欧盟利益集团与政策制定
|
摘要
利益集团的存在是西方政治生活中的重要部分,其对政治的影响得到了人们的广泛认可。不了解利益集团对政治的这种影响,很难完全理解西方政治的运作与发展。欧盟利益集团在欧盟政策制定过程中发挥着不可替代的作用。对此进行探析,具有重要的意义。
全文共分六章。
第一章首先对欧盟利益集团的概念进行界定,然后对西方学术界关于利益集团政治的不同理论解读进行了梳理。本文从广义上来界定利益集团,认为欧盟利益集团是指为了共同的利益、对欧盟层面的政策制定产生影响的各种集团。就利益集团及其体制政治作用的发挥而言,国内外学者进行了有效的理论探索,提出了一些重要的理论模式。从宏观的角度来看,多元主义和社团主义对于利益集团的解释具有持久且旺盛的生命力;从中观和微观的视角来看,利益集团经济理论为洞察利益集团的内部动力及其对公共政策和社会的影响提供了很好的视野。由于在解释利益集团体制方面,各种理论都有着不同的侧重,所以后来者不断地对其进行修正,以使之更为完善。
第二章对欧盟利益集团的形成、发展历史及主要利益集团进行介绍,并在此基础之上对其特征进行了概括。本文认为,作为欧盟政治生活中的一种重要现象,欧盟利益集团在成员国早已存在利益集团的基础上形成和发展。由于在欧盟公共事务中利害相关的利益非常多,所以对之进行具体分析,可以从不同的视角进行分类。从活动层面来看,欧盟利益集团既包括欧盟层面,也包括国家层面、次国家层面或独自或共同行动的集团;但学术界更多地将之分为商业利益集团和公共利益集团或非商业利益两种。前者在欧盟委员会备案的欧盟各类利益集团中约占82%,而非商业利益集团则包括:(1)专业利益集团;(2)劳工利益集团;(3)公共利益集团(包括消费者、环境、市民利益集团等);(4)区域利益集团等。回顾欧盟利益集团形成和发展的历史,本文认为其充分体现了多元主义与社团主义的结合。
第三章分析欧盟政策制定的框架及主要行为者和程序,探讨了欧盟利益集团影响欧盟政策制定的渠道。本文认为,欧盟利益集团在欧盟政策制定过程中发挥着不可替代的作用。欧盟多层治理的机构为其影响力的发挥提供了重要的渠道。西方有学者就曾指出欧盟利益表达的多种路径都依赖于欧盟的政治机会结构,正是欧盟的多层结构为利益集团影响政策提供了多种机会。在广泛的意义上,机会结构代表某种机制的特征,它能够决定外部集团对其决策的影响。狭义地讲,政治机会结构包括两个方面:一是结构方面,这涉及到政治体系的开放性,并且因此涉及到政治行为者准入的便捷性。二是政治体系对于政治行为人权利要求的接受能力。反过来,后一方面可能包括一系列“偶然性”因素。这两个方面将“可能性边界”和社会运动与利益集团在参与政治活动中必须处理的问题联系在一起。欧盟的多层治理特征为利益集团影响决策提供了更为充分的条件。这是欧盟利益集团对欧盟决策产生影响的一个方面。另一方面也是更重要的,即欧盟利益集团能够为欧盟机构提供必要的“进入产品”。双方在政治场域内存在的交换关系是政治交易成功的关键。这也是二者共栖关系得以存在和发展的根本。
第四章在对欧盟利益集团共同行动能力分析的基础上,探讨了欧盟利益集团影响欧盟政策制定的路径选择及所采取的主要战略。本文认为,政策制定过程既是社会各种力量互动的一个过程,也是利益集团通过多种方式争取影响公共政策,获得自身利益最大化的过程。欧盟利益集团在寻求影响欧盟政策制定的过程中不仅灵活掌握走成员国路线、还是布鲁塞尔路线,甚或将两者相结合,而且也针对不同的领域决定采取政治或法律等战略。这取决于多种因素的共同作用。第五章以利益集团与欧盟民主为例,结合利益集团在欧盟制宪进程中的博弈对欧盟利益集团的影响力进行评估。在强调欧盟利益集团在重构欧盟民主合法性及政策制定的公开、透明性,扩大公民参与等方面发挥积极作用的同时,也认识到在欧盟利益集团具体活动的过程中所产生的一定消极影响。
第六章则在分析欧盟利益集团活动中存在的问题及产生的消极影响的基础上,对欧盟利益集团的规制问题进行了探讨。本文指出,欧盟需要借鉴美国等其他国家和地区的经验,逐渐对其利益集团体制进行完善。在解决民主输入合法性问题的同时,利用利益集团作为一个对代议制民主缺陷作出反馈的机构,从而通过透明、公开来保证欧盟机构的廉洁、公正。这不仅必要,而且迫切。
The existence of interest group is an important part of western political life; and whose political influence is extensively recognized by the public. It is difficult to understand the performance and development of western politics without a comprehensive recognition of political interest.
Overseas or domestically, some important theoretical modes have been put forward on the exercise of political influence of interest by many scholars. Macroscopically, the interpretation of pluralism and corporatism on interest group boasts a long standing and vigorous life. In a middle and microcosmic point of view, it is the economic theory of interest group that provides a prospect to have penetrating sight of its interior motive and influence on public policy and society. Owing to the different explanation on its mechanism, interest group is still undergoing revision so as to make it more understandable.
As an important phenomenon of EU political life, EU interest group comes into being and develops on the base of interest group of member states. Firstly, the Europeanization of member states affairs makes it possible for member state interest groups to expand its scope to EU level, and at the same time, to accelerate the formation of new interest groups, which is the background for the expansion of EU interest groups. Secondly, form the prospect of EU, the development of strategic political interest group is in accordance with its legality of rule and demand of effectiveness, which, especially in the game of interest, strengthens the need of mutual-reliance of EU and its interest groups. And therefore, on the spur of EU policy, the role of interest group in EU affairs is becoming more and more evident. With the deepening of integration, the number of interest group is increasing continuously and its performance of mechanism is in constantly regulation. What’s more, the expansion of EU has exerted great influence on the construction and agenda of interest group.
There exist many kinds of crucial relative interests in the public affairs of EU, therefore a concrete analysis of which can be carried out from different aspects. From activity level, the interest groups in EU can be found in the level of EU, the level of states, the level of sub-state, and separate or common action level. However the interest group is often classified as business interest group and public interest group or non-business one by the academic circle. The former takes a proportion of 82% of all recorded interest groups in EU. The latter includes the following; 1. Interest group of specialized trade and profession 2. Interest group of workers 3. Interest group of the public (with consumer , environment, civilian interest group etc included ) 4. Regional interest group. On retrospection of the formation and development history of EU interest group, it can be concluded that which is a combination of pluralism and corporatism. The rule of EU possesses its specialty and boasts the following features; 1. Multilayer, the stipulation of EU policy involves in different aspects; horizontally, which deals with economy, politics, foreign affairs even defense and every aspect of life in EU. Longitudinally, the policy-making deals with the level of hyper-state, state, sub-state and region etc. It is just against such a background that the policy- making or administration of EU reflects the characteristics of multi-level, and the theory of multi-layer administration has become an important one in EU policy-making research and provides a mechanism and platform for hyper-state institution, member state activist and sub-state activist; which also enhances the transparency and democracy of policy making and gets the support and recognition of the public and hence the legality of re-construction. 2. Pragmatics and gradualism. The pragmatics can be seen in such crucial matters as the choice of direction, the policy-making, the control of speed etc; which is closely related to gradualism. On the one hand, it can be found on the stipulation and realization of EU aim of integration; and on the other hand it can be found on the constant amelioration and development of EU policy-making agenda, ways of decision-making and rules of procedures etc. 3. Flexibility and compromise. Compromise is an essential factor in EU spirit. Each step of deepening in integration of EU can not do without compromise. It should be said that compromise is the normalcy in the process of integration. Without compromise, there would be no EU today. However the compromise can often be shown by the disguise of flexibility in EU policy-making and execution. All the features mentioned above consist of the complexity of the systematic project of EU policy-making.
The interest group plays an indispensable part in the procedure of EU policy-making. The multi-layer administration mechanism in EU provides an important channel for interest group to exert its influence. Western scholars once pointed out that different channels of interest expressing of EU rely on the opportunist structure and it is the multi-layer construction that provides chance for interest groups to affect policy-making. The extensive way of interest expressing of EU relies on the concept of‘political opportunist structure’, whether dominant or recessive. Generally speaking, opportunity structure stands for a certain mechanism feature, which determines the influence of exterior groups on policy-making. Narrowly speaking, political opportunity includes two aspects, one is structure, which deals with the openness of political system and therefore have something to do with the convenience of access for political actor. The other is the receptivity of political system for the right demand of the political actor. And the latter may incorporate a series of chance. The above mentioned two aspects connect the boundary of possibility and the issues that must be dealt with by social campaign and interest group in participation of political activity. While the multi-layer feature of the EU provides sufficient condition for interest group to affect decision making. This is a substantial part of interest group to influence EU policy-making. Another is important too, that’s to say the interest group can supply access product for EU institution. The success of exchange in political domain is crucial for EU and interest groups, which is the root for the two to coexist and maintain.
Policy-making is a process of interaction of different social forces, and also a process for interest groups to influence public policy by various means to maximize its interest proper. Whether route of member states or route of Brussels, they both are strategies taken by interest groups to affect policy-making on different conditions, which turns on combined actions of various factors.
Interest groups of EU play an important part in policy making; to evaluate its function involves many aspects and whose influence on EU democracy is a big rhetorical question. The debate on EU democracy deficit and the role played by citizen in participation of political process has drawn people’s research to the role of organized civil society since 1990s. Given the current framework of democracy, the influence of interest group on EU democracy is independent variable; democracy is dependent variable; which is a combination of passive factors and active factors. Theoretically, there is the internal possibility for the interest group to rectify the democracy deficit of EU, but practically, the interest group plays an active role in maintain the transparency and competition of policy-making; and at the same time, the elite feature of interest group may impede the legality of democracy. Therefore, it is in such sense that democracy of EU is not a separate issue, especially as a search for democracy consultation; EU is marching forward to a new democracy to adapt to the current challenges, to administering a much bigger and more diverse political space. So it can be said that the influence of interest group on EU democracy is not a singular problem, which is extensive and multi-layered. The crux for the solution of democracy deficit in the process of integration of EU lies in the legality of administration, and the mechanism of interest group is an important part of which. The interest game of interest group in the stipulation of EU constitution sheds light on this point.
To sum up, the interest group does not develop and perform in a vacuum, whose birth and development has undergone a process of constant mature. And in this process, the interest group proper, as a component of a colony, goes through a not only a transition of organization form, but also a constant amelioration of mechanism. In order to regularize the conduct of internal members ,strengthen the cohesion of the collective , perfect and unify the system of colony and organization, and finally realize the function of order, control and strengthening organization, while accelerate the publicity and transparency of decision-making, EU has to limit the negative effect of interest group in policy-making, which is necessary and pressing. And at the same time, EU should ameliorate the current framework on the experiences of the US and other countries so as to ensure the cleanness and justice of EU by way of transparency.
