La agenda de los grupos de interés frente a la COVID-19: el rastro digital en Twitter

Camilo Cristancho

doi:10.21308/recp.57.02

Authors

Camilo Cristancho Universidad de Barcelona

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21308/recp.57.02

Keywords:

interest groups, agenda, COVID-19, social media, Twitter, automatic text analysis, computational social science

Abstract

Interest groups are playing a fundamental role in solving the problems generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as they address multiple issues and represent social groups around an unprecedented social challenge. Multiple organizations express their constituents’concerns and demands every day, thus forging an agenda in which they debate how to deal with the multiple effects of the pandemic in various sectors. However, given the dynamics of attention inherent to the emergency situation and the diversity of issues, it is difficult to follow the diversity and complexity of multiple actors and issues. This article describes the agenda of interest groups in Spain, based on the publications on Twitter by the 140 most active organizations between March 2018 and March 2021. Using automated text classification, it is possible to conclude that the aggregate attention by types of interest groups to the main items on the agenda vary little after the outbreak of the crisis caused by the pandemic. Attention to the health, socio-political and economic dimensions related to COVID-19 follows similar patterns among the different types of groups and is transversal to the issues on the agenda. These results show that interest groups continue to carry out their interest representation function without significantly altering their behaviour in response to the crisis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Andsager, Julie L. 2000. «How Interest Groups Attempt to Shape Public Opinion with Competing News Frames», Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly, 77 (3): 577-592. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700308.

Barberá, Pablo y Thomas Zeitzoff. 2018. «The New Public Address System: Why Do World Leaders Adopt Social Media?», International Studies Quarterly, 62 (1): 121-130. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx047.

Baumgartner, Frank R., Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball y Beth L. Leech. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226039466.001.0001.

Baumgartner, Frank R. y Bryan D. Jones. 2010. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Birkland, Thomas A. 1997. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Boin, Arjen, McConnell, Allan y Paul T. Hart. 2006. «Inertia or Change? Crisis-induced Challenges for Political Leaders», en The Australasian Political Studies Association Conference.

Chalmers, Adam W. y Paul A. Shotton. 2016. «Changing the Face of Advocacy? Explaining Interest Organizations’ Use of Social Media Strategies», Political Communication, 33 (3): 1-18. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1043477.

Chaqués-Bonafont, Laura. 2016. «Interest Groups and Agenda Setting», en Nikolaos Zahariadis (ed.), Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chaqués-Bonafont, Laura, Camilo Cristancho, Luz Muñoz y Leire Rincón. 2018. «The Contingent Character of Interest Groups-Political Parties», Interaction, 41 (3): 440-461. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X20000082.

Deschamps, Bruno Ryan Douglas. 2017. «Policy Agenda Setting and Twitter. Three Cases from Canada» [tesis doctoral]. Universidad de Regina. Disponible en: https://cutt.ly/UR9uhQQ.

Fagan, E. J. y Brooke Shannon. 2020. «Using the Comparative Agendas Project to Examine Interest Group Behavior», Interest Groups and Advocacy, 9 (3): 361-372. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00081-1.

Feezell, Jessica T. 2018. «Agenda Setting through Social Media: The Importance of Incidental News Exposure and Social Filtering in the Digital Era», Political Research Quarterly, 71 (2): 482-494. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917744895.

Figenschou, Tine U. y Nanna Alida Fredheim. 2020. «Interest Groups on Social Media: Four Forms of Networked Advocacy», Journal of Public Affairs, 20 (2): 1-8. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2012.

Golbeck, Jennifer, Justin M. Grimes y Anthony Rogers. 2010. «Twitter Use by the US Congress», Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (8): 1612-1621. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21344.

