Search

Why do some interest group systems provide group members with more elaborate voice opportunities than other systems? We argue that evaluating membership voice is important for understanding the representative potential of interest group systems. An adequate understanding of “voice” forms the basis of “context”-embedded assessments of benchmarks such as interest group bias, interest group representational distortion, and interest group-driven policy overload. We examine two competing hypotheses on the differences in internal voice in Eastern and Western Europe. Primarily, case-specific arguments lead us to expect a weaker internal voice in post-communist Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe. Conversely, some theoretical approaches, such as population ecological organisational theory, lead us to expect a relatively weak membership voice in the organisationally saturated Western European systems. We assess these two hypotheses on the basis of an international survey of interest group leaders and observe, in line with the population ecological hypothesis, that members of Western European interest groups, compared to those in post-communist countries, are perceived as having less influential voices in internal decisions on policy positions. We conclude, neither optimistically nor pessimistically, that there is a meaningful representative potential of interest group systems supporting democratic societies, also, or even especially, in the post-communist countries studied.

While subnational authorities strongly mobilize in Brussels, they do not lobby all EU-level venues to the same extent. This article explains the varying intensity with which regional offices interact with various EU-level policy-making venues when seeking to influence EU policies. Theoretically, we complement an exchange-based perspective with political-institutional and contextual factors, such as regional political autonomy and the degree of preference alignment with key policy-making venues. To test our hypotheses, we rely on evidence collected through 33 face-to-face interviews with regional representations concerning their lobbying activities in four salient policy processes. Our results highlight that while most offices regularly interact with both national and supranational venues, the central government representation in Brussels is always, irrespective of what is at stake, the most important contact point. Furthermore, we also find that policy alignments shape venue selection, indicating some evidence of strategic manoeuvring.

Contemporary studies on interest group politics have mainly used single interest organizations as their central objects of study. This has led to a rich body of knowledge on the motivations of interest group mobilization, strategy development and even policy access and influence. The focus on single interest groups, however, has resulted in limited knowledge on aggregate patterns of interest groups’ activity. This article seeks to address this lacuna, by examining patterns of mobilization and conflict of interest groups’ activity in EU legislative policymaking. To do so, it adopts a unique policy-centred research design and an empirical assessment of policy mobilization for a sample of 125 EU legislative proposals based on extensive media coding as well as structured elite interviews. We find that levels of policy mobilization vary substantively across different legislative proposals and that political conflict between interest groups is remarkably low. This suggests that interest group conflict and mobilization contribute little to EU politicization and that in cases where interest groups voice opposing positions, conflicts do not occur between business and non-business groups. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of interest groups in EU legislative policymaking.

In most political systems, the community of policy insiders represents a small subset of the total interest group population. Therefore, one key question is which factors explain why some mobilized interests become insiders and others remain outsiders. By contrasting a bottom-up registration of interest groups with a top-down census of all groups that enjoy access to policymakers, we present a unique approach to distinguish insiders from outsiders. This approach allows us to systematically analyze which factors – such as resources, constituency, scale of organization and policy portfolio – predict who becomes a policy insider. Our analysis focuses on interest group politics in Belgium, and shows that next to resources, the size of the membership, the scale of organization and a group’s policy portfolio are strong predictors of the likelihood to gain access.

The number and scope of transnational organizations has risen markedly during the past decades. According to the Union of International Associations (UIA), each year over a thousand transnational organizations are established, and as a result in 2012 the UIA estimated the existence of no less than 7,608 intergovernmental and an astonishing number of 56,834 nongovernmental organizations (see www.uia.be). Given the sheer size of political organizations active in transnational political processes, this chapter argues that the global environment provides an extremely rich setting for studying the organizational development of interest group communities. Unfortunately, interest group scholars have not yet taken full advantage of this rich laboratory, in our opinion mostly because the literature on transnational advocacy developed rather separately from existing interest group studies. We nonetheless see many parallels and overlaps between these literatures, for instance, in terms of key research questions that are asked as well as methodological issues. This chapter, therefore, reviews the transnational advocacy literature from an interest group perspective and in doing so we aim to identify the common ground between both fields as well as some relevant challenges.