全文共分六章。
第一章首先对欧盟利益集团的概念进行界定,然后对西方学术界关于利益集团政治的不同理论解读进行了梳理。本文从广义上来界定利益集团,认为欧盟利益集团是指为了共同的利益、对欧盟层面的政策制定产生影响的各种集团。就利益集团及其体制政治作用的发挥而言,国内外学者进行了有效的理论探索,提出了一些重要的理论模式。从宏观的角度来看,多元主义和社团主义对于利益集团的解释具有持久且旺盛的生命力;从中观和微观的视角来看,利益集团经济理论为洞察利益集团的内部动力及其对公共政策和社会的影响提供了很好的视野。由于在解释利益集团体制方面,各种理论都有着不同的侧重,所以后来者不断地对其进行修正,以使之更为完善。
第二章对欧盟利益集团的形成、发展历史及主要利益集团进行介绍,并在此基础之上对其特征进行了概括。本文认为,作为欧盟政治生活中的一种重要现象,欧盟利益集团在成员国早已存在利益集团的基础上形成和发展。由于在欧盟公共事务中利害相关的利益非常多,所以对之进行具体分析,可以从不同的视角进行分类。从活动层面来看,欧盟利益集团既包括欧盟层面,也包括国家层面、次国家层面或独自或共同行动的集团;但学术界更多地将之分为商业利益集团和公共利益集团或非商业利益两种。前者在欧盟委员会备案的欧盟各类利益集团中约占82%,而非商业利益集团则包括:(1)专业利益集团;(2)劳工利益集团;(3)公共利益集团(包括消费者、环境、市民利益集团等);(4)区域利益集团等。回顾欧盟利益集团形成和发展的历史,本文认为其充分体现了多元主义与社团主义的结合。
第三章分析欧盟政策制定的框架及主要行为者和程序,探讨了欧盟利益集团影响欧盟政策制定的渠道。本文认为,欧盟利益集团在欧盟政策制定过程中发挥着不可替代的作用。欧盟多层治理的机构为其影响力的发挥提供了重要的渠道。西方有学者就曾指出欧盟利益表达的多种路径都依赖于欧盟的政治机会结构,正是欧盟的多层结构为利益集团影响政策提供了多种机会。在广泛的意义上,机会结构代表某种机制的特征,它能够决定外部集团对其决策的影响。狭义地讲,政治机会结构包括两个方面:一是结构方面,这涉及到政治体系的开放性,并且因此涉及到政治行为者准入的便捷性。二是政治体系对于政治行为人权利要求的接受能力。反过来,后一方面可能包括一系列“偶然性”因素。这两个方面将“可能性边界”和社会运动与利益集团在参与政治活动中必须处理的问题联系在一起。欧盟的多层治理特征为利益集团影响决策提供了更为充分的条件。这是欧盟利益集团对欧盟决策产生影响的一个方面。另一方面也是更重要的,即欧盟利益集团能够为欧盟机构提供必要的“进入产品”。双方在政治场域内存在的交换关系是政治交易成功的关键。这也是二者共栖关系得以存在和发展的根本。
第四章在对欧盟利益集团共同行动能力分析的基础上,探讨了欧盟利益集团影响欧盟政策制定的路径选择及所采取的主要战略。本文认为,政策制定过程既是社会各种力量互动的一个过程,也是利益集团通过多种方式争取影响公共政策,获得自身利益最大化的过程。欧盟利益集团在寻求影响欧盟政策制定的过程中不仅灵活掌握走成员国路线、还是布鲁塞尔路线,甚或将两者相结合,而且也针对不同的领域决定采取政治或法律等战略。这取决于多种因素的共同作用。第五章以利益集团与欧盟民主为例,结合利益集团在欧盟制宪进程中的博弈对欧盟利益集团的影响力进行评估。在强调欧盟利益集团在重构欧盟民主合法性及政策制定的公开、透明性,扩大公民参与等方面发挥积极作用的同时,也认识到在欧盟利益集团具体活动的过程中所产生的一定消极影响。
第六章则在分析欧盟利益集团活动中存在的问题及产生的消极影响的基础上,对欧盟利益集团的规制问题进行了探讨。本文指出,欧盟需要借鉴美国等其他国家和地区的经验,逐渐对其利益集团体制进行完善。在解决民主输入合法性问题的同时,利用利益集团作为一个对代议制民主缺陷作出反馈的机构,从而通过透明、公开来保证欧盟机构的廉洁、公正。这不仅必要,而且迫切。
The existence of interest group is an important part of western political life; and whose political influence is extensively recognized by the public. It is difficult to understand the performance and development of western politics without a comprehensive recognition of political interest.
Overseas or domestically, some important theoretical modes have been put forward on the exercise of political influence of interest by many scholars. Macroscopically, the interpretation of pluralism and corporatism on interest group boasts a long standing and vigorous life. In a middle and microcosmic point of view, it is the economic theory of interest group that provides a prospect to have penetrating sight of its interior motive and influence on public policy and society. Owing to the different explanation on its mechanism, interest group is still undergoing revision so as to make it more understandable.
As an important phenomenon of EU political life, EU interest group comes into being and develops on the base of interest group of member states. Firstly, the Europeanization of member states affairs makes it possible for member state interest groups to expand its scope to EU level, and at the same time, to accelerate the formation of new interest groups, which is the background for the expansion of EU interest groups. Secondly, form the prospect of EU, the development of strategic political interest group is in accordance with its legality of rule and demand of effectiveness, which, especially in the game of interest, strengthens the need of mutual-reliance of EU and its interest groups. And therefore, on the spur of EU policy, the role of interest group in EU affairs is becoming more and more evident. With the deepening of integration, the number of interest group is increasing continuously and its performance of mechanism is in constantly regulation. What’s more, the expansion of EU has exerted great influence on the construction and agenda of interest group.
There exist many kinds of crucial relative interests in the public affairs of EU, therefore a concrete analysis of which can be carried out from different aspects. From activity level, the interest groups in EU can be found in the level of EU, the level of states, the level of sub-state, and separate or common action level. However the interest group is often classified as business interest group and public interest group or non-business one by the academic circle. The former takes a proportion of 82% of all recorded interest groups in EU. The latter includes the following; 1. Interest group of specialized trade and profession 2. Interest group of workers 3. Interest group of the public (with consumer , environment, civilian interest group etc included ) 4. Regional interest group. On retrospection of the formation and development history of EU interest group, it can be concluded that which is a combination of pluralism and corporatism. The rule of EU possesses its specialty and boasts the following features; 1. Multilayer, the stipulation of EU policy involves in different aspects; horizontally, which deals with economy, politics, foreign affairs even defense and every aspect of life in EU. Longitudinally, the policy-making deals with the level of hyper-state, state, sub-state and region etc. It is just against such a background that the policy- making or administration of EU reflects the characteristics of multi-level, and the theory of multi-layer administration has become an important one in EU policy-making research and provides a mechanism and platform for hyper-state institution, member state activist and sub-state activist; which also enhances the transparency and democracy of policy making and gets the support and recognition of the public and hence the legality of re-construction. 2. Pragmatics and gradualism. The pragmatics can be seen in such crucial matters as the choice of direction, the policy-making, the control of speed etc; which is closely related to gradualism. On the one hand, it can be found on the stipulation and realization of EU aim of integration; and on the other hand it can be found on the constant amelioration and development of EU policy-making agenda, ways of decision-making and rules of procedures etc. 3. Flexibility and compromise. Compromise is an essential factor in EU spirit. Each step of deepening in integration of EU can not do without compromise. It should be said that compromise is the normalcy in the process of integration. Without compromise, there would be no EU today. However the compromise can often be shown by the disguise of flexibility in EU policy-making and execution. All the features mentioned above consist of the complexity of the systematic project of EU policy-making.
The interest group plays an indispensable part in the procedure of EU policy-making. The multi-layer administration mechanism in EU provides an important channel for interest group to exert its influence. Western scholars once pointed out that different channels of interest expressing of EU rely on the opportunist structure and it is the multi-layer construction that provides chance for interest groups to affect policy-making. The extensive way of interest expressing of EU relies on the concept of‘political opportunist structure’, whether dominant or recessive. Generally speaking, opportunity structure stands for a certain mechanism feature, which determines the influence of exterior groups on policy-making. Narrowly speaking, political opportunity includes two aspects, one is structure, which deals with the openness of political system and therefore have something to do with the convenience of access for political actor. The other is the receptivity of political system for the right demand of the political actor. And the latter may incorporate a series of chance. The above mentioned two aspects connect the boundary of possibility and the issues that must be dealt with by social campaign and interest group in participation of political activity. While the multi-layer feature of the EU provides sufficient condition for interest group to affect decision making. This is a substantial part of interest group to influence EU policy-making. Another is important too, that’s to say the interest group can supply access product for EU institution. The success of exchange in political domain is crucial for EU and interest groups, which is the root for the two to coexist and maintain.
Policy-making is a process of interaction of different social forces, and also a process for interest groups to influence public policy by various means to maximize its interest proper. Whether route of member states or route of Brussels, they both are strategies taken by interest groups to affect policy-making on different conditions, which turns on combined actions of various factors.
Interest groups of EU play an important part in policy making; to evaluate its function involves many aspects and whose influence on EU democracy is a big rhetorical question. The debate on EU democracy deficit and the role played by citizen in participation of political process has drawn people’s research to the role of organized civil society since 1990s. Given the current framework of democracy, the influence of interest group on EU democracy is independent variable; democracy is dependent variable; which is a combination of passive factors and active factors. Theoretically, there is the internal possibility for the interest group to rectify the democracy deficit of EU, but practically, the interest group plays an active role in maintain the transparency and competition of policy-making; and at the same time, the elite feature of interest group may impede the legality of democracy. Therefore, it is in such sense that democracy of EU is not a separate issue, especially as a search for democracy consultation; EU is marching forward to a new democracy to adapt to the current challenges, to administering a much bigger and more diverse political space. So it can be said that the influence of interest group on EU democracy is not a singular problem, which is extensive and multi-layered. The crux for the solution of democracy deficit in the process of integration of EU lies in the legality of administration, and the mechanism of interest group is an important part of which. The interest game of interest group in the stipulation of EU constitution sheds light on this point.
To sum up, the interest group does not develop and perform in a vacuum, whose birth and development has undergone a process of constant mature. And in this process, the interest group proper, as a component of a colony, goes through a not only a transition of organization form, but also a constant amelioration of mechanism. In order to regularize the conduct of internal members ,strengthen the cohesion of the collective , perfect and unify the system of colony and organization, and finally realize the function of order, control and strengthening organization, while accelerate the publicity and transparency of decision-making, EU has to limit the negative effect of interest group in policy-making, which is necessary and pressing. And at the same time, EU should ameliorate the current framework on the experiences of the US and other countries so as to ensure the cleanness and justice of EU by way of transparency.
引文
①根据Fank R.Baumgartner和Beth L. Leech的Basic interest:The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science(Princeton University Press,1998)的资料统计。
②诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦等.利益集团、院外活动、政策制订[M],北京:世界知识出版社,1981,13.
①Truman,Dvid B.,The Govemment Process,NewYork :Alfred A.Knoof,1971,p.9。
②李寿棋编著.美国的利益集团与政治[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1988,第3页.
③GrahamK. Wilson,Interest Groups In The United States, Oxford:ClaredonPress, l981,p.4.
④See Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the European Union, Campus Verlag ,Frankfurt/New York,2006.
⑤Thomas, Clive S.,Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups,Greenwood Pub Group,2004,p.4.
①Thomas, Clive S.,Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups,Greenwood Pub Group,2004,p.7.
②Alan Cawson,Corporatism and Political Theory, Oxford: Basil. Blackwell, 1986,p. 38.
①See Economic Theories of Regulation and the Effects of Groups,1982.