Grant, Willington. 2000. «Insider Groups, Outsider Groups and Interest Group Strategies in Britain», en R. A. W. Rhodes (ed.), United Kingdom, volume one. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Halpin, Darren R., Bert Fraussen y Robert Ackland. 2020. «Which Audiences Engage with Advocacy Groups on Twitter? Explaining the Online Engagement of Elite, Peer, and Mass Audiences with Advocacy Groups», Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020979818

Hemphill, Libby, Annelise Russell y Angela Schopke. 2019. «The Rhetorical Agenda: What Twitter Tells Us About Congressional Attention», en Proceedings of the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, USA.

Heo, Uk y Shale A. Horowitz (eds.). 2001. The Political Economy of International Financial Crisis: Interest Groups, Ideologies, and Institutions. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kanol, Direnç y Müesser Nat. 2017. «Interest Groups and Social Media: An Examination of Cause and Sectional Groups’ Social Media Strategies in the EU», Journal of Public Affairs, 17 (3). Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/pa.1649.

Kanol, Direnç y Müesser Nat. 2021. «Group Type and Social Media Engagement Strategies in the EU: The Case of British Interest Groups on Facebook», Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 7 (2): 205-219. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.7.2.205-219.

Kingdon, John W. y Eric Stano. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

Klüver, Heike y Christine Mahoney. 2015. «Measuring Interest Group Framing Strategies in Public Policy Debates», Journal of Public Policy, 35 (2): 223-244. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X14000294.

Lassen, David S. y Adam R. Brown. 2011. «Twitter: The Electoral Connection?», Social Science Computer Review, 29 (4): 419-436. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310382749.

López-Meri, Amparo, Silvia Marcos-García y Andreu Casero-Ripollés. 2017. «¿Qué hacen los políticos en Twitter? Funciones y estrategias», El Profesional de la Información, 26 (5): 795-804. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.sep.02.

Maloney, William, A., Grant Jordan y Andrew M. McLaughlin. 1994. «Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited», Journal of Public Policy, 14 (1): 17-.38. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00001239.

Martin, Fiona y Mark Johnson. 2015. «More Efficient Topic Modelling Through a Noun Only Approach», en Proceedings of Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop.

Molins, Joaquim e Iván Medina. 2016. «La representación de intereses en tiempos de regeneración democrática», en Francisco José Llera Ramo (coord.), Desafección política y regeneración democrática en la España actual: Diagnósticos y propuestas. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.

Obar, Jonathan A. 2014. «Canadian Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of Social Media Adoption and Perceived Affordances by Advocacy Groups Looking to Advance Activism in Canada», Canadian Journal of Communication, 39 (2): 211-233. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2014v39n2a2678.

Page, Edward C. 1999. «The insider/outsider distinction: an empirical investigation», The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1 (2): 205-214. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-856X.00011.

Parmelee, John H. 2014. «The Agenda-Building Function of Political Tuits», New Media and Society, 16 (3): 434-450. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487955.

Rochefort, David A. y Roger W. Cobb. 1993. «Problem Definition, Agenda Access, and Policy Choice», Policy Studies Journal, 21 (1): 56-71. Disponible en; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1993.tb01453.x.

Sotiropoulos, Dimitri A. 2019. «Political Party-Interest Group Linkages in Greece before and after the Onset of the Economic Crisis», Mediterranean Politics, 24 (5): 605-625. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2018.1428149.

Trumbo, Craig W. y James Shanahan. 2000. «Social research on climate change: Where we have been, where we are, and where we might go», Public Understanding of Science, 9 (3): 199. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/002.

Van der Graaf, Amber, Simon Otjes y Anne Rasmussen. 2015. «Weapon of the Weak? The Social Media Landscape of Interest Groups», European Journal of Communication, 31 (2): 120-135. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323115612210.

Weible, Christopher, Daniel Nohrstedt, Paul Cairney, David P. Carter, Deserai A. Crow, Anna P. Durnová, Tanya Heikkila, Karin Ingold, Allan McConnell y Diane Stone. 2020. «COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives», Policy Sciences, 53 (2), 225-241. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09381-4.

Widner, Kirsten y Maggie Macdonald. 2020. «Lobbying Inside (and) Out: Interest Group Behavior on Social Media», APSA Preprints. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2020-10r6f.