Enlighten Publications

In this section

Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe

Leifeld, P. and Haunss, S. (2012) Political discourse networks and the conflict over software patents in Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(3), pp. 382-409. (doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02003.x)

Preview

Text
121163.pdf - Accepted Version
814kB

Abstract

In 2005, the European Parliament rejected the directive "on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions", which had been drafted and supported by the European Commission, the Council and well-organised industrial interests, with an overwhelming majority. In this unusual case, a coalition of opponents of software patents prevailed over a strong industry-led coalition. In this article, an explanation is developed based on political discourse showing that two stable and distinct discourse coalitions can be identified and measured over time. The apparently weak coalition of software patent opponents shows typical properties of a hegemonic discourse coalition. It presents itself as being more coherent, employs a better-integrated set of frames and dominates key economic arguments, while the proponents of software patents are not as well-organised. This configuration of the discourse gave leeway for an alternative course of political action by the European Parliament. The notion of discourse coalitions and related structural features of the discourse are operationalised by drawing on social network analysis. More specifically, discourse network analysis is introduced as a new methodology for the study of policy debates. The approach is capable of measuring empirical discourses both statically and in a longitudinal way, and is compatible with the policy network approach.

Item Type:	Articles
Keywords:	Software Patents, Intellectual Property Rights, Political Discourse, Policy Networks, Social Network Analysis
Status:	Published
Refereed:	Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:	Leifeld, Professor Philip
Authors:	Leifeld, P., and Haunss, S.
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) H Social Sciences > HM Sociology J Political Science > JA Political science (General) J Political Science > JN Political institutions (Europe)
College/School:	College of Social Sciences > School of Social and Political Sciences
Journal Name:	European Journal of Political Research
Publisher:	Wiley
ISSN:	0304-4130
ISSN (Online):	1475-6765
Published Online:	08 July 2011
Copyright Holders:	Copyright © 2011 The Authors
First Published:	First published in European Journal of Political Research 51(3):382-409
Publisher Policy:	Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

