The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying
Open accessAbstract
This review identifies empirical facts about lobbying that are generally agreed upon in the literature. It then discusses challenges to empirical research in lobbying and provides examples of empirical methods that can be employed to overcome these challenges—with an emphasis on statistical measurement, identification, and casual inference. The article then discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and effective use of the main types of data available for research in lobbying. It closes with a number of open questions for researchers in the field and avenues for future work to advance empirical research on lobbying.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641
The Population Ecology of Organizations
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226424 · Cited by 7,568
Structural inertia and organizational change
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095567 · Cited by 7,244
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2171753 · Cited by 7,081
Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 · Cited by 5,513
The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country
Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803321455188 · Cited by 4,517
Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902 · Cited by 4,230
Faccio, M. (2006) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282806776157704 · Cited by 4,059
Cited by
Grose, C. R., Lopez, P., Sadhwani, S., & Yoshinaka, A. (2022) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/714923 · Cited by 39
The Limits of Lobbying: Null Effects from Four Field Experiments in Two State Legislatures
Camp, M. J., Schwam-Baird, M., & Zelizer, A. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2022.25 · Cited by 4
“Despite fears of lobbying’s pernicious sway, identifying credible estimates of lobbying’s effects has been difficult (De Figueiredo and Richter 2014).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- de Figueiredo, J. M., & Richter, B. K.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2014-05-11
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 163-185
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W3022390465
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 96
- FWCI
- 14.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308
- The paper
- de Figueiredo, J. M., & Richter, B. K. (2014). Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying. Annual Review of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
