ABSTRACT
Table 1 illustrates that frame choice varies systematically across interest group type, suggesting that the logic of membership considerably affects frame choice. Cause groups make considerably more use of environmental and human rights frames than sectional groups or firms. By contrast, consumer frames are only used slightly more often by cause groups. Sectional groups use economic frames considerably more frequently than cause groups. Firms use public frames significantly less than cause groups, but at the same time they also use economic frames much more rarely than sectional groups. With regard to frames that are not clearly associated with a particular interest group type, there is hardly any systematic variation across interest group type except for integration frames, which are used considerably more by sectional groups and firms than by cause groups. Table 2 shows how frame choice varies across different lead DGs. Table 2
demonstrates that public frames are employed by interest groups considerably more if the proposal in question is drafted by DG Environment, DG Justice or DG Health and Consumer protection. Similarly, Table 2 indicates that interest groups frequently use economic frames if a legislative proposal is prepared by DG Trade, by DG Internal Market and Services, by DG Competition or by DG Agriculture. Hence, frame choice systematically varies with
groups and firms. By contrast, crime and security, integration, research and technical/legal frames are not clearly associated with any interest group type and are therefore grouped into an ‘others’ category.
