Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Who dances with whom? A quantitative and qualitative analysis of interest groups characteristics, access to state actors, and negotiation outcomes


Birchler, Kassandra; Castro, Paula (2013). Who dances with whom? A quantitative and qualitative analysis of interest groups characteristics, access to state actors, and negotiation outcomes. In: International Studies Association Annual Convention - The Politics of International Diffusion: Regional and Global Dimensions, San Francisco, 3 April 2013 - 6 April 2013.

Abstract

Existing work in the area of multilateral environmental agreements has found that, on the international level, the amount of influence exerted by interest groups depends on these groups’ level of activity during negotiations, the amount of groups present at the negotiations, and the interaction between these two factors. However, since in climate change negotiations interest groups do not have decision-making power, any influence exerted must be achieved by interaction with state actors. Using a two-level framework, we hence argue that certain interest groups work together with state actors at the national level, so that their positions are already similar when they are stated at the international level. While there is some qualitative work suggesting the importance of interest group and state interaction, there still exists no quantitative study that systematically examines which interest group characteristics ultimately promote access to state actors. Furthermore, the actual extent of influence exerted by interest groups on the final negotiation outcome has not been studied in the climate change negotiation context. To contribute to this research gap, this article first analyses what interest group characteristics make them gain access to state actors, and then explores the extent of actual influence these groups achieve on negotiation outcomes. We analyze written submissions to the UNFCCC on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology to determine interest group and state positions, relying on the keyword-based software Wordfish, and use closeness of positions as a proxy for access to state actors. We then run multivariate regressions to test, which interest group features determine such access. In addition, to examine to what extent the interest groups were actually able to influence the negotiation outcomes, we trace the amount and content of text provided by interest groups in their written submissions that is taken up in country submissions and in the final decision text, with the help of the plagiarism software WCopyfind. Our descriptive and econometric analysis show that interest groups do have a discernable influence on country positions during the climate change negotiations.

Abstract

Existing work in the area of multilateral environmental agreements has found that, on the international level, the amount of influence exerted by interest groups depends on these groups’ level of activity during negotiations, the amount of groups present at the negotiations, and the interaction between these two factors. However, since in climate change negotiations interest groups do not have decision-making power, any influence exerted must be achieved by interaction with state actors. Using a two-level framework, we hence argue that certain interest groups work together with state actors at the national level, so that their positions are already similar when they are stated at the international level. While there is some qualitative work suggesting the importance of interest group and state interaction, there still exists no quantitative study that systematically examines which interest group characteristics ultimately promote access to state actors. Furthermore, the actual extent of influence exerted by interest groups on the final negotiation outcome has not been studied in the climate change negotiation context. To contribute to this research gap, this article first analyses what interest group characteristics make them gain access to state actors, and then explores the extent of actual influence these groups achieve on negotiation outcomes. We analyze written submissions to the UNFCCC on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology to determine interest group and state positions, relying on the keyword-based software Wordfish, and use closeness of positions as a proxy for access to state actors. We then run multivariate regressions to test, which interest group features determine such access. In addition, to examine to what extent the interest groups were actually able to influence the negotiation outcomes, we trace the amount and content of text provided by interest groups in their written submissions that is taken up in country submissions and in the final decision text, with the help of the plagiarism software WCopyfind. Our descriptive and econometric analysis show that interest groups do have a discernable influence on country positions during the climate change negotiations.

Statistics

Downloads

127 downloads since deposited on 20 Dec 2013
9 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Conference or Workshop Item (Paper), not refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Political Science
Dewey Decimal Classification:320 Political science
Uncontrolled Keywords:Climate change, interest groups, negotiations, quantitative text analysis, UNFCCC
Language:English
Event End Date:6 April 2013
Deposited On:20 Dec 2013 14:32
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 17:16
Related URLs:http://www.isanet.org/Conferences/SanFrancisco2013.aspx

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Filetype: PDF
Size: 1MB

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations