Studies of framing in the EU political system are still a rarity and they suffer from a lack of systematic empirical analysis. Addressing this gap, we ask if institutional and policy contexts intertwined with the strategic side of framing can explain the number and types of frames employed by different stakeholders. We draw on framing theory, policy analysis and a conception of the European Union as a multilevel system to develop our arguments about the impact of contexts and strategy on the framing dynamics in EU financial market regulation and environmental policy. We use a computer assisted manual content analysis and develop a fourfold typology of frames to study the frames that were prevalent in the debates on four EU policy proposals at the EU level and in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The main empirical finding is that both contexts and strategies exert a significant impact on the number and types of frames in EU policy debates. In conceptual terms, the article contributes to developing more fine-grained tools for studying frames and their underlying dimensions.Key words: framing, context, strategic action, interest groups, EU multilevel political system Framing theory suggests that since every policy issue has multiple potential dimensions, framing -selecting and emphasizing particular aspects of an issue -is an important tool for policy actors (Daviter 2009;Baumgartner and Mahoney 2008). Through framing, policy actors can play a crucial independent role in public policy debates and impact on their outcomes (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). While commonly accepted in American political science, this phenomenon is still under-researched in EU studies (exceptions are Daviter 2009;Klüver, Mahoney, Opper 2015). We know rather little about the emergence and variation of frames in the EU, especially with regard to the contextual factors that impact on these frames. The lack is surprising in two respects. On the one hand, the argumentative turn in policy analysis highlighted the centrality of arguments -and therefore frames -'in all stages of the policy process' (Majone 1989: 1). On the other hand, scholars rooted in different schools of thought agree that the institutional contexts of political systems filter the arguments, problems and solutions that find entry into the political process (see for example:Schattschneider 1960: 30).Why can European Union (EU) studies in particular benefit from a framing perspective? The EU policymaking system is characterised by contested competencies and competing constituencies. It is frequently difficult to predict how key actors will align on a given issue and which cleavages will matter most in determining outcomes (Peterson 2001). In this context, frames do not only help to make sense of 'amorphous, ill-defined problematic situation [s]' (Dudley/Richardson 1999: 226), but are also at the centre of the political conflict because they can 'empower certain actors over other actors ' (Harcourt 1998: 370). Studying framing can therefore improve...
Framing plays an important role in public policy. Interest groups strategically highlight some aspects of a policy proposal while downplaying others in order to steer the policy debate in a favorable direction. Despite the importance of framing, we still know relatively little about the framing strategies of interest groups due to methodological difficulties that have prevented scholars from systematically studying interest group framing across a large number of interest groups and multiple policy debates. This article therefore provides an overview of three novel research methods that allow researchers to systematically measure interest group frames. More specifically, this article introduces a word-based quantitative text analysis technique, a manual, computer-assisted content analysis approach and face-to-face interviews designed to systematically identify interest group frames. The results generated by all three techniques are compared on the basis of a case study of interest group framing in an environmental policy debate in the European Union.
Refugee camps and reception and identification centres (RICs) have long been imagined as ‘the best’ or ‘most suitable’ places for displaced people by states and border management authorities. In contrast, informal housing often provided by activist groups, is frequently framed as a part of the urban ‘badlands’. Drawing on research carried out between 2015 and 2019 in key spaces in Greece and Serbia along the so‐called ‘Balkan Route’, this article engages with the concept of the ‘badlands’ as a lens through which to consider the different types of housing made available for refugees in key urban centres. Following Dikeç (2007), Neely and Samura (2011), and Shabazz (2015), we examine how sites of refugee accommodation are imagined through the lenses of place, space and race and how this shapes policy responses. We ask: what are the main divergences and variations between formal refugee housing and informal sites? Why, given the poor conditions of most refugee camps, are they still viewed as the ‘best’ solution to housing? What role do policy decisions play in ‘othering’ spaces, places, groups and individuals? We examine the spatial effects of multiple policy levels and interventions (EU, national, local, grassroots) on refugee accommodation.
Although interests inhabit a central place in the multiple streams framework (MSF), interest groups have played only a minor role in theoretical and empirical studies until now. In Kingdon's original conception, organized interests are a key variable in the politics stream. Revisiting Kingdon's concept with a particular focus on interest groups and their activities-in different streams and at various levels-in the policy process, we take this argument further. In particular, we argue that specifying groups' roles in other streams adds value to the explanatory power of the framework. To do this, we look at how interest groups affect problems, policies, and politics. The influence of interest groups within the streams is explained by linking the MSF with literature on interest intermediation. We show that depending on the number of conditions and their activity level, interest groups can be involved in all three streams. We illustrate this in case studies reviewing labor market policies in Germany and chemicals regulation at the European level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.