In the past decades substantial work has been done on the assessment of influence of stakeholders in political decision-making. However, its use may be difficult when the process to be investigated is highly complex. The EAR instrument to be presented here is a method for valid ordinal measurement of political influence in complex decision-making at various levels. This assessment is based on triangulation: (1) political players’ own perception of their influence; (2) other players’ perceptions of the influence brought to bear; and (3) a process analysis by the researcher. The application of the instrument is illustrated by a case regarding the political influence of global NGOs on the Climate Convention. The advantages and limitations of the EAR instrument are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aarts, K. (1991). “Collectieve actie: een overzicht van recentelijke Nederlandse literatuur.”Acta Politica, 3: 327-355.
2.
Arts, B. (1998). The Political Influence of Global NGOs. Case Studies on the Climate and Biodiversity Conventions. Utrecht: International Books.
3.
Bachrach, P. and M. Baratz (1962). “Two Faces of Power.”American Political Science Review, 56: 947-952.
4.
Banfield, E.C. (1961). Political Influence. New York: Free Press.
5.
Bell, R. , D.V. Edwards, and R.H. Wagner (eds.) (1969). Political Power. A Reader in Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.
6.
Biersteker, T.J. (1993). “Constructing Historical Counterfactuals to Assess the Consequences of International Regimes: The Global Debt Regime and the Course of the Debt Crisis of the 1980s.” In: Regime Theory and International Relations (V. Rittberger, ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7.
Braam, G. (1973). Invloed van bedrijven op de overheid. Een empirische studie over de verdeling van maatschappelijke invloed. Meppel: Boom.
8.
Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.
9.
Cox, R. and H. Jacobson (eds.) (1973). The Anatomy of Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10.
Dahl, R.A. (1957). “The Concept of Power.”Behavioral Science, 2: 201-215.
11.
Dahl, R.A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
12.
Dowding, K. and P. Dunleavy (1995). “Rational Choice and Community Power Structures.”Political Studies, XLIII: 265-277.
13.
Everts, P. (1985). Controversies at Home: Domestic Factors in the Foreign Policy of the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
14.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
Guzzini, S. (1993). “Structural power: the limits of neorealist power analysis.”International Organization, 47(3), 443-478.
16.
Huberts, L. (1988). De politieke invloed van protest en pressie. Besluitvormingsprocessen over rijkswegen. Leiden: DSWO Press.
17.
Huberts, L. (1989). “The influence of social movements on government policy.”International Social Movement Research, 2: 395-426.
18.
Huberts, L. (1994). “Intensieve procesanalyse. In: Methoden van invloedsanalyse, (L.W.J.C. Huberts and J. Kleinnijenhuis, eds.). Meppel: Boom.
19.
Huberts, L. and J. Kleinnijenhuis (eds.) (1994). Methoden van invloedsanalyse. Meppel: Boom.
20.
Hunter, F. (1953). Community Power Structures. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
21.
Kuypers, G. (1973). Grondbegrippen van politiek. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
22.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
23.
Mills, C.W. (1956). The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Polsby, N.W. (1960). “How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative.”Journal of Politics, 22: 474-484.
25.
Potter, D. (1996). “Non-Governmental Organizations and Environmental Policies.” In: Environmental Policy in an International Context III. Prospects for Environmental Change (A. Blowers and P. Glasbergen, eds.). London: Arnold.
26.
Putnam, R. (1988). “Diplomacy and domestic policy: the logic of two-level games.”International Organization, 42 (Summer): 427-460.
27.
Riker, W.H. (1964). “Some Ambiguities in the Notion of Power.”American Political Science Review, 58: 341-349.
28.
Self, P. (1985). Political Theories of Modern Government. London: Allen & Unwin.
29.
Stokman, F. (1994). “Besluitvormingsmodellen binnen beleidsnetwerken.” In: Methoden van invloedsanalyse (L. Huberts and J. Kleinnijenhuis, eds.). Meppel: Boom.
30.
Strange, S. (1988). States and Markets (2nd ed.) London: Pinter.
31.
Van Goor, H. , J. Ellemers, and G. Braam (1985). “Een nieuwe methode om invloed te meten: positiewisselingen en invloedsprocessen.”Sociologische Gids, 4: 250-270.
32.
Van Noort, W. , L. Huberts, and L. Rademakers (1987). Protest en Pressie. Een systematische analyse van collectieve actie. Assen: Van Gorcum.
33.
Van Schendelen, M. (1981). “Politieke invloed.” In: Kernthema’s van de politicologie (M.P.C.M. van Schendelen, ed.). Meppel: Boom.
34.
Verschuren, P. and H. Doorewaard (1995). Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Utrecht: Lemma.
35.
Weber, M. (1964). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press.
36.
Wendt, A.E. (1992). “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics.”International Organization, 46(2): 391-425.
37.
Wester, F. (1991). Strategieën van kwalitatief onderzoek. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
38.
Westerheijden, D. (1987). “The substance of a shadow. A critique of power measurement methods.”Acta Politica, 1: 39-59.