Characterization of three-dimensional (3D) airflow remains elusive within a variety of environments and is particularly challenging over complex dune topography. Previous work examining airflow over and in the lee of dunes has been restricted to two-dimensional studies and has concentrated on dune shapes containing angle of repose lee sides only. However, the presence of vegetation in coastal dunes creates topographic differences and irregular shapes that interfere with flow separation at the crest and significantly modify lee-side airflow patterns and potential transport. This paper presents the first 3D field characterization of airflow patterns at the lee side of a subaerial dune. Flow information was obtained using an array of 3D ultrasonic anemometers deployed over a beach surface during seven offshore wind events. Data were used to measure cross-shore and alongshore lee-side airflow patterns using the three dimensions of the wind vector. Distances to re-attachment were similar to previous studies, but the range of transverse incident wind directions resulting in flow separation (0+/-35 degrees) was almost twice that previously reported (0+/-20 degrees). Airflow reversal took place with winds as slow as 1m s(-1). Transverse offshore winds generated areas of opposing wind directions both within the reversed zone and beyond re-attachment, contrary to consistent deflection in only one direction found in transverse desert dunes. Patterns of flow convergence-divergence have been reported in fluvial studies. However, while convergence was associated with weak reversal in fluvial settings, it appeared to be related to strong flow reversal here and could be produced by pressure differentials at the dune crest. UK Natural Environment Research Council. Grant Number: NE/F019483/1 peer-reviewed

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To examine the effects of community-based interventions designed to increase fruit and vegetable access, consumption or both among five to 18-year olds. © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration.

This collection of 52 posters was presented at the Partnership Practices: Working with Community, Industry and Government event. This event was designed to highlight community-university partnerships for research and other purposes from across the university and community at a one-day event held at the Quebec Street Mall in the City of Guelph, Ontario. The website for the event and all resources is www.csahs.uoguelph.ca/pps NutriSTEP® (Nutrition Risk Screening Tool for Every Preschooler) is a questionnaire that can be completed by parents of 3-5 year old children that provides a score on nutrition risk. NutriSTEP® was developed jointly by the Sudbury & District Health Unit and University of Guelph. Development involved many community partners: public health units, community health centers, Family Health Teams, and Registered Dietitians. Since the launch of NutriSTEP® there have been requests for a toddler version. A number of students and dietetic interns are currently involved in the development of Toddler NutriSTEP®. The current phase of development is taking place through Thunder Bay District Health Unit, Northern Ontario Dietetic Intern Program and in Southern Ontario in collaboration with HPHS and YRCHS. Other collaborators include Perth District Health Unit and Hospital for Sick Children. For more than 10 years now, community partnerships have been key in this research that has culminated in a provincially-mandated program for nutrition risk screening for young children that is coordinated by the Nutrition Resource Centre of the Ontario Public Health Association. The importance of maintaining relationships with partners and collaborators has been sustained throughout this decades-long project as many were also partners in the original NutriSTEP® project. This was part of the Partnership Practices: Working with community, industry and university event, held on March 1, 2011. These posters were in response to a Call for Posters. The selection was made by the Steering Committee Members: Linda Hawkins, Director, Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship ; Erin Skimson, Director, Business Development Office, Office of Research; Sue Bennett, Director, University and Community Relations, Office of the President ; Melanie Lang, Director, CBASE, College of Management and Economics; Bronwynn Wilton, Industry Outreach Knowledge Mobilization Manager, Office of Research, Agri-Food Partnerships; Shawna Reibling, Knowledge Mobilization Coordinator, Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship ; Jennifer Peleschak, Manager of Programs and Events, College of Management and Economics ; and Mary Magyar, Events Assistant, Institute for Community Engaged Scholarship