MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2089588104 · doi:10.1057/iga.2012.4

Lobbying and transparency: A comparative analysis of regulatory reform

2012· article· en· W2089588104 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInterest Groups & Advocacy · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueRegulation and Compliance Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTransparency (behavior)DemocracyPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationPoliticsPolitical economyLawSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As citizens grow increasingly wary of whose interests are being represented in the public policy arena, especially in light of recent sensational scandals showing a cozy relationship between professional lobbyists and lawmakers, a crisis of confidence is engulfing many democratic societies across the European and North American continents. Public perceptions of undue influence peddling, in which special interest groups exercise too much sway over government for self-serving purposes, have led to growing demands for the regulation of lobbyists and transparency of the policymaking process. The United States and Canada have been struggling for decades to refine their systems of lobbyist regulation. Of all the shortcomings of the North American model of lobbyist regulation – and there are many – transparency is not, for the most part, one of them. Many European countries have also been experimenting with systems of lobbyist regulation. Until recently, however, the European national experiments have produced very different results among themselves and in comparison with the North American counterparts. Surprisingly, some of the earliest efforts to regulate lobbying occurred among new democratic countries in Eastern Europe rather than the more advanced industrial democracies of Western Europe. This observation stands in stark contrast to the North American experience, where lobbyist regulation emerged as an effort to manage a highly developed class of professional lobbyists within the strictures of long-standing democratic principles. The authors find that the answer to this anomaly lies in the fact that early European lobbyist regulations focused not on transparency as a means to regain public confidence in government, but on providing business interests with access to lawmakers as a means to bolster fledgling economies. This focus on access is quickly giving way to demands for transparency as many European governments, racked by scandal, are striving to salvage the public's trust. Propelled largely by example from a reluctant European Parliament and Commission, which are themselves attempting to convince Europe that a regional government is in its own interest, several European countries are beginning to make a transition from weak systems of lobbyist regulation, which emphasize business access, to strong systems of lobbyist regulation, which emphasize public transparency. In order to discern ‘best’ practices for achieving transparency through lobbying regulation, the authors first chart the regulatory systems of the United States and Canada. That is followed by an analysis of all of the European lobbying regimes. The oft-expressed objection to this new trend toward transparency in Europe – that professional lobbyists view such regulations as overly burdensome – is undercut by research on European and American lobbyists’ attitudes toward regulation, which are generally quite favorable. Like everyone else, lobbyists realize that they have an image problem and that the best way to address that problem is by operating in the broad daylight of public transparency. Finally, the authors offer recommendations on how to enhance transparency in policymaking, drawing from detailed comparisons of the North American and European models of lobbyist regulation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,241
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,505

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,075
Tête enseignante GPT0,296
Écart entre enseignants0,222 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle