Measures of Transparent Lobbying: How to Approach It and Evaluate It: A Preliminary Stage

Abstract

Although the topic of lobbying attracts many scholars and activists, the evaluation of its quality is underdeveloped. The paper's aim is to propose a comprehensive catalogue of key measures of transparent lobbying that offers the space for later evaluation of the transparency of lobbying regulation and activities for discussion. The authors employed the qualitative analysis of existing approaches, namely the evaluation of " hard " lobbying regulation by the Centre for Public Integrity and recommendations of " transparency " measures by various international organisations, and finally propose their own set (catalogue) of measures that employs both the hard direct rules on lobbying, but also the indirect rules linked to lobbying, and informal rules and voluntary activities are also included.

Full text

Measures of Transparent Lobbying: How to Approach It and
Evaluate It: A Preliminary Stage
1
Šárka Laboutková1, a, Petr Vymětal2, b
1Faculty of Economics, Technical University of Liberec, Czech Republic
2Faculty of International Relations, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic
asarka.laboutkova@tul.cz, bvymetal@vse.cz
Abstract
Although the topic of lobbying attracts many scholars and activists, the evaluation of its quality is
underdeveloped. The paper’s aim is to propose a comprehensive catalogue of key measures of transparent
lobbying that offers the space for later evaluation of the transparency of lobbying regulation and activities
for discussion. The authors employed the qualitative analysis of existing approaches, namely the evaluation
of “hard” lobbying regulation by the Centre for Public Integrity and recommendations of “transparency”
measures by various international organisations, and finally propose their own set (catalogue) of measures
that employs both the hard direct rules on lobbying, but also the indirect rules linked to lobbying, and
informal rules and voluntary activities are also included.
Keywords: lobbying, transparency, qualitative approach, catalogue, regulation.
JEL Classification: D72, D73, D82, D85
1 Introduction
The process of explicit direct measuring of the transparency of lobbying so far remains
unsolvable until lobbying is regulated. Unfortunately, in reality, the problem is the reluctance of
political representation to enforce statutory regulation and the differing approach to regulation
of lobbying across countries. This ranges from no regulation, through “soft” regulation (voluntary
systems, self-regulation) to “hard” legislative rules. For example, post-communist countries are
characterized by less institutional effectiveness and most of them are faced with the problem of a
weak (and large) state, underdeveloped civil society and a weak liberal tradition [16]. Currently
only 9 of the EU-28 countries have any regulation of lobbying; the others have opened discussion
about lobbying regulation, some did not finally pass a law (e.g. Czech Republic) and Hungary even
cancelled an act and replaced it with substitute rules on the legislative process [22]. There are
however a number of factors (besides regulation) that contribute to the transparency of lobbying:
laws on conflict of interests (including the so-called “revolving door” practice), legislative
footprint, various statements and declarations of officials and politicians, and/or arrangements
for the funding of political parties. Other rules can also be closely linked to lobbying – ethical codes
of corporate or interest groups, a public guestbook at public institutions, a public service act, the
use of RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) and the CIA (Corruption Impact Assessment) in the
legislative process, the quality of the legislative process (unjustified amendments, limpets, etc.),
public consultation and publication of the list of consultants on government policies, and last but
not least electronic auctions, public contracts on the web, fully and comfortably furnished budgets,
etc. In other words, transparent lobbying exceeds the efficiency of a single law: it should be part
and package of a wider approach to governance, based on the principles of openness,
transparency, participation and disclosure.
1
Suggested citation: Laboutková, Š. and P. Vymětal. Measures of Transparent Lobbying: How to
Approach It and Evaluate It: A Preliminary Stage. In: Matějová, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International
Conference Current Trends in Public Sector Research 2017. Brno: Masaryk University, 2017. pp. 50-57. ISSN
2336-1239. ISBN 978-80-210-8448-3.

The standards and measures are widely discussed in existing literature, broadly accepted
good practices anchoring the rights to know and participate, effective control and oversight, and
open government. Especially in the case of lobbying, there can be various rules and measures
introduced. There are various approaches to how to classify rules ([6], [7], [10], [8], [23], [13] and
others). There are different reasons for the variety of measures – jurisdictions focus on different
features and characteristics of lobbying to define the rules. First, for effective regulation,
systematic regulation should be introduced. In terms of the form, there can be legal rules (hard
rules) as well as self-regulatory approaches. Second, for vibrant regulation, both the direct rules
(for lobbyists) and indirect rules (for targets of lobbying – politicians and civil servants) and
therefore both sides of lobbying activities shall be covered. Third, the rules for lobbying do not
cover only one law; rather it is a series of complementary legislation (legal provisions), internal
and procedural rules (system arrangement and institutional mechanisms as distinguished e.g. by
Open Governance Scorecard Methodology published by TI UK (2015)). The linkage between
selective and narrow aimed rules in the light of a systemic approach of lobbying regulation is
needed. Fourth, the effective control of the lobbying activities should be independent and under
public scrutiny.
However to build strong rules on one hand and transparent ones on the other, for all
subjects in the industry, is not easy, but is possible. Transparent rules support “fairness”
conditions for the profession/activity and can guarantee to some extent also the process aspects
of lobbying activity as many academics argue ([10], [3], [11], [14], [9] and others). Current
regulatory approaches do not always go this way – there are various measures introduced to deal
somehow (directly or indirectly) with lobbying, they are poorly linked with each other (isolated
measures) and the systemic approach is lacking. The key issue is the exact and proper
fundamental definitions of basic terms used in rules, namely who is a lobbyist, what is lobbying
and/or lobbying contact, who is a public office holder/designated officer and others.
The aim of this paper is to propose a catalogue and key elements of “transparency
measures” that can support transparency of lobbying activities and that will serve as a platform
for evaluation in the future research.
The key methods used in this article are a rather explorative and explanatory one in terms
of lobbying rules on one hand and analyses of current approaches of lobbying regulation
transparency on the other. Therefore the main part of the paper is a qualitative approach focusing
on choosing the fields (groups) of relevant variables describing transparency of lobbying rules.
The summarization of all relevant data and variables finally systematically built a more complex
picture of various aspects of lobbying (and its regulation).
The paper is organized as follows. The second chapter discusses current approaches to
evaluating lobbying transparency – the CPI index and the recommendations for transparent
lobbying, and both advantages and disadvantages are mentioned. The third chapter deals with the
authors’ proposed categories for how to evaluate transparency of lobbying in its broader scope.
The authors conclude with the next steps for catalogue finalization including each variable for
subsequent evaluation of transparency of lobbying activities.
2 Material and Methods
Evaluating the transparency in lobbying activities is difficult now, because there is almost
no systematic approach for evaluation. If there is attention paid to the lobbying activities, it is
mostly caused by several scandals and affairs. The authors thus propose a research design for
more complex evaluation of transparency of lobbying rules and activities. For this purpose we
combine two approaches that were tried in the past to examine and evaluate lobbying and
transparency – the Centre for Public Integrity index of lobbying regulation, and the
recommendations of international organisations in the field of transparency and lobbying.
From the methodological point of view, the qualitative analysis of documents, academic
papers, existing recommendations of international organisations, as well as the existing measures
applied in jurisdictions in terms of lobbying are collected. Although the sampling theory is usually

associated with a quantitative type of research, it is suitable for our research due to the limits of
the relevant quantitative material based on the formulated research question. This data sample is
then analysed in terms of its relevance of content to the lobbying and all recommendations are
extended by those furthermore linked to the transparency principle. In the final stage, the data
are re-categorised into logical groups for supposed later evaluation.
There were several trials in the past to evaluate the rules in the field of lobbying. The most
frequently used schema for evaluation was developed by the Centre for Public Integrity in 2003
when it published a report and methodology for evaluating the influence of legislators [4]. The
index currently evaluates 48 criteria in 8 areas and uses the scale from 0 to a variable maximum
of 1, 2, 3 or 4 points according to question [5] with the total score of 100 points. The CPI index
only evaluates existing rules on lobbying and lobbyists that are explicitly expressed in “hard”
forms of regulation – acts and bills (statutory rules) especially. Other aspects of lobbying rules –
the indirect ones especially – and of lobbying activities are not covered.
Table 1. Ideal types of lobbying regulation systems (Source: [7], p. 428)
Weekly regulated systems
Medium regulated systems
Highly regulated systems
Registration
regulations
Rules on individual
registration, but few details
required
Rules on individual registration;
more details required
Rules on individual registration
are extremely rigorous
Spending
disclosure
No rules on individual
spending disclosure, or
employer spending
disclosure
Some regulations on individual
spending disclosure; none on
employer spending disclosure
Tight regulations on individual
spending disclosure, and
employer spending disclosure
Electronic
filling
Weak online registration
and paperwork required
Robust system for online
registration; no paperwork
necessary
Robust system for online
registration; no paperwork
necessary
Public access
List of lobbyists available,
but not detailed, or updated
frequently
List of lobbyists available;
detailed, and updated frequently
List of lobbyists and their
spending disclosures available;
detailed, and updated frequently
Enforcement
Little enforcement
capabilities invested in state
agency
In theory, the state agency
possesses enforcement
capabilities, though infrequently
used
State agency can, and does,
conduct mandatory
reviews/audits
Revolving
door provision
No cooling-off period before
former legislators can
register as lobbyists
There is a cooling-off period
before former legislators can
register as lobbyists
There is a cooling-off period
before former legislators can
register as lobbyists
The index was developed and interpreted subsequently by Chari, Hogan and Murphy in
their papers (starting from 2006) and finally in a book on lobbying regulation [6] where the main
criterion was to classify countries and states regulating lobbying into three groups (strong,
medium, weak) according to the strictness of the rules. Kubová and Pitrová [12] expanded it and
updated it for the Joint Transparency Register introduced in 2011. Again, all authors aimed only
at countries that have statutory regulation of lobbying and lobbyists. The other “indirect”
provisions that can be linked to the lobbying or deeper qualitative aspects of lobbying rules are
not in the centre of evaluation and indices. Furthermore, this approach pays more attention to
strictness of rules, rather than to the question of transparency.
The second approach we use is transparency measures recommended in connection to
lobbying activities. It is a wide range of principles and standards that vary according to the
organization that has published them. All of them are a starting-point for framework design of fair
lobbying and definitely a source for further discussion about the parameters of lobbying
transparency and/or more general a level playing field in a broader scope of the decision-making
process. Table 2 summarises the areas of activities and principles that are considered as crucial
in terms of the transparency of lobbying.

All of the recommendations in the documents mentioned in Table 2 describe the key
principles, standards and measures that can be introduced in order to support lobbying
transparency – not only rules and their interpretation, but also indirectly the transparency of
lobbying contacts and lobbying activities of all participants. Although this approach is more
qualitative, no specific complex evaluations (rather than measuring) have been published until
now. Thus such evaluation offers an advantage in the evaluation that can be applied to the other
rules and instruments influencing transparency of lobbying activities other than a single bill on
lobbying. The only exemption in this regard is that TI [20] tried to incorporate some evaluation in
this course.
Table 2. Transparency principles (Source: [1], [2], [17], [20])
International
organizations
Documents
Areas of activities and principles
Organisation for
Economic Co-
operation and
Development
(2010)
10 Principles for
Transparency and
Integrity in Lobbying
● building an effective and fair framework for openness and access
● enhancing transparency
● fostering a culture of integrity
● mechanism for effective implementation, compliance and review
Access Info Europe,
Open Knowledge,
Sunlight
Foundation,
Transparency
International
(2015)
International
Standards for
Lobbying Regulation:
Towards greater
transparency, integrity
and participation
● regulatory scope
● transparency
● integrity
● participation & access
● oversight, management and sanction
● regulatory framework design
Access Info Europe
(2015)
Lobbying
Transparency via the
Right to Information
● the right to information about lobbying
Transparency
International
(2015)
Lobbying in Europe:
Hidden Influence,
Privileged Access
● transparency
● integrity
● equality of access
3 Results and Discussion
No model fits all [19], [22]. There are more reasons behind the authors’ motivation for
making a comprehensive list of key categories. First, the lobbying rules cannot be narrowed for
lobbying bills only, but other measures and instruments that finally regulate participants’
behaviour have to be added. Second, if standards and recommendations are introduced, each of
them has to be evaluated in terms of deeper qualitative analyses – the initial binominal values
(yes–no/existing–non-existing) have to be replaced by a limited discrete scale reflecting more
specifically the quality but leaving space to reflect different countries’ backgrounds (law system,
laws, informal institutions, context etc.) – until now there is limited use of it. Third, when the
recommendations exist, their operation and efficiency are to be evaluated rarely, as well as the
question of if – and to what extent – they are fulfilling the main goal set in the beginning
(transparency of lobbying mostly). The evaluation and criteria within categories can be used in
this respect.
For this reasons the authors propose a catalogue of currently used measures dealing
directly or indirectly with lobbying regulation that support the transparency principle in general.
All measures are grouped in four logical categories [14]:
1. Direct rules focusing on lobbyists in term of lobbying activities and their behaviour, both legal
and self-regulation. Those include:
● register of lobbyists – conditions and initial requirements to be met prior to and/or during
the registration process, including basic information on lobbyists;
● Codes of Ethics / Codes of Behaviour for lobbyists with effective penalties;

● regular disclosure of lobbyists’ activities, especially identifying the date of the contact,
matter of lobbying contact, the institution and person contacted, the client/employer of
the lobbyist; sometimes financial data will be required;
● open calendars of meetings with all decision-makers.
2. Indirect provisions rule subject of lobbying (the targets of lobbying). This category mostly
includes:
● Codes of Ethics / Codes of Behaviour for Members of Parliament, Ministers, Employees in
the Civil Service;
● revolving doors provisions (pre- and post-employment separation);
● open calendars of meetings (appointment diaries) of all decision-makers;
● Conflict of Interest regulation;
● declaration of (financial) assets, income and/or fact-finding trips.
3. Sunlight principles and/or anti-corruption tools are indirect also, but they are supposed
primarily as a measure with a different goal rather to be linked only with lobbying and they
include:
● clear and transparent rules on legislative process – limitation of individual MPs’ changes,
pork barrels;
● rules on Governmental decision-making and decision-making in the public sector;
● rules on consultations with public, civil society, interest groups, professional bodies etc.;
● legislative footprint and/or other declaration of consulted bodies/organizations;
● programme of proposed legislative work;
● Open Government Data (OGD 2007);
● regulation of political parties financing (limits for lobbyists donations and expenditures);
● freedom of information act.
4. The monitoring and sanctioning system. Here only general statements can be made –
enforcement of the rules should be effective, and the penalties should force subjects to comply
with the rules. The key issue is monitoring of activities and there are two approaches to be
selected (and combined) – a lot of information can be published and provided to the public, so
public scrutiny of the activities is one source of monitoring. Second, there can be a special
independent body established that collects all data and publishes only selected information to the
public.
In the next step, it is necessary to assign available resources and data that govern and/or
characterize the measures and identify specific measures and key elements of the measure, which
directly relate to lobbying transparency (Table 3) and supportive measures supporting lobbying
transparency indirectly or in a general way (Table 4). The suggested category, data/information,
and measurements and key elements should be a subject of expert discussion.
Category
Data, information
Measures and key elements of transparency
Lobbyists
Register
Registers of
lobbyists/lobbying
Public accessibility; Types of lobbyists regulated; Number
of lobbyists registered vs. estimation of unregistered;
Basic data provided.
Codes of Conduct
Codes
Annual reports of
lobbyists
associations
Bans on unethical dealings.
Regulation of investigation in terms of breaching the
Codes.
Disclosure of activities
Declarations of lobbyists
Declaration of politicians
and POH
Timely published data.
Data on what, who, why and whose interest is
represented; list of clients.
Open calendars
Lobbyists web pages
and/or declarations
Timely published data on event, persons, subject, results
(if any); Electronically accessible for public.
Subjects of lobbying
Codes of Conduct
Members of Parliament,
Ministers, Employees
in the Civil Service
Ban on paid (and unpaid) representation of interest
groups; Declaration of conflict of interest before voting;
Provisions for how to interact with lobbyists.

Table 3. Lobbying transparency catalogue – direct lobbying measures (Source: constructed by authors)
Table 4. Lobbying transparency catalogue – indirect measures (Source: constructed by authors)
This emerging approach to transparency in lobbying, which should result in a methodology
for measuring/evaluating the transparency of lobbying, allows a qualitative evaluation of a
transparent public area in its complexity. Due to the evaluation of relatively discrete categories, it
will be possible to identify potential weaknesses and focus attention on them in practice. Another
important benefit is the creation of a universal approach and comprehensive key measures, on
the basis of which it will be possible to compare countries among each other.
Revolving doors
Internal rules of
authorities
Pre- and post-employment rules.
Conflict of interests
Conflict of Interest Acts
Manual for civil servants
Civil Service Act
Obligations to declare assets; Basic rules on integrity;
Independence of the central authority; Rules for gifts and
hospitalities.
Disclosures of
politicians/senior
public employees
Civil Service Act
Independence of the central authority from political
influence.
Appointment diaries
politicians/senior public
employees web pages
and/or declarations
Timely published data on event, persons, subject, results
(if any); Electronically accessible for public.
Category
Data, information
Measures and key elements of transparency
Sunlight principles
Rules on legislative
process
Rules of procedures of chambers
Bulletin/plan of legislative works.
Rules on decision-
making
Rules of procedures
Obligation of public bodies to consult with citizens
and other stakeholders before a decision is made;
equal access; administrative footprint (information
from politicians’ electronic diaries related to
executive decision-making).
Rules on consultations
Rules for consultancy
Obligation of public bodies to consult with citizens
and other stakeholders before a decision is made;
Online platform for civic participation; Equal access;
Request of a meeting with a politician/civil servant
by email.
Legislative footprint
Politician’s electronic diaries
Meetings with lobbyists; Time spent on the
elaboration of laws.
Open Government Data
Public bodies’ web sites;
National Online Catalogue of
Open Data; open data
barometer
Global Open Data Index
Legal definition on open data.
Data sources relevant for policy analysis; Proactive
publication of information.
Equal access to information and documents for all
citizens.
Political parties funding
Political parties funding act and
campaign financing rules
Transparent banking accounts; Donations by
names; Online publication of electoral founding;
Disclosure of annual reports on the internet;
Independent auditing mechanism; Account of all
campaigns.
Freedom of information
Freedom of Information Act
Global Right to Information
Rating
Centre for Law and Democracy
Systematic monitoring of access to information;
Explicit reasons for withholding information;
Proactive disclosure.
Providing information for re-use.
Monitoring and sanctioning system
Sanctions
Lobbying Acts
Conflict of Interest Acts
Body and/or mechanism for continuous monitoring
of lobbying activities; Publicly available
information; Bans on lobbying activities;
Financial and/or criminal penalties.

4 Conclusion
This paper is a particular step of a broader research study and introduces a preliminary
stage of specific measures and key elements of the categories that directly relate to transparency
of lobbying rules and activities. The new approach combines two well-known previous ways that
were tried in the past to examine and evaluate lobbying and transparency, but they have not
introduced the specific complex evaluation. In the previous step the measures of transparency,
which lead to “fair and ethical” lobbying and the same level of access for all stakeholders to
decision-making or seeking government contracts, were identified. On this basis, a catalogue
of currently used measures dealing directly or indirectly with lobbying regulation that support
the transparency principle was created. This article provided categories, data/information, and
measures and key elements of transparency of activities, which might be influenced by hidden
interests and/or lobbying, for the discussion. The future research will expand the existing
measurements and evaluation of transparency of lobbying by developing missing indicators that
will tackle some of the weaknesses of the existing ones and/or rather fill a gap in qualitative
evaluation of lobbying according to the principles of transparency.
Acknowledgements
This paper has been elaborated as one of the outcomes of research projects supported by
the Czech Science Foundation, project No. 16-08786S “Impact of Transparency of Lobbying on
Democratization and Its Consequences” and project No. 16-11210S „Corruption Opportunity
Space in the Czech Republic“.
References
[1] AIE. 2015. [online] Lobbying Transparency via the Right to Information. Access Info Europe
[cit. 2016-09-30]. Available on https://www.access-info.org/wp-
content/uploads/Lobby_Transparency_via_RTI_26_June_2015.pdf
[2] AIE et al. 2015. [online] The International Standards for Lobbying Regulation. Access Info
Europe, Open Knowledge, Sunlight Foundation, Transparency International [cit. 2016-09-
30]. Available on http://lobbyingtransparency.net/lobbyingtransparency.pdf
[3] BERTÓK, J. 2009. Lobbying: What Framework for Enhancing Transparency? Zeitschrift für
Politikberatung [online]; 2(1): 124–132. doi:10.1007/s12392-009-0076-8
[4] CPI. 2003a (updated 2014). [online] Hired Guns – Initial Report. Center for Public Integrity,
2003 [cit. 2016-09-30]. Available
on https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/05/15/5908/hired-guns-initial-report
[5] CPI. 2003b (updated 2014). [online] Methodology. Center for Public Integrity [cit. 2016-09-
30]. Available on https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/05/15/5914/methodology
[6] CHARI, R.S., HOGAN, J., MURPHY, G. 2010. Regulating lobbying: a global comparison.
Manchester [England]; New York: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7937-5.
[7] CHARI, R.S., HOGAN, J., MURPHY, G. 2007. Regulating Lobbyists: A Comparative Analysis of
the United States, Canada, Germany and the European Union. The Political Quarterly; 78(3):
422–438. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2007.00870.x
[8] GRIFFITH, G. 2008. [online] The Regulation of Lobbying. [Sydney]: NSW Parliamentary
Library Research Service, Briefing paper No. 5. [cit. 2009-07-03]. Available on
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/TheRegulationof
Lobbying/$File/The+regulation+of+lobbying+No+5-2008+and+index.pdf

