Search results

A review essay on a book by Luigi Graziano, Lobbying, Pluralismo, Democrazia ([Lobbying, Pluralism, Democracy] Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1995).

El trabajo tiene por objeto analizar la regulación de las actuaciones
de lobbying existente en diversos sistemas. Así, son objeto de análisis la legislación
federal estadounidense, referente a nivel mundial en la regulación del
lobbying;
la ordenación de esta cuestión que han llevado a cabo las instituciones
de la Unión Europea, la cual ha inspirado las primeras normas de lobbying en
nuestro país; y las primeras experiencias con las que contamos en nuestro ordenamiento
jurídico. A modo de conclusión, y teniendo en cuenta las ventajas e inconveniente
derivados de cada uno de estos sistemas, se llevan a cabo una serie
de reflexiones sobre las cuestiones a tener en cuenta en las futuras normas que,
sobre este fenómeno, se adopten en nuestro país en los próximos años.
Lan honen helburua hainbat sistematan dauden lobbying jarduketak
arautzeko modua aztertzea da. Hala, honako hauek aztergai dira: Estatu
Batuetako legeria federala, lobbying-a arautzean mundu osoan erreferentea dena;
Europar Batasuneko erakundeek gai hori nola antolatu duten, bide horretatik sortu
baitira gure herrialdean lobbying-aren arloko lehen arauak; eta gure ordenamendu
juridikoan dauzkagun lehenengo esperientziak. Ondorio gisa, eta sistema horietatik
eratorritako abantailak eta desabantailak kontuan hartuta, gogoeta batzuk egiten
dira gure herrialdean datozen urteetan fenomeno horri buruz sor daitezkeen
arauetan kontuan hartu beharreko gaiei buruz.
This work aims to analyze the regulation of the existing lobbying
activities in several systems. Thus, the federal American legislation is analyzed,
which is a world paradigm of the regulation of lobbying; the management of
the issue adopted by the EU institutions which has inspired the first provisions
on lobbying in our country; and the first experiences we have in our legal order.
By way of conclusion, and taking into account the advantages and drawbacks of
each of these systems, we reflect on those issues that should be addressed in
future provisions that regarding this matter shall be adopted in our country in
forthcoming years.

Industrial & commercial development, the increasing intervention of the State, the great econ crisis have provoked the creation of groups in defense of soc, econ & intellectual interests, which seek to influence PO & officials to get changes in legislation & institutions. These groups have very diff characters according to the soc strata they represent. They are more effective the richer they are; this inequality in the means of the protection of interests constitutes the primary disadvantage of the system of pressure groups. Another disadvantage consists in the fact that the totality of the special interests is not to be identified with the general interest. Financiers, economists, officials, & men of sci who stand for the general interest are made suspect in the eyes of the public by the propaganda of those who denounce them as dangerous technocrats. It is not a question of suppressing these pressure groups. But the public should be enligbtened about their activities, & their propaganda should be combatted by the dissemination of technical information. It is also possible that their resources should be made public, or at least their expenses. Tr & Modified from IPSA.

More & more individual interests are playing a part internat life. The study of pressure groups (PG) which defend these interests, encounters many difficulties. Among the various PG some possess an internat character while others are nat. The internat ones operate on the internat org's or upon the nations. Their methods of operation differ from those of internal pressure groups. If the group is not a profit making org, it can have an official, recognized function within the internat org. On the other hand, the private interests may be represented in the same way as nations, or these private groups may be consulted by the internat org. Despite everything, pressure groups have less influence at the internat level than they do at the nat level. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

One of the central problems of contemporary politics lies in the difficulty of its legitimacy. The legitimacy of politics had been carried out according to the rules & rationality within the political arena. Politics today, however, faces a situation in which there is a large variety of spheres & logic that compete against it in order to arrive at a definition of the public. Without a doubt, one of these spheres & perhaps the most significant, is generated by the media. The media is inseparable from the political system, in so far as the rules of the first prevail on the latter. Starting from these premises, the article deals with four large aspects that express the fragmentary, if not entropic, character of contemporary politics. The first of these deals with the deinstitutionalization of politics, which stems either from the draining or the ownership of it by various lobbying groups. The second of this highlights the non political forces of legitimacy, focused on the use of "public opinion" by the mass media. The third explains the instability & inconsistency of political formulas, subjugated to the same ephemeral process as news production. As a result & in fourth place, one can talk about the emergence of a new political model, one which the author classifies as "news democracy.". Adapted from the source document.

The deliberative democracy bases its expectations of results in interactions of communication of a normative type lessening the relations of power and domination that exist in politics. It is interesting to observe how a deliberation is made on governmental decision making, through case studies. In this frame, the article analyzes the confrontation of two factual powers (the Group for a Better Country and the transnational pharmaceuticals), the lobbying, the use of political resources, the role of the state and the final corollary in the deliberation for the public decision making: the modification of the article 77 of the Law of Industrial Property. Adapted from the source document.

In the past fifty years, the dominant presence of the United States in Latin America has been replaced by varied and complex patterns of interdependence, cooperation and conflict. The predominance of the US during the 1950s and 1960s was followed by a period of decline, interrupted only by brief interventionist episodes. New actors, particularly non-governmental ones, have gained influence in hemispheric relations. In general, Washington's policy towards Latin America has been defined by the dynamics of its internal politics (electoral cycles, lobbying) and by extra-regional considerations (Cold War conflicts in other latitudes). The responses of successive governments have been diverse, but in general they continue without giving Latin American strategic interests their place. Adapted from the source document.

This article presents a long-term view on the incursion of businessmen in Mexican politics, emphasizing two aspects that have been relevant in the last decade. First, it explores the performance of entrepreneurs in public offices; then, it discusses the new strategy & specific actions that businessmen organized in chambers & associations -& some large companies- were forced to implement in order to advance & defend their interests, since following the 1997 actual division between the Executive & the Legislative, the privileged links & negotiations they had with the President became insufficient. They now need to lobby the Congress, a branch they were unaware of until very recently & has now become essential to them. Adapted from the source document.

Examines influence and role of nongovernmental actors in an eventual commercial agreement between Chile and the US, whether as a member of NAFTA, which would then become the American Free Trade Association (AFTA), or in a bilateral trade agreement. Refers to business, labor, and environmental NGOs.

La democracia deliberativa funda sus expectativas de resultado en interacciones comunicativas de tipo normativo aminorando las relaciones de poder y dominación que existen en política. Es interesante observar cómo se da la deliberación en la toma de decisiones gubernamentales a través de estudios de caso. En este marco, este artículo, analiza la confrontación de dos poderes fácticos (el Grupo por un País Mejor y las farmacéuticas transnacionales), el cabildeo, el uso de recursos políticos, los papeles del Estado y el corolario final de la deliberación en una toma de decisión pública: la modificación del artículo 77 de la Ley de Propiedad Industrial.