①See Clive S. Thomas,First World Groups:A Comparative Perspective,Greenwood Press ,1993.
①M.P.C.M Van Schendelen,National Public and Private EC Lobbying,Dartmouth Publishing Group ,1993, pp..15-16.
②刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].2008年中央党校博士论文,第4页。
①诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦等?利益集团、院外活动政策制订[M],北京:世界知识出版社,1981,第13页。
②Dvid B Truman,The Govemment Process,Alfred A.Knoof,NewYork,1971,p.9.
①李寿棋编著.美国的利益集团与政治[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1988,第3页。
①戴·米勒等.布莱克维尔.政治学百科全书[ M] .北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2002.第385页。
②Allan J.Cigler and Burdett A.Loomis(eds),Interest Group Politics,4th ed ,A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington,D.C.1995,p.4.
①刘文锁.西方国家利益集团参与政治过程的方式及作用[J].湖北行政学院学报,2005(3).
②蔡定剑.公众参与:欧洲的制度和经验[M].法律出版社,2009,第86页,欧洲之声咨询的门户网站网址为http://www.europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultation/indes-en.htm.。
①田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报,2006(6).
②See Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the Eueopean Union,Campus Verlag ,Frankfurt/New York,2006.
③Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the European Union, Campus Verlag ,Frankfurt/New York,2006,p.53.
④[美]罗伯特?达尔,周军华等译.多元主义民主的困境——自治与控制[M].北京:求实出版社,1989。
①[美]希尔斯曼,曹大鹏译.美国是如何治理的[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995,第6页。
②田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报,2006(6).
③[法]托克维尔.论美国的民主[M].商务印书馆,1991,《论美国的民主》第十二章“美国的政治社团”。
④田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报.2006(6).
①Allan J.Cigler and Burdett A.Loomis(eds),Interest Group Politics,A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington ,D.C.,1995,p.6-7.
①高春芽.利益集团形成机制探索:从多元主义到集体行动理论[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(2).
①Cawson,Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Though,1986,p.38.
②刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].2008年中央党校博士论文.
①张静.法团主义[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005,第19—20页。
②Philippe C. Schmitter,“Still the Century of Corporatism?”,Review of Politics, Vol.36,No.1,January 1974, pp. 85-131.
①刘军宁等.公共论丛:自由与社群[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998,第393页。
②参见刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].中共中央党校2008年博士论文。
①David Coen,“The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”,in Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.4,No.1, 1997,pp.98-99.
①Rainer Eising,The Access of Business Interests to EU Institutions: Towards Elite Pluralism?,in Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 14, Issue 3 ,April 2007, p.384-403.
②David Coen(ed),EU Lobbying:Empirical and Theoretical Studies,London : Routledge, 2007,p.15.
①See Traxler and Schmitter,From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism,,Organized Interests in the Single Market,1994.
②Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the European Union,2006,p.53.
①参见肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003,第150—151页。
②See Svein S.Anderson and Kjell.A.Eliassen(eds),Making Policy in Europe:The Europeanization of National Policy-Making, Sage Publications,1993.
①参见肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003,第154页。
②参见肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社2003,第153—154页。
①Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet, European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.2008,p.8.
②Richard Topf,“Beyond Electoral Participation,in Citizens and the State”,in Citizens and the State, Sep.1998 pp.52-92.
③Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet, European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.2008,p.11.
④转引自Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet, European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.2008,p.9.
⑤Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little ,Brown,1967,p.2.0.
⑥Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little ,Brown,1967,pp.7-8.
①Jeremy Richardson(ed),European Union:Power and Policy-making,Routledge,2004,p.249.
②Mazey ,S.,”The Development of EU Equality Policies:Bureaucratic Expansion on Behalf of Woman”, Public Administration,Vol.73,No.4, 1995,pp.591-609.
③欧洲圆桌会议( European Round Table),代表欧盟内最大的一些公司。
④M. Green Cowles,“Organizing Industrial Coalitions:A Challenge for the Future?”,in Wallace and A. Young(eds),Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union,Oxford Clarendon Press, 1997,p.504.
⑤See Gary Marks and Doug McAdam,“On the Relationship of Political Opportunities to the Form of Collective Action: The Case of the European Union”, 1999.
①Roy Pryce, The Politics of the European Community,London :Butterworths,1973,pp.87-91.
①David Truman,The Governmental Process:Political Interests and Public Opinion,New York:Knopf,1951,p.31.
②Trade Uinon as Pressure Group in the European Community,Farnborough:Saxon House,1977,p.28.
③“Interest Group Behabiour at the Community Level”, in L.Hurwita(ed)Contemporary Perspectives on European Integration,London :Aldwich,1980,p.132.
④“Integration ,Supranational Governance and the Institutionalisation of the European Policy”, in W.Sandholta and A. Stone Sweet(eds)European Integration and Supranational Governance ,Oxford University Press,1998.
①Spyros Blavoukos; George Pagoulatos,“‘Enlargement Waves’and Interest Group Participation in the EU Policy-Making System: Establishing a Framework of Analysis”,in West European Politics, p.1150.
②Cowles, Maria Green‘The Changing Architecture of Big Business’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge ,1998,pp. 108–125.
③Wessels, Bernhard,”Contestation Potential of Interest Groups in the EU: Emergence, Structure and Political Alliances”, in Gary Marks and Marco R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2004,195–215.
①Greenwood, Justin, Inside the EU Business Associations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Greenwood, Justin, and Ruth ,2002).Webster (2001).‘Are EU Business Associations Governable?’,Journal of European Integration,Vol. 23,No.1,pp.63–92.
②Haas, Ernst B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
③Association of national organizations of fishing enterprises in the EU,网址:http://www.europeche.org/
④Lequesne, Christian (2005).‘Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?’, in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.353–76.
⑤Euractiv Survey (2007). European Federations Survey 2007: Interest Groups in a Global Context.
⑥Bennett, Robert J. (1997).‘The Impact of European Economic Integration on Business Associations: the UK Case’, West European Politics, 20:3, 61–90; Coen, David (1997).‘The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.4,No.1,pp.91–108.
⑦Pollack, Mark (1997).‘Representing Diffuse Interests in EC Policy-making’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.4,No.4,pp.572–90.
⑧Olson, Mancur (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
①Hula, Kevin (1995).‘Rounding up the Usual Suspects: Forging Interest Group Coalitions in Washington’, in Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis (eds), Interest Group Politics, 4th ed.Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.239–259.
②Aspinwall, Mark, and Justin Greenwood (1998).‘Conceptualising Collective Action in the European Union’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, pp.1–30; Sidenius, Niels Christian (1998).‘A Collective Action Problem? Danish Interest Associations and Euro Groups’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge,pp. 81–107.
③Jordan, Grant (1998).‘What Drives Associability at the European Level? The Limits of the Utilitarian Explanation’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, pp.31–62.
④Hula, Kevin (1995).‘Rounding up the Usual Suspects: Forging Interest Group Coalitions in Washington’, in Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis (eds), Interest Group Politics, 4th ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.239–59.
①Greenwood, Justin (1997). Representing Interests in the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan, pp.56-61.
②Greenwood, Justin (1997). Representing Interests in the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan, pp18-19.
③Young, Alasdair R. (1998).‘European Consumer Groups: Multiple Levels of Governance and Multiple Logics of Collective Action’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge,pp154-159.
④Euractiv Survey (2007). European Federations Survey 2007: Interest Groups in a Global Context.
⑤Bouwen, Pieter (2002).‘Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9:3, p.370.
⑥Greenwood, Justin, Ju¨rgen R. Grote and Karsten Ronit, eds (1992). Organized Interests in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan; Pappi, Franz U. and Christian H.C.A. Henning (1999).‘The Organisation of Influence on the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy: A Network Approach’, European Journal of Political Research, 36,pp.257–281.
⑦Bouwen, Pieter (2004).‘Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol.43,No.3, p.340..
①Beyers, Jan (2002).‘Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making’, ARENA Working Papers, WP 02/39.
②Gais, Thomas, and Jack Walker (1991).‘Pathways to Influence in American Politics’, in Jack Walker (ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,pp.103–121; Eising, Rainer (2007).‘Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices: Explaining Interest Group Access in the European Union’, European Union Politics, Vol.8,No.3,pp.329–362.
③Beyers, Jan (2002).‘Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making’, ARENA Working Papers, WP 02/39, pp.5-6.
④Wagner, Anne Catherine (2005). Vers une Europe Syndicale: Une Enque?te sur la Confe′de′ration Europe′enne des Syndicats. Paris: Du Croquant.
⑤Wessels, Bernhard (2004).‘Contestation Potential of Interest Groups in the EU: Emergence, Structure and Political Alliances’, in Gary Marks and Marco R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp196–9.
①Sidenius, Niels Christian (1998).‘A Collective Action Problem? Danish Interest Associations and Euro Groups’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, 81–107.
①Young, Alasdair R. (1995).‘Participation and Policy-Making in the European Community: Mediating Between Competing Interests’, paper presented at the Fourth ECSA Biennial Conference, Charleston: South Carolina, 11–14 May.
②Pallis, Athanasios A. (2002). The Common EU Maritime Transport Policy. Policy Europeanisation in the 1990s. Aldershot: Ashgate.
③Lequesne, Christian (2005).‘Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?’, in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.353–376.
④Greenwood, Justin (1997). Representing Interests in the European Union. Houndmills:Macmillan,pp.124-125.
⑤Webster, Ruth (2000).‘What Drives Interest Group Collaboration at the EU Level? Evidence from the European Environmental Interest Groups’, European Integration online Papers,4:17,http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-017.pdf
⑥Grant ,W.,Press Groups,Politics and Democracy in Britain,Harvester Wheatsheaf,1995.
①Pressure Groups in the European Community,London :University Association for Contemporary European Studies,1985,p.88.
②An Open and Structured Dialogue,SEC,2272 final, Commission,1992,p.4.
③Mahoney,2004,p.445.
①See http://www.feantsa.org/code/en/hp.asp
②Pressure Groups in the European Community,London :University Association for Contemporary European Studies,1985,p.1.
③Pressure Groups in the European Community,London :University Association for Contemporary European Studies,1985,p.88.
①An Open and Structured Dialogue,commission,1992,4, SEC,2272 final.
②Jeremy Richardson(ed.),European Union,Power and Policy-making,2006,Routledge.
①陈振明.政策科学[M].中国人民大学出版社,1998,第212页。
①赵伯英.主权观念和欧盟成员国的主权让渡[J].中共中央党校学报.1999(2).
①刘文秀编著.欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2003,第38页。
①林甦、张茂明、罗天虹主编.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002,第29页。
②林甦、张茂明、罗天虹主编.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002,第35—36页。
主编.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002,第49页。
①蔡玉辉、杨豫.欧洲精神与欧盟制度析论[J].欧洲研究,2006(1),第90页。
①Bouwen, Pieter.,Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access. Journal of European Public Policy 9, No.3, 2002, pp..365-390,;Bouwen, Pieter., Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the EU Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 43, No. 3: 2004.,pp.337-369.
①肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003,第161页。
①刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].中共中央党校2008年博士论文。
②刘伟忠.利益集团政策参与的均衡性探究[J].理论探讨,2006(4).
③托马斯?R.戴伊.理解公共政策[M].北京:华夏出版社,2004,第18页。
①See Justin Greenwood, Representing Interests in the Europe Union, Macmillan Press Ltd,1997.
①See Jeremy J. Richardson,European Union,Power and Policy-making,New York : Routledge, 2006,p.256.
②See Jeremy J. Richardson,European Union,Power and Policy-making,New York : Routledge, 2006,p.257.
①Paul Magnette,What is the European Union:Nature and Prospects,Palgrave Macmillan,2005,p.167.
①See Grant Jordan and William A. Maloney,Democracy and Interest Groups:Enhancing Participation?, Palgrave Macmillan ,2007.
①李巍.如何认识欧盟的“民主赤字”问题?[J].欧洲研究,2002(6).
②刘泓.欧洲联盟:一种新型人们共同体的建构[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008,第
①徐向华、警莉娜.美国国会游说规制的理论与实践[A].国外社会科学前沿:1002〔C].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2003,第200.页。
②张红凤、李倩倩.利益集团规制理论在中国的适用性与局限性探析[J].山东经济,2009(2).
③张红凤、李倩倩.利益集团规制理论在中国的适用性与局限性探析[J].山东经济,2009(2).Commission and Special Interest Groups, CEC: SEC (92) 2272 final,Brussels, 1992,p.4.
①Justin Greenwood,“Regulating Lobbying in the EU”,in Parliamentary Affairs,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998,51(4),pp.591-592.
②陈尧.利益集团与政治过程[J].读书,2005(11).
③张小劲、景跃进.政治学原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006,第344页。
[1]马克思恩格斯全集[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[2]毛泽东.实践论,毛泽东著作选集(上册) [M].北京:人民出版社,1986.
[3]毛泽东选集(第1—6卷) [M].北京:人民出版社,1991.
[4]邓小平文选(第1—3卷) [M].北京:人民出版社,1993.1994.
[5]江泽民.论有中国特色社会主义(专题摘编)[M].北京:中央文献出版社,2002.
[6]胡锦涛.高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利而奋斗——在中国共产党第十七次全国代表大会上的报告[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[7]王浦劬.政治学基础[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
[8]徐大同主编.西方政治思想史[M].天津:天津教育出版社,2000.
[9]杨光斌.政治学导论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[10]资中筠主编.国际政治理论探索在中国[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1998.
[11]资中筠主编.冷眼向洋:百年风云启示录[M].上海:三联书店,2001.
[12]王绳祖主编.国际关系史[M].武汉:法律出版社,1986.
[13]刘建飞.美国与反共主义[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[14]刘建飞.大博弈——中国的“太极”与美国的“拳击”[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,2005.
[15]刘建飞.政治文化与21世纪中美日关系[M].北京:解放军出版社,2006.
[16]王缉思.国际政治的理性思考[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[17]门洪华.霸权之翼:美国国际制度战略[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[18]王逸舟.西方国际政治学:历史与理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1998.
[19]王逸舟.当代国际政治析论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1995.
[20]刘文秀、埃米尔.J.科什纳等著.欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[21]李寿棋编著.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1988.
[22]肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003.
[23]谭融.美国利益集团政治研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002.
[24]余廷编选.利益集团的微观分析一比尔德(美国宪法的经济观)精粹[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,1989.
[25]孙大雄.宪政体制下的第三种分权——利益集团对美国政府决策的影响[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[26]李道睽.美国政府和美国政治[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[27]董晓阳.俄罗斯利益集团[M].北京:当代世界出版社,1999.
[28]张静.法团主义[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[29]李强.转型时期的中国社会分层[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[30]刘泓.欧洲联盟:一种新型人们共同体的建构[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008.
[31][法]托克维尔著,董果良译.论美国的民主[M].北京:商务印书馆1988.
[32]刘文秀.欧盟的超国家治理[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2009.
[33][美]杜鲁门.政治过程[M].陈尧译,天津:天津人民出版社,2005.
[34][美]曼瑟尔?奥尔森.集体行动的逻辑[M].上海:格致出版社?上海三联书店?上海人民出版社,2008.
[35][美]汉密尔顿等.联邦党人文集[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[36][日]迁中丰.利益集团[M].北京:经济日报出版社,1989.
[37]诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦、雪莉?埃尔德.《利益集团、院外活动和政策制定》[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1951.
[38]汉斯·摩根索.国际纵横策论[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1995.
[39][美]保罗·肯尼迪.大国的兴衰[M].北京:中国经济出版社,1989.
[45]兹比格纽·布热津斯基.大棋局——美国的首要地位及其地缘战略[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[46]兹比格纽·布热津斯基.失去控制:21世纪前夕的全球混乱[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1995.
[47]亚历山大·温特.国际政治的社会理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[48]塞缪尔·亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].上海:三联书店,1989.
[49]塞缪尔·亨廷顿.文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建[M].北京:新华出版社,1998.
[50]亨利·基辛格.大外交[M].海口:海南出版社,1998.
[51]罗斯·Y·凯恩.美国政治中的“院外援华集团”[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[52][美]玛格丽特?E.凯克、凯瑟琳?辛金克.超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[53]卢梭.社会契约论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[54][法]皮埃尔?热尔贝,丁一凡译.欧洲统一的历史与现实[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989.
[55]张小劲、景跃进.政治学原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[56]余廷编选.利益集团的微观分析一比尔德(美国宪法的经济观)精粹[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,1989.
[57]诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦、雪莉?埃尔德.利益集团、院外活动和政策制定[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1951年.
[58]戴?米勒等.布莱克维尔.政治学百科全书[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[59]蔡定剑.公众参与:欧洲的制度和经验[M].北京:法律出版社,2009.
[60]刘军宁等.公共论丛:自由与社群[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1998.
[61]陈振明.政策科学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.
[62]林甦、张茂明、罗天虹.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[63]托马斯?R.戴伊.理解公共政策[M]北京:华夏出版社,2004.
[64][德]维尔纳?魏登费尔德、沃尔夫冈?韦塞尔斯主编,赖志金等译.欧洲联盟与欧洲一体化手册[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2001.
[65][美]罗伯特?达尔,周军华等译.多元主义民主的困境——自治与控制[M].北京:求实出版社,1989.
[66][美]希尔斯曼,曹大鹏译.美国是如何治理的[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
[67]杨解朴.欧盟层面的利益集团[D].2001年中国社会科学院硕士论文.
[68]曾凡锋.欧盟商业利益集团与欧盟决策机构互动探究——接近理论视角[D].2007年河北师范大学硕士论文.
[69]孙大雄.政治互动:利益集团与美国政府决策[D].2002年华中师范大学博士论文.
[70]闫星.美国信息产业利益集团政治参与的研究[D].2006年复旦大学博士论文.
[71]唐昊.利益集团政治变迁与美国霸权的转型[D].2007年暨南大学博士论文.
[72]刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].2008年中央党校博士论文.
[73]吴韧强.利益集团对国际贸易政策影响的政治经济学分析[D].2008年华中科技大学博士论文.
[74]李勇.欧盟决策机制研究[D].2006年中共中央党校硕士学位论文.
[1]郭道久.对抗性竞争与协商合作——多元主义与合作主义的利益集团观比较[J].教学与研究,2006(8).
[2]晓林.当代西方多元主义理论和政治现象评析[J].当代世界与社会主义,2001(3).
[3]赵伯英.主权观念和欧盟成员国的主权让渡[J].中共中央党校学报,1999(2).
[4]范俊兵.公共政策制定——利益集团之间的博弈[J].沿海企业与科技,2008(3).
[5]张宇.利益集团的政策参与及其路径分析[J].理论界,2007(1).
[6]宁国良、陆小成.利益集团对公共政策执行的影响[J].湖南社会科学,2004(3).
[7]张宇、刘伟忠.利益集团与公共政策制定[J].学习与探索,2006(6).
[8]刘伟忠.利益集团政策参与的均衡性探究[J].理论探讨,2006(4).
[9]管永前.试论利益集团及其对政府决策的影响[J].求实,2007(4).
[10]刘文锁.西方国家利益集团参与政治过程的方式及作用[J].湖北行政学院学报,2005(3).
[11]王勇.美国对华政策的利益集团因素[J].战略与管理,1998(4).
[12]刘文锁.西方国家利益集团参与政治过程的方式及作用[J].湖北行政学院学报,2005(3).
[13]郭道久.对抗性竞争与协商合作——多元主义与合作主义的利益集团观比较[J].教学与研究,2006(8).
[14]刘伟忠.利益集团政策参与的均衡性探究[J].理论探讨,2006(4).
[15]张宇刘伟忠.利益集团与公共政策制定[J].学习与探索,2006(6).
[16]管永前.试论利益集团及其对政府决策的影响[J].求实,2007(4).
[17]李红岩.美国涉华利益集团的新变化[J].现代国际关系,2007(10).
[18]田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报,2006(6).
[19]程浩、黄卫平、汪永成.中国社会利益集团研究[J].战略与管理,2003(4).
[20]皖河.利益集团、改革路径与合法性问题[J].战略与管理,2002(2).
[21]高春芽.利益集团形成机制探索:从多元主义到集体行动理论[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(2).
[22]方国学.欧盟的决策机制:机构、权限与程序[J].中国行政管理,2008(2).
[23]刘文秀、黄胜伟.欧盟理事会政策制定机制探析[J].欧洲,2001(4).
[24]周建仁.欧盟决策程序研究中的两种范式和两种方法[J].国际论坛,2003(5).
[25]郭关玉.欧盟对外政策的决策机制与中欧合作[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(2).
[26]蔡玉辉、杨豫.欧洲精神与欧盟制度析论[J].欧洲研究,2006(1).
[27]张红凤、李倩倩.利益集团规制理论在中国的适用性与局限性探析[J].山东经济,2009(2).
[28]陈尧.利益集团与政治过程[J].读书,2005(11).
[1]Emil Kirchner and Konrad Schwaiger, The Role of Interest Groups in the European Community: Gower Publishing Company Limited,1981.
[2]Justin Greenwood,Representing Interests in the Europe Union: Macmillan Press Ltd.,1997.
[3]Justin Greenwood,Interest representation in the European Union: Palgrave Macmillan,2007.
[4]Justin Greenwood and Karsten Ronit(eds),Organized Interests and the European Community, London: Sage publication Ltd,1992.
[5]Fank R.Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech,Basic interest:The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science:Princeton University Press,1998.
[6]Jeremy Richardson(ed), European Union: Power and Policy-making: Routledge, 2004.
[7]M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen(ed), National Public and Private EC Lobbying: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,1994.
[8]Rinus van Schendelen,Machiavelli in Brussels, the Art of Lobbying the EU:Amsterdam University Press,2005.
[9]Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in theEuropean Union: London: Routledge,1998.
[10]David Coen and Charles Dannreuther,Differentiated Europeanization, Large and Small Firms in the EU Policy Process, in Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli (eds),The Politics of Europeanization: Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003.
[11]David Coen(ed),EU Lobbying, Empirical and Theoretical Studies, London:Routledge,2007.
[12]Karolina Kar,Democracy and lobbying in the European Union: Frankfurt am Main: Campus,2007.
[13]Michalowitz, Irina EU lobbying, Principals, Agents and Targets : Strategic Interest Intermediation in EU policy-making/Irina Michalowitz Munster : Lit, 2004.
[14]Doug Imig and Sidney Tarrow(eds), Contentious Europeans : Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity:Rowman & Littlefield,2001.
[15]Kyrou, Dinos, Lobbying the European Commission : the Case of Air Transport,Aldershot [etc.]:Ashgate,2000.
[16]R.H. Pedler and M.P.C.M. van Schendelen (eds), Lobbying the European Union :Companies,Trade Associations and Issue Groups,Aldershot [etc.]:Dartmouth,1994.
[17]Mazey,Sonia and Richardson, Jeremy(eds),Title Lobbying in the European Community ,Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993.
[18]Alan Cawson , Corporatism and Political Theory,Oxford:Basil. Blackwell,1986.
[19]Emil Kirchner and Konrad Schwaiger,The Role of Interest Groups in the European Community:Gower Publishing Company Limited,1981.
[20]M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen (ed),National Public and Private EC Lobbying: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,1994.
[21]Christine Mahoney,Brussels Versus the Beltway,Advocacy in the United States and the European Union,Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press,2008.
[22]Naurin, Daniel, Deliberation behind Closed Doors : Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union, Corporate body European Consortium for Political Research, Imprint Colchester: ECPR Press,2007.
[23]Traxler and Schmitter,From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism,,Organized Interests in the Single Market,1994.
[24]Clive S.Thomas,Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups,Greenwood Pub Group,2004.
[25]Clive S.Thomas,First World Groups:A Comparative Perspective, Greenwood Press,1993.
[26]Wallace and A. Young(eds),Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union,Oxford Clarendon Press,1997.
[27]Svein S.Anderson and Kjell A.Eliassen(eds),Making Policy in Europe:The Europeanization of National Policy-Making,Sage Publications,1993.
[28]GrahamK.Wilson,Interest Groups In The United States, Oxford:Claredon Press,l981.
[29]Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet,European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,2008.
[30]W.Sandholta and A. Stone Sweet(eds)European Integration and Supranational Governance ,Oxford University Press,1998.
[31]Doug Imig and Sidney Tarrow (eds), Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
[32]Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson(eds),Title Lobbying in the European Community,Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993.
[33]Justin Greenwood, Jurgen R. Grote and Karsten Ronit(eds),Organized Interests in the European Union,Basingstoke: Macmillan,1992.
[34]Ernst B.Haas,The Uniting of Europe,Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1958..
[35]Emil J Kirchner,Trade Unions as a Pressure Group in the European Community”,Westmead: Saxonhouse,1978.
[36]Mancur Olson,The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press,1965.
[37]Mancur Olson,The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, New Haven,CT: Yale University Press,1982.
[38]Norton, Philip(ed), Parliaments and Pressure Groups in Western Europe, London: Frank Cass,1999.
[39]Emil Kirchner and Konrad Schwaiger,The Role of Interest Groups in the European Community,Gower Publishing Company Limited,1981.
[1]Justin Greenw,“Regulating Lobbying in the EU”,Parliamentary Affairs,1998(4).
[2]Spyros Blavoukos and George Pagoulatos,“‘Enlargement Waves’and Interest Group Participation in the EU Policy-Making System: Establishing a Framework of Analysis”,West European Politics,Vol.31, No.6, 2008.
[3]Ian Bartle,“Transnational Interests in the European Union: Globalization and Changing Organization in Telecommunications and Electricity”,Journal of Common Market Studies,Vol.37,No.3,1999.
[4] Robert J.Bennett,“The Impact of European Economic Integration on Business Associations: the UK Case”,West European Politics, Vol.20,No.3,1997.
[5]Beyers,Jan ,“Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and Specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making,”Arena Working Papers,WP 02/39,2002.
[6]Tanja A. Borzel,“Critical Resource Dependencies and the Europeanization of Domestic Interest Groups”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.3,2002.
[7]Pieter Bouwen,“Pace-Setting, Foot-Dragging, and Fence-Sitting: Member-State Responses to Europeanization,”Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.40,No.2,2002.
[8]Pieter Bouwen,“Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions,”European Journal of Political Research,Vol.43,No.3,2004.
[9]David Coen,“The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”,in Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.1,1997.
[10]David Coen,“The European Business Interest and the Nation State:Large-firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member States”, Journal of Public Policy,Vol.18,No.1,1998.
[11]Rainer Eising,“Interest Groups: Opportunity Structures and Governance Capacity”,in Kenneth Dyson and Klaus Goetz (eds),“Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
[12]Rainer Eising,“Reshuffling Power: The Liberalization of the EU Electricity Markets and Its Impact on the German Governance Regime”, in Beate Kohler-Koch and Rainer Eising (eds),“The Transformation of Governance in the European Union.”London: Routledge,1999.
[13]Maria Green Cowles,“The Transatlantic Business Dialogue and Domestic Business–Government Relations”, in Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso and Thomas Risse (eds),“Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change,”Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
[14]Rainer Eising,“Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices: Explaining Interest Group Access in the European Union”, European Union Politics,Vol.8,No.3,2007.
[15]Gerda Falkner,“Interest Groups in a Multi-Level Polity: The Impact of European Integration on National Systems”, EUI Working Papers, RSC No. 99/34,1999..
[16]Thomas Gais and Jack Walker,“Pathways to Influence in American Politics”, in Jack Walker (ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons,Professions,and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1991.
[17]Grant Jordan,“What Drives Associability at the European Level? The Limits of the Utilitarian Explanation”, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, 1998.
[18]Beate Kohler-Koch,“Changing Patterns of Interest Intermediation in the European Union”, Government and Opposition,No.29,1994.
[19]Kohler-Koch, Beate ,“The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance”, in Beate Kohler-Koch and Rainer Eising (eds),The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. London:Routledge,1999.
[20]Lehmkuhl, Dirk,“Under Stress: Europeanisation and Trade Associations in the Member States”, European Integration online Papers, 4:14, http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-014
[21]Christian Lequesne,“Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?”,in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005.
[22]Bennett, Robert J.,“The Impact of European Economic Integration on Business Associations: the UK Case”, West European Politics,Vol. 20,No.3,1997.
[23]Spyros Blavoukos and George Pagoulatos,“Enlargement Waves and Interest Group Participation in the EU Policy-Making System”,Establishing a Framework of Analysis,West European Politics, Vol. 31,No.6,Nov.2008.
[24]Ian Bartle,“Transnational Interests in the European Union: Globalization and Changing Organization in Telecommunications and Electricity”, Journal of Common Market Studies,Vol.37,No.3,1999.
[25]Jan Beyers,“Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making”,ARENA Working Papers, WP 02/39,2002.
[26]Jan Beyers and Bart Kerremans ,“Critical Resource Dependencies and the Europeanization of Domestic Interest Groups”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.14,No.3,2007.
[27]Pieter Bouwen,“Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.9,No.3,2002.
[28]Pieter Bouwen,“Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions”,European Journal of Political Research,Vol.43,No.3,2004.
[29]David Coen,“The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.1,1997.
[30]David Coen,“The European Business Interest and the Nation State: Large-firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member States”,Journal of Public Policy,Vol.18,No.1,1998.
[31]Rainer Eising,“Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices: Explaining Interest Group Access in the European Union”,European Union Politics,Vol.8,No.3,2007.
[32]Nieves Perez-Solo rzano Borragan,“EU Accession and Interest Politics in Central and Eastern Europe”,Perspectives on European Politics and Society,Vol.5,No.2,2004.
[33]Pollack, Mark ,“Representing Diffuse Interests in EC Policy-making”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.4,1997.
[34]Saurugger, Sabine ,“Europeanization as a Methodological Challenge: The Case of Interest Groups”, Journal of European Comparative Policy Analysis,Vol.7,No.4,2005.
[35]Graham Lewis and John Abraham ,“The Creation of Neo-liberal Corporate Bias in Transnational Medicines Control: The Industrial Shaping and Interest Dynamics of the European Regulatory State”,European Journal of Political Research,Vol.39,No.1,2001.
[36]Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C.Schmitter,“From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism: Organized Interests in the Single European Market”,Politic and Society,Vol.19,No.2,1991.
[37]Greenwood.,“Regulating Lobbying in the EU”,Parliamentary Affairs, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
[38]Rainer Eising ,“Interest Groups: Opportunity Structures and Governance Capacity”, in Kenneth Dyson and Klaus Goetz (eds), Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003.
[39]Mark Pollack,“Representing Diffuse Interests in EC Policy-making”, Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.4,1997.
[40]Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C. Schmitter ,“From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism: Organized Interests in the Single European Market”,Politic and Society,Vol.19,No.2,1991.
[41] Ruth Webster,“What Drives Interest Group Collaboration at the EULevel? Evidence from the European Environmental Interest Groups”, European Integration online Papers,2000, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-017.
[42]Alasdair R. Young,“European Consumer Groups: Multiple Levels of Governance and Multiple Logics of Collective Action”,in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge,1998.
[43]Andreas Dür,“Interest Groups in the European Union: How Powerful Are They?”,West European Politics,Vol.31, No.6,2008.
[44]Philippe C. Schmitter,“Still the Century of Corporatism?”,Review of Politics, Vol.36,No.1,Jan.1974.
[45]Rainer Eising,The Access of Business Interests to EU Institutions: Towards Elite Pluralism?,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.14, Issue 3,April 2007.
[1]Lehmkuhl, Dirk,“Under Stress: Europeanisation and Trade Associations in the Member States”,European Integration online Papers, http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-014、pdf.2000.
[2]Webster, Ruth(2000),“What Drives Interest Group Collaboration at the EU Level? Evidence from the European Environmental Interest Groups”, European Integration online Papers, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-017.pdf.,2000.
[3]Erik Wesselius,European Commission Must Act to Curb Excessive Corporate Lobbying Power[EB/OL],see http://www.corporateeurope.org/barroso.html
[4]ALTER-EU Press Release.Commission Proposal on Voluntary Lobby Register-an Important but too Timid Step towards EU Lobbying Transparency[EB/OL],see http://www.alter-eu.org/pr20070321 http://europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure
http://www.europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultation/indes-en.htm.
http://www.businesseurope.eu/Content/Default.asp.
欧洲商业公会http://www.eurochambres.be/Content/Default.asp?
“欧洲企业家圆桌会议”http://www.ert.be/home.aspx
欧洲自由职业秘书处http://www.ceplis.org/en/index.php
欧洲专业和管理人员理事会http://www.eurocadres.org/
欧洲行政及管理人员联合会http://www.cec-managers.org/
地区委员会http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/HomeTemplate.aspx
欧盟民意调查(eurobarometer晴雨表)
欧洲环境局http://www.eeb.org/
欧洲无家可归者联合会http://www.feantsa.org/code/en/hp.asp
企业欧洲观察http://www.corporateeurope.org/
欧盟游说公开和道德规范联盟http://www.alter-eu.org/
②诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦等.利益集团、院外活动、政策制订[M],北京:世界知识出版社,1981,13.
①Truman,Dvid B.,The Govemment Process,NewYork :Alfred A.Knoof,1971,p.9。
②李寿棋编著.美国的利益集团与政治[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1988,第3页.
③GrahamK. Wilson,Interest Groups In The United States, Oxford:ClaredonPress, l981,p.4.
④See Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the European Union, Campus Verlag ,Frankfurt/New York,2006.
⑤Thomas, Clive S.,Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups,Greenwood Pub Group,2004,p.4.
①Thomas, Clive S.,Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups,Greenwood Pub Group,2004,p.7.
②Alan Cawson,Corporatism and Political Theory, Oxford: Basil. Blackwell, 1986,p. 38.
①See Economic Theories of Regulation and the Effects of Groups,1982.
①See Clive S. Thomas,First World Groups:A Comparative Perspective,Greenwood Press ,1993.
①M.P.C.M Van Schendelen,National Public and Private EC Lobbying,Dartmouth Publishing Group ,1993, pp..15-16.
②刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].2008年中央党校博士论文,第4页。
①诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦等?利益集团、院外活动政策制订[M],北京:世界知识出版社,1981,第13页。
②Dvid B Truman,The Govemment Process,Alfred A.Knoof,NewYork,1971,p.9.
①李寿棋编著.美国的利益集团与政治[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1988,第3页。
①戴·米勒等.布莱克维尔.政治学百科全书[ M] .北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2002.第385页。
②Allan J.Cigler and Burdett A.Loomis(eds),Interest Group Politics,4th ed ,A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington,D.C.1995,p.4.
①刘文锁.西方国家利益集团参与政治过程的方式及作用[J].湖北行政学院学报,2005(3).
②蔡定剑.公众参与:欧洲的制度和经验[M].法律出版社,2009,第86页,欧洲之声咨询的门户网站网址为http://www.europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultation/indes-en.htm.。
①田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报,2006(6).
②See Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the Eueopean Union,Campus Verlag ,Frankfurt/New York,2006.
③Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the European Union, Campus Verlag ,Frankfurt/New York,2006,p.53.
④[美]罗伯特?达尔,周军华等译.多元主义民主的困境——自治与控制[M].北京:求实出版社,1989。
①[美]希尔斯曼,曹大鹏译.美国是如何治理的[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995,第6页。
②田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报,2006(6).
③[法]托克维尔.论美国的民主[M].商务印书馆,1991,《论美国的民主》第十二章“美国的政治社团”。
④田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报.2006(6).
①Allan J.Cigler and Burdett A.Loomis(eds),Interest Group Politics,A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc. Washington ,D.C.,1995,p.6-7.
①高春芽.利益集团形成机制探索:从多元主义到集体行动理论[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(2).
①Cawson,Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Though,1986,p.38.
②刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].2008年中央党校博士论文.
①张静.法团主义[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2005,第19—20页。
②Philippe C. Schmitter,“Still the Century of Corporatism?”,Review of Politics, Vol.36,No.1,January 1974, pp. 85-131.
①刘军宁等.公共论丛:自由与社群[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998,第393页。
②参见刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].中共中央党校2008年博士论文。
①David Coen,“The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”,in Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.4,No.1, 1997,pp.98-99.
①Rainer Eising,The Access of Business Interests to EU Institutions: Towards Elite Pluralism?,in Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 14, Issue 3 ,April 2007, p.384-403.
②David Coen(ed),EU Lobbying:Empirical and Theoretical Studies,London : Routledge, 2007,p.15.
①See Traxler and Schmitter,From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism,,Organized Interests in the Single Market,1994.
②Karolina Karr,Democracy and Lobbying in the European Union,2006,p.53.
①参见肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003,第150—151页。
②See Svein S.Anderson and Kjell.A.Eliassen(eds),Making Policy in Europe:The Europeanization of National Policy-Making, Sage Publications,1993.
①参见肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003,第154页。
②参见肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社2003,第153—154页。
①Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet, European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.2008,p.8.
②Richard Topf,“Beyond Electoral Participation,in Citizens and the State”,in Citizens and the State, Sep.1998 pp.52-92.
③Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet, European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.2008,p.11.
④转引自Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet, European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.2008,p.9.
⑤Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little ,Brown,1967,p.2.0.
⑥Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy, Boston, Little ,Brown,1967,pp.7-8.
①Jeremy Richardson(ed),European Union:Power and Policy-making,Routledge,2004,p.249.
②Mazey ,S.,”The Development of EU Equality Policies:Bureaucratic Expansion on Behalf of Woman”, Public Administration,Vol.73,No.4, 1995,pp.591-609.
③欧洲圆桌会议( European Round Table),代表欧盟内最大的一些公司。
④M. Green Cowles,“Organizing Industrial Coalitions:A Challenge for the Future?”,in Wallace and A. Young(eds),Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union,Oxford Clarendon Press, 1997,p.504.
⑤See Gary Marks and Doug McAdam,“On the Relationship of Political Opportunities to the Form of Collective Action: The Case of the European Union”, 1999.
①Roy Pryce, The Politics of the European Community,London :Butterworths,1973,pp.87-91.
①David Truman,The Governmental Process:Political Interests and Public Opinion,New York:Knopf,1951,p.31.
②Trade Uinon as Pressure Group in the European Community,Farnborough:Saxon House,1977,p.28.
③“Interest Group Behabiour at the Community Level”, in L.Hurwita(ed)Contemporary Perspectives on European Integration,London :Aldwich,1980,p.132.
④“Integration ,Supranational Governance and the Institutionalisation of the European Policy”, in W.Sandholta and A. Stone Sweet(eds)European Integration and Supranational Governance ,Oxford University Press,1998.
①Spyros Blavoukos; George Pagoulatos,“‘Enlargement Waves’and Interest Group Participation in the EU Policy-Making System: Establishing a Framework of Analysis”,in West European Politics, p.1150.
②Cowles, Maria Green‘The Changing Architecture of Big Business’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge ,1998,pp. 108–125.
③Wessels, Bernhard,”Contestation Potential of Interest Groups in the EU: Emergence, Structure and Political Alliances”, in Gary Marks and Marco R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2004,195–215.
①Greenwood, Justin, Inside the EU Business Associations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Greenwood, Justin, and Ruth ,2002).Webster (2001).‘Are EU Business Associations Governable?’,Journal of European Integration,Vol. 23,No.1,pp.63–92.
②Haas, Ernst B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
③Association of national organizations of fishing enterprises in the EU,网址:http://www.europeche.org/
④Lequesne, Christian (2005).‘Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?’, in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.353–76.
⑤Euractiv Survey (2007). European Federations Survey 2007: Interest Groups in a Global Context.
⑥Bennett, Robert J. (1997).‘The Impact of European Economic Integration on Business Associations: the UK Case’, West European Politics, 20:3, 61–90; Coen, David (1997).‘The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.4,No.1,pp.91–108.
⑦Pollack, Mark (1997).‘Representing Diffuse Interests in EC Policy-making’, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.4,No.4,pp.572–90.
⑧Olson, Mancur (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
①Hula, Kevin (1995).‘Rounding up the Usual Suspects: Forging Interest Group Coalitions in Washington’, in Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis (eds), Interest Group Politics, 4th ed.Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.239–259.
②Aspinwall, Mark, and Justin Greenwood (1998).‘Conceptualising Collective Action in the European Union’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, pp.1–30; Sidenius, Niels Christian (1998).‘A Collective Action Problem? Danish Interest Associations and Euro Groups’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge,pp. 81–107.
③Jordan, Grant (1998).‘What Drives Associability at the European Level? The Limits of the Utilitarian Explanation’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, pp.31–62.
④Hula, Kevin (1995).‘Rounding up the Usual Suspects: Forging Interest Group Coalitions in Washington’, in Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis (eds), Interest Group Politics, 4th ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.239–59.
①Greenwood, Justin (1997). Representing Interests in the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan, pp.56-61.
②Greenwood, Justin (1997). Representing Interests in the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan, pp18-19.
③Young, Alasdair R. (1998).‘European Consumer Groups: Multiple Levels of Governance and Multiple Logics of Collective Action’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge,pp154-159.
④Euractiv Survey (2007). European Federations Survey 2007: Interest Groups in a Global Context.
⑤Bouwen, Pieter (2002).‘Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9:3, p.370.
⑥Greenwood, Justin, Ju¨rgen R. Grote and Karsten Ronit, eds (1992). Organized Interests in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan; Pappi, Franz U. and Christian H.C.A. Henning (1999).‘The Organisation of Influence on the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy: A Network Approach’, European Journal of Political Research, 36,pp.257–281.
⑦Bouwen, Pieter (2004).‘Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol.43,No.3, p.340..
①Beyers, Jan (2002).‘Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making’, ARENA Working Papers, WP 02/39.
②Gais, Thomas, and Jack Walker (1991).‘Pathways to Influence in American Politics’, in Jack Walker (ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,pp.103–121; Eising, Rainer (2007).‘Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices: Explaining Interest Group Access in the European Union’, European Union Politics, Vol.8,No.3,pp.329–362.
③Beyers, Jan (2002).‘Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making’, ARENA Working Papers, WP 02/39, pp.5-6.
④Wagner, Anne Catherine (2005). Vers une Europe Syndicale: Une Enque?te sur la Confe′de′ration Europe′enne des Syndicats. Paris: Du Croquant.
⑤Wessels, Bernhard (2004).‘Contestation Potential of Interest Groups in the EU: Emergence, Structure and Political Alliances’, in Gary Marks and Marco R. Steenbergen (eds), European Integration and Political Conflict.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp196–9.
①Sidenius, Niels Christian (1998).‘A Collective Action Problem? Danish Interest Associations and Euro Groups’, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, 81–107.
①Young, Alasdair R. (1995).‘Participation and Policy-Making in the European Community: Mediating Between Competing Interests’, paper presented at the Fourth ECSA Biennial Conference, Charleston: South Carolina, 11–14 May.
②Pallis, Athanasios A. (2002). The Common EU Maritime Transport Policy. Policy Europeanisation in the 1990s. Aldershot: Ashgate.
③Lequesne, Christian (2005).‘Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?’, in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.353–376.
④Greenwood, Justin (1997). Representing Interests in the European Union. Houndmills:Macmillan,pp.124-125.
⑤Webster, Ruth (2000).‘What Drives Interest Group Collaboration at the EU Level? Evidence from the European Environmental Interest Groups’, European Integration online Papers,4:17,http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-017.pdf
⑥Grant ,W.,Press Groups,Politics and Democracy in Britain,Harvester Wheatsheaf,1995.
①Pressure Groups in the European Community,London :University Association for Contemporary European Studies,1985,p.88.
②An Open and Structured Dialogue,SEC,2272 final, Commission,1992,p.4.
③Mahoney,2004,p.445.
①See http://www.feantsa.org/code/en/hp.asp
②Pressure Groups in the European Community,London :University Association for Contemporary European Studies,1985,p.1.
③Pressure Groups in the European Community,London :University Association for Contemporary European Studies,1985,p.88.
①An Open and Structured Dialogue,commission,1992,4, SEC,2272 final.
②Jeremy Richardson(ed.),European Union,Power and Policy-making,2006,Routledge.
①陈振明.政策科学[M].中国人民大学出版社,1998,第212页。
①赵伯英.主权观念和欧盟成员国的主权让渡[J].中共中央党校学报.1999(2).
①刘文秀编著.欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2003,第38页。
①林甦、张茂明、罗天虹主编.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002,第29页。
②林甦、张茂明、罗天虹主编.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002,第35—36页。
主编.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002,第49页。
①蔡玉辉、杨豫.欧洲精神与欧盟制度析论[J].欧洲研究,2006(1),第90页。
①Bouwen, Pieter.,Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access. Journal of European Public Policy 9, No.3, 2002, pp..365-390,;Bouwen, Pieter., Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the EU Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 43, No. 3: 2004.,pp.337-369.
①肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003,第161页。
①刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].中共中央党校2008年博士论文。
②刘伟忠.利益集团政策参与的均衡性探究[J].理论探讨,2006(4).
③托马斯?R.戴伊.理解公共政策[M].北京:华夏出版社,2004,第18页。
①See Justin Greenwood, Representing Interests in the Europe Union, Macmillan Press Ltd,1997.
①See Jeremy J. Richardson,European Union,Power and Policy-making,New York : Routledge, 2006,p.256.
②See Jeremy J. Richardson,European Union,Power and Policy-making,New York : Routledge, 2006,p.257.
①Paul Magnette,What is the European Union:Nature and Prospects,Palgrave Macmillan,2005,p.167.
①See Grant Jordan and William A. Maloney,Democracy and Interest Groups:Enhancing Participation?, Palgrave Macmillan ,2007.
①李巍.如何认识欧盟的“民主赤字”问题?[J].欧洲研究,2002(6).
②刘泓.欧洲联盟:一种新型人们共同体的建构[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008,第
①徐向华、警莉娜.美国国会游说规制的理论与实践[A].国外社会科学前沿:1002〔C].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,2003,第200.页。
②张红凤、李倩倩.利益集团规制理论在中国的适用性与局限性探析[J].山东经济,2009(2).
③张红凤、李倩倩.利益集团规制理论在中国的适用性与局限性探析[J].山东经济,2009(2).Commission and Special Interest Groups, CEC: SEC (92) 2272 final,Brussels, 1992,p.4.
①Justin Greenwood,“Regulating Lobbying in the EU”,in Parliamentary Affairs,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998,51(4),pp.591-592.
②陈尧.利益集团与政治过程[J].读书,2005(11).
③张小劲、景跃进.政治学原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006,第344页。
[1]马克思恩格斯全集[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
[2]毛泽东.实践论,毛泽东著作选集(上册) [M].北京:人民出版社,1986.
[3]毛泽东选集(第1—6卷) [M].北京:人民出版社,1991.
[4]邓小平文选(第1—3卷) [M].北京:人民出版社,1993.1994.
[5]江泽民.论有中国特色社会主义(专题摘编)[M].北京:中央文献出版社,2002.
[6]胡锦涛.高举中国特色社会主义伟大旗帜为夺取全面建设小康社会新胜利而奋斗——在中国共产党第十七次全国代表大会上的报告[M].北京:人民出版社,2007.
[7]王浦劬.政治学基础[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1995.
[8]徐大同主编.西方政治思想史[M].天津:天津教育出版社,2000.
[9]杨光斌.政治学导论[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000.
[10]资中筠主编.国际政治理论探索在中国[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1998.
[11]资中筠主编.冷眼向洋:百年风云启示录[M].上海:三联书店,2001.
[12]王绳祖主编.国际关系史[M].武汉:法律出版社,1986.
[13]刘建飞.美国与反共主义[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[14]刘建飞.大博弈——中国的“太极”与美国的“拳击”[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,2005.
[15]刘建飞.政治文化与21世纪中美日关系[M].北京:解放军出版社,2006.
[16]王缉思.国际政治的理性思考[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[17]门洪华.霸权之翼:美国国际制度战略[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[18]王逸舟.西方国际政治学:历史与理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1998.
[19]王逸舟.当代国际政治析论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,1995.
[20]刘文秀、埃米尔.J.科什纳等著.欧洲联盟政策及政策过程研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[21]李寿棋编著.利益集团与美国政治[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1988.
[22]肖欢容.地区主义:理论的历史演进[M].北京:北京广播学院出版社,2003.
[23]谭融.美国利益集团政治研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2002.
[24]余廷编选.利益集团的微观分析一比尔德(美国宪法的经济观)精粹[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,1989.
[25]孙大雄.宪政体制下的第三种分权——利益集团对美国政府决策的影响[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[26]李道睽.美国政府和美国政治[M].北京:商务印书馆,1990.
[27]董晓阳.俄罗斯利益集团[M].北京:当代世界出版社,1999.
[28]张静.法团主义[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[29]李强.转型时期的中国社会分层[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2002.
[30]刘泓.欧洲联盟:一种新型人们共同体的建构[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2008.
[31][法]托克维尔著,董果良译.论美国的民主[M].北京:商务印书馆1988.
[32]刘文秀.欧盟的超国家治理[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2009.
[33][美]杜鲁门.政治过程[M].陈尧译,天津:天津人民出版社,2005.
[34][美]曼瑟尔?奥尔森.集体行动的逻辑[M].上海:格致出版社?上海三联书店?上海人民出版社,2008.
[35][美]汉密尔顿等.联邦党人文集[M].北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[36][日]迁中丰.利益集团[M].北京:经济日报出版社,1989.
[37]诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦、雪莉?埃尔德.《利益集团、院外活动和政策制定》[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1951.
[38]汉斯·摩根索.国际纵横策论[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1995.
[39][美]保罗·肯尼迪.大国的兴衰[M].北京:中国经济出版社,1989.
[45]兹比格纽·布热津斯基.大棋局——美国的首要地位及其地缘战略[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[46]兹比格纽·布热津斯基.失去控制:21世纪前夕的全球混乱[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1995.
[47]亚历山大·温特.国际政治的社会理论[M].上海:上海人民出版社,2000.
[48]塞缪尔·亨廷顿.变化社会中的政治秩序[M].上海:三联书店,1989.
[49]塞缪尔·亨廷顿.文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建[M].北京:新华出版社,1998.
[50]亨利·基辛格.大外交[M].海口:海南出版社,1998.
[51]罗斯·Y·凯恩.美国政治中的“院外援华集团”[M].北京:商务印书馆,1984.
[52][美]玛格丽特?E.凯克、凯瑟琳?辛金克.超越国界的活动家——国际政治中的倡议网络[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[53]卢梭.社会契约论[M].北京:商务印书馆,2001.
[54][法]皮埃尔?热尔贝,丁一凡译.欧洲统一的历史与现实[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1989.
[55]张小劲、景跃进.政治学原理[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[56]余廷编选.利益集团的微观分析一比尔德(美国宪法的经济观)精粹[M].武汉:湖北人民出版社,1989.
[57]诺曼?杰?奥恩斯坦、雪莉?埃尔德.利益集团、院外活动和政策制定[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1951年.
[58]戴?米勒等.布莱克维尔.政治学百科全书[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[59]蔡定剑.公众参与:欧洲的制度和经验[M].北京:法律出版社,2009.
[60]刘军宁等.公共论丛:自由与社群[M].北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1998.
[61]陈振明.政策科学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1998.
[62]林甦、张茂明、罗天虹.欧盟共同外交和安全政策与中国—欧盟关系[M].北京:法律出版社,2002.
[63]托马斯?R.戴伊.理解公共政策[M]北京:华夏出版社,2004.
[64][德]维尔纳?魏登费尔德、沃尔夫冈?韦塞尔斯主编,赖志金等译.欧洲联盟与欧洲一体化手册[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2001.
[65][美]罗伯特?达尔,周军华等译.多元主义民主的困境——自治与控制[M].北京:求实出版社,1989.
[66][美]希尔斯曼,曹大鹏译.美国是如何治理的[M].北京:商务印书馆,1995.
[67]杨解朴.欧盟层面的利益集团[D].2001年中国社会科学院硕士论文.
[68]曾凡锋.欧盟商业利益集团与欧盟决策机构互动探究——接近理论视角[D].2007年河北师范大学硕士论文.
[69]孙大雄.政治互动:利益集团与美国政府决策[D].2002年华中师范大学博士论文.
[70]闫星.美国信息产业利益集团政治参与的研究[D].2006年复旦大学博士论文.
[71]唐昊.利益集团政治变迁与美国霸权的转型[D].2007年暨南大学博士论文.
[72]刘恩东.中美利益集团与政府决策的比较研究[D].2008年中央党校博士论文.
[73]吴韧强.利益集团对国际贸易政策影响的政治经济学分析[D].2008年华中科技大学博士论文.
[74]李勇.欧盟决策机制研究[D].2006年中共中央党校硕士学位论文.
[1]郭道久.对抗性竞争与协商合作——多元主义与合作主义的利益集团观比较[J].教学与研究,2006(8).
[2]晓林.当代西方多元主义理论和政治现象评析[J].当代世界与社会主义,2001(3).
[3]赵伯英.主权观念和欧盟成员国的主权让渡[J].中共中央党校学报,1999(2).
[4]范俊兵.公共政策制定——利益集团之间的博弈[J].沿海企业与科技,2008(3).
[5]张宇.利益集团的政策参与及其路径分析[J].理论界,2007(1).
[6]宁国良、陆小成.利益集团对公共政策执行的影响[J].湖南社会科学,2004(3).
[7]张宇、刘伟忠.利益集团与公共政策制定[J].学习与探索,2006(6).
[8]刘伟忠.利益集团政策参与的均衡性探究[J].理论探讨,2006(4).
[9]管永前.试论利益集团及其对政府决策的影响[J].求实,2007(4).
[10]刘文锁.西方国家利益集团参与政治过程的方式及作用[J].湖北行政学院学报,2005(3).
[11]王勇.美国对华政策的利益集团因素[J].战略与管理,1998(4).
[12]刘文锁.西方国家利益集团参与政治过程的方式及作用[J].湖北行政学院学报,2005(3).
[13]郭道久.对抗性竞争与协商合作——多元主义与合作主义的利益集团观比较[J].教学与研究,2006(8).
[14]刘伟忠.利益集团政策参与的均衡性探究[J].理论探讨,2006(4).
[15]张宇刘伟忠.利益集团与公共政策制定[J].学习与探索,2006(6).
[16]管永前.试论利益集团及其对政府决策的影响[J].求实,2007(4).
[17]李红岩.美国涉华利益集团的新变化[J].现代国际关系,2007(10).
[18]田松柏、黄大熹.西方利益集团理论的考察与反思[J].湖南经济管理干部学院学报,2006(6).
[19]程浩、黄卫平、汪永成.中国社会利益集团研究[J].战略与管理,2003(4).
[20]皖河.利益集团、改革路径与合法性问题[J].战略与管理,2002(2).
[21]高春芽.利益集团形成机制探索:从多元主义到集体行动理论[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(2).
[22]方国学.欧盟的决策机制:机构、权限与程序[J].中国行政管理,2008(2).
[23]刘文秀、黄胜伟.欧盟理事会政策制定机制探析[J].欧洲,2001(4).
[24]周建仁.欧盟决策程序研究中的两种范式和两种方法[J].国际论坛,2003(5).
[25]郭关玉.欧盟对外政策的决策机制与中欧合作[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006(2).
[26]蔡玉辉、杨豫.欧洲精神与欧盟制度析论[J].欧洲研究,2006(1).
[27]张红凤、李倩倩.利益集团规制理论在中国的适用性与局限性探析[J].山东经济,2009(2).
[28]陈尧.利益集团与政治过程[J].读书,2005(11).
[1]Emil Kirchner and Konrad Schwaiger, The Role of Interest Groups in the European Community: Gower Publishing Company Limited,1981.
[2]Justin Greenwood,Representing Interests in the Europe Union: Macmillan Press Ltd.,1997.
[3]Justin Greenwood,Interest representation in the European Union: Palgrave Macmillan,2007.
[4]Justin Greenwood and Karsten Ronit(eds),Organized Interests and the European Community, London: Sage publication Ltd,1992.
[5]Fank R.Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech,Basic interest:The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science:Princeton University Press,1998.
[6]Jeremy Richardson(ed), European Union: Power and Policy-making: Routledge, 2004.
[7]M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen(ed), National Public and Private EC Lobbying: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,1994.
[8]Rinus van Schendelen,Machiavelli in Brussels, the Art of Lobbying the EU:Amsterdam University Press,2005.
[9]Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in theEuropean Union: London: Routledge,1998.
[10]David Coen and Charles Dannreuther,Differentiated Europeanization, Large and Small Firms in the EU Policy Process, in Kevin Featherstone and Claudio M. Radaelli (eds),The Politics of Europeanization: Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003.
[11]David Coen(ed),EU Lobbying, Empirical and Theoretical Studies, London:Routledge,2007.
[12]Karolina Kar,Democracy and lobbying in the European Union: Frankfurt am Main: Campus,2007.
[13]Michalowitz, Irina EU lobbying, Principals, Agents and Targets : Strategic Interest Intermediation in EU policy-making/Irina Michalowitz Munster : Lit, 2004.
[14]Doug Imig and Sidney Tarrow(eds), Contentious Europeans : Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity:Rowman & Littlefield,2001.
[15]Kyrou, Dinos, Lobbying the European Commission : the Case of Air Transport,Aldershot [etc.]:Ashgate,2000.
[16]R.H. Pedler and M.P.C.M. van Schendelen (eds), Lobbying the European Union :Companies,Trade Associations and Issue Groups,Aldershot [etc.]:Dartmouth,1994.
[17]Mazey,Sonia and Richardson, Jeremy(eds),Title Lobbying in the European Community ,Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993.
[18]Alan Cawson , Corporatism and Political Theory,Oxford:Basil. Blackwell,1986.
[19]Emil Kirchner and Konrad Schwaiger,The Role of Interest Groups in the European Community:Gower Publishing Company Limited,1981.
[20]M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen (ed),National Public and Private EC Lobbying: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,1994.
[21]Christine Mahoney,Brussels Versus the Beltway,Advocacy in the United States and the European Union,Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press,2008.
[22]Naurin, Daniel, Deliberation behind Closed Doors : Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union, Corporate body European Consortium for Political Research, Imprint Colchester: ECPR Press,2007.
[23]Traxler and Schmitter,From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism,,Organized Interests in the Single Market,1994.
[24]Clive S.Thomas,Research Guide to U.S. and International Interest Groups,Greenwood Pub Group,2004.
[25]Clive S.Thomas,First World Groups:A Comparative Perspective, Greenwood Press,1993.
[26]Wallace and A. Young(eds),Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union,Oxford Clarendon Press,1997.
[27]Svein S.Anderson and Kjell A.Eliassen(eds),Making Policy in Europe:The Europeanization of National Policy-Making,Sage Publications,1993.
[28]GrahamK.Wilson,Interest Groups In The United States, Oxford:Claredon Press,l981.
[29]Richard Balme and Didier Chabanet,European Governance and Democracy,Power and Protest in the EU,Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,2008.
[30]W.Sandholta and A. Stone Sweet(eds)European Integration and Supranational Governance ,Oxford University Press,1998.
[31]Doug Imig and Sidney Tarrow (eds), Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
[32]Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson(eds),Title Lobbying in the European Community,Oxford: Oxford University Press,1993.
[33]Justin Greenwood, Jurgen R. Grote and Karsten Ronit(eds),Organized Interests in the European Union,Basingstoke: Macmillan,1992.
[34]Ernst B.Haas,The Uniting of Europe,Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1958..
[35]Emil J Kirchner,Trade Unions as a Pressure Group in the European Community”,Westmead: Saxonhouse,1978.
[36]Mancur Olson,The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press,1965.
[37]Mancur Olson,The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities, New Haven,CT: Yale University Press,1982.
[38]Norton, Philip(ed), Parliaments and Pressure Groups in Western Europe, London: Frank Cass,1999.
[39]Emil Kirchner and Konrad Schwaiger,The Role of Interest Groups in the European Community,Gower Publishing Company Limited,1981.
[1]Justin Greenw,“Regulating Lobbying in the EU”,Parliamentary Affairs,1998(4).
[2]Spyros Blavoukos and George Pagoulatos,“‘Enlargement Waves’and Interest Group Participation in the EU Policy-Making System: Establishing a Framework of Analysis”,West European Politics,Vol.31, No.6, 2008.
[3]Ian Bartle,“Transnational Interests in the European Union: Globalization and Changing Organization in Telecommunications and Electricity”,Journal of Common Market Studies,Vol.37,No.3,1999.
[4] Robert J.Bennett,“The Impact of European Economic Integration on Business Associations: the UK Case”,West European Politics, Vol.20,No.3,1997.
[5]Beyers,Jan ,“Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and Specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making,”Arena Working Papers,WP 02/39,2002.
[6]Tanja A. Borzel,“Critical Resource Dependencies and the Europeanization of Domestic Interest Groups”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.3,2002.
[7]Pieter Bouwen,“Pace-Setting, Foot-Dragging, and Fence-Sitting: Member-State Responses to Europeanization,”Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.40,No.2,2002.
[8]Pieter Bouwen,“Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions,”European Journal of Political Research,Vol.43,No.3,2004.
[9]David Coen,“The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”,in Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.1,1997.
[10]David Coen,“The European Business Interest and the Nation State:Large-firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member States”, Journal of Public Policy,Vol.18,No.1,1998.
[11]Rainer Eising,“Interest Groups: Opportunity Structures and Governance Capacity”,in Kenneth Dyson and Klaus Goetz (eds),“Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
[12]Rainer Eising,“Reshuffling Power: The Liberalization of the EU Electricity Markets and Its Impact on the German Governance Regime”, in Beate Kohler-Koch and Rainer Eising (eds),“The Transformation of Governance in the European Union.”London: Routledge,1999.
[13]Maria Green Cowles,“The Transatlantic Business Dialogue and Domestic Business–Government Relations”, in Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso and Thomas Risse (eds),“Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change,”Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
[14]Rainer Eising,“Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices: Explaining Interest Group Access in the European Union”, European Union Politics,Vol.8,No.3,2007.
[15]Gerda Falkner,“Interest Groups in a Multi-Level Polity: The Impact of European Integration on National Systems”, EUI Working Papers, RSC No. 99/34,1999..
[16]Thomas Gais and Jack Walker,“Pathways to Influence in American Politics”, in Jack Walker (ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons,Professions,and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1991.
[17]Grant Jordan,“What Drives Associability at the European Level? The Limits of the Utilitarian Explanation”, in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge, 1998.
[18]Beate Kohler-Koch,“Changing Patterns of Interest Intermediation in the European Union”, Government and Opposition,No.29,1994.
[19]Kohler-Koch, Beate ,“The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance”, in Beate Kohler-Koch and Rainer Eising (eds),The Transformation of Governance in the European Union. London:Routledge,1999.
[20]Lehmkuhl, Dirk,“Under Stress: Europeanisation and Trade Associations in the Member States”, European Integration online Papers, 4:14, http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-014
[21]Christian Lequesne,“Fisheries Policy: Letting the Little Ones Go?”,in Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005.
[22]Bennett, Robert J.,“The Impact of European Economic Integration on Business Associations: the UK Case”, West European Politics,Vol. 20,No.3,1997.
[23]Spyros Blavoukos and George Pagoulatos,“Enlargement Waves and Interest Group Participation in the EU Policy-Making System”,Establishing a Framework of Analysis,West European Politics, Vol. 31,No.6,Nov.2008.
[24]Ian Bartle,“Transnational Interests in the European Union: Globalization and Changing Organization in Telecommunications and Electricity”, Journal of Common Market Studies,Vol.37,No.3,1999.
[25]Jan Beyers,“Voice and Access: Political Practices of Diffuse and specific Interest Associations in European Policy Making”,ARENA Working Papers, WP 02/39,2002.
[26]Jan Beyers and Bart Kerremans ,“Critical Resource Dependencies and the Europeanization of Domestic Interest Groups”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.14,No.3,2007.
[27]Pieter Bouwen,“Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.9,No.3,2002.
[28]Pieter Bouwen,“Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions”,European Journal of Political Research,Vol.43,No.3,2004.
[29]David Coen,“The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.1,1997.
[30]David Coen,“The European Business Interest and the Nation State: Large-firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member States”,Journal of Public Policy,Vol.18,No.1,1998.
[31]Rainer Eising,“Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices: Explaining Interest Group Access in the European Union”,European Union Politics,Vol.8,No.3,2007.
[32]Nieves Perez-Solo rzano Borragan,“EU Accession and Interest Politics in Central and Eastern Europe”,Perspectives on European Politics and Society,Vol.5,No.2,2004.
[33]Pollack, Mark ,“Representing Diffuse Interests in EC Policy-making”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.4,1997.
[34]Saurugger, Sabine ,“Europeanization as a Methodological Challenge: The Case of Interest Groups”, Journal of European Comparative Policy Analysis,Vol.7,No.4,2005.
[35]Graham Lewis and John Abraham ,“The Creation of Neo-liberal Corporate Bias in Transnational Medicines Control: The Industrial Shaping and Interest Dynamics of the European Regulatory State”,European Journal of Political Research,Vol.39,No.1,2001.
[36]Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C.Schmitter,“From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism: Organized Interests in the Single European Market”,Politic and Society,Vol.19,No.2,1991.
[37]Greenwood.,“Regulating Lobbying in the EU”,Parliamentary Affairs, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
[38]Rainer Eising ,“Interest Groups: Opportunity Structures and Governance Capacity”, in Kenneth Dyson and Klaus Goetz (eds), Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003.
[39]Mark Pollack,“Representing Diffuse Interests in EC Policy-making”, Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.4,1997.
[40]Wolfgang Streeck and Philippe C. Schmitter ,“From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism: Organized Interests in the Single European Market”,Politic and Society,Vol.19,No.2,1991.
[41] Ruth Webster,“What Drives Interest Group Collaboration at the EULevel? Evidence from the European Environmental Interest Groups”, European Integration online Papers,2000, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-017.
[42]Alasdair R. Young,“European Consumer Groups: Multiple Levels of Governance and Multiple Logics of Collective Action”,in Justin Greenwood and Mark Aspinwall (eds), Collective Action in the European Union. London: Routledge,1998.
[43]Andreas Dür,“Interest Groups in the European Union: How Powerful Are They?”,West European Politics,Vol.31, No.6,2008.
[44]Philippe C. Schmitter,“Still the Century of Corporatism?”,Review of Politics, Vol.36,No.1,Jan.1974.
[45]Rainer Eising,The Access of Business Interests to EU Institutions: Towards Elite Pluralism?,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.14, Issue 3,April 2007.
[1]Lehmkuhl, Dirk,“Under Stress: Europeanisation and Trade Associations in the Member States”,European Integration online Papers, http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-014、pdf.2000.
[2]Webster, Ruth(2000),“What Drives Interest Group Collaboration at the EU Level? Evidence from the European Environmental Interest Groups”, European Integration online Papers, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2000-017.pdf.,2000.
[3]Erik Wesselius,European Commission Must Act to Curb Excessive Corporate Lobbying Power[EB/OL],see http://www.corporateeurope.org/barroso.html
[4]ALTER-EU Press Release.Commission Proposal on Voluntary Lobby Register-an Important but too Timid Step towards EU Lobbying Transparency[EB/OL],see http://www.alter-eu.org/pr20070321 http://europa.eu/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure
http://www.europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultation/indes-en.htm.
http://www.businesseurope.eu/Content/Default.asp.
欧洲商业公会http://www.eurochambres.be/Content/Default.asp?
“欧洲企业家圆桌会议”http://www.ert.be/home.aspx
欧洲自由职业秘书处http://www.ceplis.org/en/index.php
欧洲专业和管理人员理事会http://www.eurocadres.org/
欧洲行政及管理人员联合会http://www.cec-managers.org/
地区委员会http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/HomeTemplate.aspx
欧盟民意调查(eurobarometer晴雨表)
欧洲环境局http://www.eeb.org/
欧洲无家可归者联合会http://www.feantsa.org/code/en/hp.asp
企业欧洲观察http://www.corporateeurope.org/
欧盟游说公开和道德规范联盟http://www.alter-eu.org/