Altmetric

References

Adam, S. & Kriesi, H., 2007. The Network Approach. In P. A. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 129–154. Baumgartner, F.R. & Jones, B.D., 1991. Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), pp.1044–1074. Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), pp.611-639. Bennett, R.J., 1999. Business Routes of Influence in Brussels: Exploring the Choice of Direct Representation. Political Studies, 47, pp.240-257. Beyers, J., 2004. Voice and Access. Political Practices of European Interest Associations. European Union Politics, 5(2), pp.211-240. Bouwen, P., 2004. Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Union Institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43, pp.337-369. Braun, D. & Busch, A., 1999. Public Policy and Political Ideas, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Burns, C., 2004. Codecision and the European Commission: A Study of Declining Influence. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), pp.1-18. Carley, K., 1992. Extracting, Representing, and Analyzing Mental Models. Social Forces, 70(3), pp.601-636. COM, 1997. Promoting innovation through patents. Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. COM, 2002. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Dür, A., 2008. Interest Groups in the European Union: How Powerful Are They? West European Politics, 31(6), pp.1212-1230. Earl, J. et al., 2004. The Use of Newspaper Data in the Study of Collective Action. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), pp.65-80. Eimer, T.R., 2008. Decoding Divergence in Software Regulation: Paradigms, Power Structures, and Institutions in the United States and the European Union. Governance, 21(2), pp.275-296. Eising, R., 2004. Multilevel Governance and Business Interests in the European Union. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2), pp.211-245. Emirbayer, M. & Goodwin, J., 1994. Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency. The American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), pp.1411-1454. Fisher, W.R., 1984. Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), pp.1 - 22. Freeman, L.C., 1978. Centrality in Social Networks. Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1, pp.215-239. Gehlen, C., 2006. Lobbying in Brussels: The EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (A), Fontainebleau: Insead. Grande, E., 1996. The State and Interest Groups in a Framework of Multi-Level Decision-Making: the Case of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 3(3), pp.318-358. Haas, P.M., 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), pp.1–35. Hajer, M.A., 2002. Discourse Analysis and the Study of Policy Making. European Political Science, 2(1), pp.61–65. Hajer, M.A., 1993. Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester, eds. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 43–76. Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, P.A., 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: the Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 25(3), pp.275–296. Haunss, S. & Kohlmorgen, L., 2008. Codebook for the analysis of political claims in conflicts on intellectual property rights in Europe. Available at: http://www.ipgovernance.eu/publications/IPGovCodebook.pdf [Accessed February 1, 2011]. Haunss, S. & Kohlmorgen, L., 2010. Conflicts About Intellectual Property Claims: The Role and Function of Collective Action Networks. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(2). Available at: http://ssrn.com/paper=1162209 [Accessed February 1, 2011]. Haunss, S. & Kohlmorgen, L., 2009. Lobbying or Politics? Political Claims-Making in IP Conflicts. In S. Haunss & K. C. Shadlen, eds. The Politics of Intellectual Property. Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing. Haunss, S. & Shadlen, K.C. eds., 2009. Politics of Intellectual Property. Contestation over the Ownership, Use, and Control of Knowledge and Information, Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hayes-Renshaw, F. & Wallace, H., 1997. The Council of Ministers, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), pp.1277-1288. Kenis, P. & Schneider, V., 1991. Policy Networks and Policy Analysis. Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox. In B. Marin & R. Mayntz, eds. Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, pp. 25–59. Kliment, T., 1998. Durch Dramatisierung zum Protest? Theoretische Grundlegung und empirischer Ertrag des Framing-Konzepts. In K. Hellmann & R. Koopmans, eds. Paradigmen der Bewegungsforschung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 69-89. Kohler-Koch, B., 1997. Organized Interests in the EC and the European Parliament. European Integration Online Papers, 1(9). Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=302669 [Accessed February 1, 2011]. Koopmans, R., 2002. Codebook for the analysis of political mobilisation and communication in European public spheres. Available at: http://europub.wz-berlin.de/Data/Codebooks%20questionnaires/D2-1-claims-codebook.pdf [Accessed February 1, 2011]. Koopmans, R. & Statham, P., 1999. Political Claims Analysis: Integrating Protest Event and Political Discourse Approaches. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 4(2), pp.203–221. Lang, A. & Leifeld, P., 2009. Die Netzwerkanalyse in der Policy-Forschung. Eine theoretische und methodische Bestandsaufnahme. In F. Janning & K. Toens, eds. Die Zukunft der Policy-Forschung. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 223–241. Leifeld, P., 2009. Die Untersuchung von Diskursnetzwerken mit dem Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA). In V. Schneider et al., eds. Politiknetzwerke. Modelle, Anwendungen und Visualisierungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 391–404. Leifeld, P., 2010a. Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA) Manual. Available at: http://www.philipleifeld.de/discourse-network-analyzer-dna/manual/ [Accessed February 1, 2011]. Leifeld, P., 2010b. Political Discourse Networks - The Missing Link in the Study of Policy-Oriented Discourse. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Ideas, Policy Design and Policy Instruments. Casting Light on the Missing Link’, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Münster, March 22-27. Available at: http://www.philipleifeld.de [Accessed February 1, 2011]. Polletta, F., 1998. Contending Stories: Narrative in Social Movements. Qualitative Sociology, 21(4), pp.419-446. Roth, C. & Bourgine, P., 2005. Epistemic Communities: Description and Hierarchic Categorization. Mathematical Population Studies, 12(2), pp.107-130. Sabatier, P.A. & Weible, C.M., 2007. The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In P. A. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 189–220. Schmidt, V.A., 2008. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, pp.303–326. Schmidt, V.A. & Radaelli, C.M., 2004. Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. West European Politics, 27(2), pp.183-210. Snow, D.A. & Benford, R.D., 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow, eds. From structure to action. Comparing social movement research across cultures. International Social Movements Research Vol. 1: JAI, pp. 197-217. Snow, D.A. & Benford, R.D., 1992. Master Frames and Cycles of Protest. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller, eds. Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University, pp. 133-155. Snow, D.A. et al., 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation. American Sociological Revue, 51(4), pp.464-481. Steensland, B., 2008. Why do Policy Frames Change? Actor-Idea Coevolution in Debates over Welfare Reform. Social Forces, 86(3), pp.1027–1054. Wasserman, S. & Faust, K., 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deposit and Record Details

ID Code:	121163
Depositing User:	Professor Philip Leifeld
Datestamp:	22 Jul 2016 09:59
Last Modified:	13 Jun 2018 08:44
Date of acceptance:	18 March 2011
Date of first online publication:	8 July 2011
Date Deposited:	16 July 2016
Data Availability Statement:	No