[9] HOLMAN, C., LUNEBURG, W. 2012. Lobbying and transparency: A comparative analysis of
regulatory reform. Interest Groups & Advocacy; 1(1): 75–104. doi:10.1057/iga.2012.4
[10] KALNIŅŠ, V. 2005. [online] Parliamentary Lobbying between Civil Rights and Corruption: An
insight into lobbying practices in Latvia and recommendations for the Saeima. Latvian
Institute of International Affairs, Centre for Public Policy PROVIDIUS [cit. 2009-07-03].
Available on www.politika.lv/index.php?f=249
[11] KRETSCHMER, H., SCHMEDES, H. J. 2010. Enhancing Transparency in EU Lobbying?
How the European Commission’s Lack of Courage and Determination Impedes Substantial
Progress. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft; 26(1): 112–122.
[12] KUBOVÁ, R., PITROVÁ, M. 2013. Rejstřík transparentnosti EU: Hodnocení regulačních
pravidel podle CPI. Středoevropské politické studie; 15(4): 324–341.
doi:10.5817/CEPSR.2013.4.324
[13] KWIATKOWSKI, B. et al. 2016. [online] Lobbying – a risk or an opportunity? Lobbying
regulation in the Polish, Slovak and Czech perspective. Krakow: Frank Bold. Available on
http://en.frankbold.org/sites/default/files/publikace/analyza_lobbying__web.pdf
[14] LABOUTKOVÁ, Š., VYMĚTAL, P. 2016 forthcoming. The Elements of Transparent Lobbying
(Case of the Czech Republic). Paper presented on 21st CEPSA conference “Challenges for
political leaders in Central and Eastern Europe”, 3rd–4th June 2016, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
[15] LABOUTKOVÁ, Š., VYMĚTAL, P. 2011. Transparentnost a regulace v lobbingu. Scientia et
Societas; 7(3): 79–94.
[16] MÜLLER, K.B., SKOVAJSA, M. 2009. From Reflections on Post-Communism to Perspectives on
Europeanization: Democracy and Civil Society in Central Europe. International Political
Science Review, 30(5): 501–517.
[17] OECD. 2010 (updated 2013). [online] The 10 Principles for Transparency and Integrity in
Lobbying. Paris: OECD [cit. 2016-10-01]. Available on
http://www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/Lobbying-Brochure.pdf
[18] OGD. 2007. [online] The 8 Principles of Open Government Data (OpenGovData.org) [cit. 2016-
10-01]. Available on https://opengovdata.org/.
[19] ŠIMRAL, V. 2016. Regulating Lobbying in Europe: No Model Fits All? Paper presented on 21st
CEPSA conference “Challenges for political leaders in Central and Eastern Europe”, 3rd–4th
June 2016, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
[20] TI. 2015. [online] Lobbying in Europe: hidden influence, privileged access. Berlin: Transparency
International [cit. 2016-09-30]. Available on
http://files.transparency.org/content/download/1909/12646/file/2015_LobbyingInEurop
e_EN.pdf
[21] TI UK. 2015. [online] Open Governance Scorecard Methodology. London: Transparency
International UK [cit. 2016-09-12]. Available on http://www.transparency.org.uk/wp-
content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=1492
[22] VYMĚTAL, P. 2016 forthcoming. Lobbyists registers as the main measure of lobbying
regulation? Paper presented on 14th International Scientific Conference
“Economic Policy in the European Union Member Countries”
September 14–16, 2016, Petrovice u Karviné, Czech Republic.
[23] VYMĚTAL, P. 2015. Comparison of Models of Lobbying Regulation in EU Countries. In
Machová, Z., Tichá, M. (eds.). Proceedings of the 13th International Conference „ECONOMIC
POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER COUNTRIES“, p. 750–760 [cit. 2016-09-28].
Available on http://www.ekf.vsb.cz/export/sites/ekf/hpveu/.content/galerie-
dokumentu/2015-proceedings/69_Vymetal.pdf.