Google Scholar
  28. Kenworthy, L. 2003. Quantitative indicators of corporatism. International Journal Of Sociology 33 (3): 10–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Köppl, P., and J. Wippersberg. 2014. The state of public affairs in Austria. Journal of Public Affairs 14 (1): 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laakso, M., and R. Taagepera. 1979. Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehmbruch, G. 1977. Liberal corporatism and party government. Comparative Political Studies 10 (1): 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lijphart, A., and M.M. Crepaz. 1991. Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen countries: Conceptual and empirical linkages. British Journal of Political Science 21 (2): 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindvall, J., and J. Sebring. 2005. Policy reform and the decline of corporatism in Sweden. West European Politics 28 (5): 1057–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lowery, D., and V. Gray. 1997. How some rules just don’t matter: The regulation of lobbyists. Public Choice 91 (2): 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mahoney, C. 2008. Brussels versus the beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Meseguer, C. 2006. Rational learning and bounded learning in the diffusion of policy innovations. Rationality and Society 18 (1): 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newmark, A. 2005. Measuring state legislative lobbying regulation, 1990–2003. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 5 (2): 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Öberg, P., T. Svensson, P.M. Christiansen, A.S. Nørgaard, H. Rommetvedt, and G. Thesen. 2011. Disrupted exchange and declining corporatism: Government authority and interest group capability in Scandinavia. Government and Opposition 46 (3): 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD. 2008. Lobbyists, government and public trust: Building a legislative framework for enhancing transparency and accountability in lobbying, vol. 1. Paris: OECD Publisher.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. 2010. OECD principles for transparency and integrity in lobbying. Paris: OECD Publisher.Google Scholar
  42. Opheim, C. 1991. Explaining the differences in state lobby regulation. Political Research Quarterly 44 (2): 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ozymy, J. 2010. Assessing the impact of legislative lobbying regulations on interest group influence in US state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10 (4): 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ozymy, J. 2013. Keepin’ on the sunny side: Scandals, organized interests, and the passage of legislative lobbying laws in the American states. American Policy Research 41 (1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Radaelli, C.M. 2000. Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy. Governance 13 (1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rechtmann, R., and J.P. Larsen-Ledet. 1998. Regulation of lobbyists in Scandinavia: A Danish perspective. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 579–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rodden, J. 2004. Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics 36 (4): 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rommetvedt, H., G. Thesen, P.M. Christiansen, and A.S. Nørgaard. 2013. Coping with corporatism in decline and the revival of parliament: Interest group lobbyism in Denmark and Norway, 1980–2005. Comparative Political Studies 46 (4): 457–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenson, A.B. 2003. Against their apparent self-interest: The authorization of independent state legislative ethics commissions, 1973–1996. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3 (1): 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenson, A.B. 2005. The shadowlands of conduct: Ethics and state politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rueda, D. 2005. Insider–outsider politics in industrialized democracies: The challenge to social democratic parties. American Political Science Review 99 (01): 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rush, M. 1998. The Canadian experience: The lobbyists registration act. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmitter, P.C. 1974. Still the century of corporatism? The Review of Politics 36 (1): 85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shipan, C.R., and C. Volden. 2008. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 840–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Siaroff, A. 1999. Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: Meaning and measurement. European Journal of Political Research 36 (2): 175–205.Google Scholar
  56. Soroka, S.N. 2002. Agenda-setting dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stone, D. 2004. Transfer agents and global networks in the transnationalization of policy. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (3): 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thesen, G. 2013. When good news is scarce and bad news is good: Government responsibilities and opposition possibilities in political agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research 52 (3): 364–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomas, C. 1998. Interest group regulation across the United States: Rationale, development and consequences. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 500–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Transparency International. 2014. Corruption perceptions index. Available At Last Accessed April 20, 2016.
  61. True, J., and M. Mintrom. 2001. Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45 (1): 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Truman, D. 1951. The governmental process: Political interests and public opinion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  63. Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Aelst, P., G. Thesen, S. Walgrave, and R. Vliegnthart. 2014. Mediatization and the media’s political agenda-setting influence. In Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies, ed. F. Esser, and J. Strömbäck, 200–222. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Visser, J. 2016. Data base on institutional characteristics of trade unions, wage setting, state intervention and social pacts, 19602011 (Ictwss). Downloadable from: Last Accessed October 12, 2015.
  66. Walgrave, S., and P. Van Aelst. 2006. The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication 56 (1): 88–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Warhurst, J. 1998. Locating the target: Regulating lobbying in Australia. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 538–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Witko, C. 2007. Explaining increases in the stringency of state campaign finance regulation, 1993–2002. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7 (4): 369–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations