New Trends in Interest Group Research

2.2 New Trends in Interest Group Research

The growing academic interest in societal associations in EU affairs since the mid-1980s (see Woll 2006 ) conjoined with the governance debate and generated studies which conceptualized the inclusion of interest groups as a necessary precondition for effective problem-solving.⁹ Interest group research shares an output-oriented conception of participation with studies on participatory or informal governance. But while the latter investigate instruments and governance arrangements from an encompassing, systemic point of view in order to understand the nature of the EU political system (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999 ), interest group research specifically investigates the conditions for successful or failing inclusion of interest groups in EU governance.

This chapter does not intend to give an exhaustive account of research on interest groups in EU affairs,¹⁰ but seeks to highlight two trends in interest group research which are relevant for the current debate on civil society in EU governance because they have generated research questions and/or explanatory frameworks proponents of civil society also pursue:

the impact of EU institutions on the dynamics and structure of interest representation at the different levels of the EU multi-level system, and

the inclusion of new types of actors which has generated comparative research questions and explanatory frameworks tying in with research on civil society.

Although it is usually assumed that EU-society relations are shaped by an interplay of institutional structures and interests and societal actors, scholars tend to focus either on institutional impact or on actors’ preferences and strategies (see Eising and Kohler-Koch 2005 ; Warntjen and Wonka 2004 ). For this essay, I am interested in interest group research which takes the governance structures of the European Union as a starting point and looks at the opportunities, constraints, and incentives it provides and how this mitigates the dynamics and structure of interest intermediation in the EU (for an overview see Kohler-Koch 1994 ). This strand of research has focused on different aspects of the EU polity and its impact on interest intermediation in the EU.

Rainer Eising, for example, explores the multi-level character of the EU polity and how it affects the strategies of business associations (see Mazey and Richardson 2002 ). He argues that multi-level players have greater capacities to gain access and influence in the EU polity than other organizations in his sample (Eising 2004 ). Christine Quittkat investigates, more specifically, how the EU has mitigated the structure and strategies of French and German business associations. She contends that although the EU political system’s properties lead to specific patterns of interest representation at the EU level, variations persist and can be explained by the national origin of interest groups (for a recent overview see Sanchez Salgado and Woll 2007 ; Quittkat 2002 ; Woll 2001 ).

Christine Mahoney tapers this institutional point of view and investigates the shaping of interest group participation by interventions of the European Commission. She argues that governmental institutions such as the Commission “have a remarkable and often unrecognized ability to influence the dynamics of the interest groups system. This influence can be brought about through incremental expansion of powers in treaties and escalation of control over specific issues by way of new legislation and regulations, as well as through budgetary allocations and the establishment of programs, agencies, and committees” (Mahoney 2004 : 462–463). Thomas Persson specifically investigates the impact of new involvement instruments, such as the Online Consultations introduced by the European Commission, on the structure of EU-level interest representation (Persson 2007 ).

These researchers’ interest in the ways and means of the EU polity to mitigate patterns and structure of interest intermediation is shared by proponents of the civil society approach. Many of them are concerned with the emergence of a European civil society, efforts of EU institutions to control these processes, and effects on the dynamics and structure of civil society at the level of the EU and member states (see Section 4.3). This leads to a second trend in interest group research that will be addressed here because it is important for the current debate of civil society in EU governance: Along with the extension of EU competences, interest group research has broadened its view beyond private interests in market related policies, such as competition and agriculture, by taking NGOs with diffuse interests in the field of environment, consumerism or social affairs into consideration (see Balme et al. 2002 ).

This broadened view has generated comparative research questions such as how equally different types of interests are represented at the EU level, what chances they have and which strategies they employ to gain access and influence in EU decision-making. These are questions civil society research may also be interested in as it explores all types of voluntary associations and their engagement in public affairs from the viewpoint of input legitimacy and authentic government ‘by the people’ (see Section 4.2). Questions of representation play an important role from this point of view. However, the inclusion of new types of actors in interest group research has not only generated new research questions circling around the concept of equal representation. It has also opened the view of interest group researchers for explanatory frameworks which tie in with research on civil society.

Thomas Persson’s quantitative analysis of more than 6,000 contributions to the online consultation on EU chemical policy, the so-called REACH system, has shown that two thirds of those submitting proposals to the Commission represent the industry while only six percent represented NGOs and other public interest groups (Persson 2007 ). Explanations for the unequal representation of different types of interests have been found at the level of interest groups’ material resources (Dür and De Bievre 2007 ; Bouwen 2004 ), at the level of membership, and in their cognitive capacities (Fairbrass and Warleigh 2002 ). Dür and De Bièvre study the impact of different types of interests in the field of EU trade policy. They suggest that NGOs with diffuse interests such as developmental, environmental and human rights groups do, in contrast to business interests, “not dispose of resources with which they can threaten or enhance political actors’ chances of re-election or re-appointment”. Hence, they “largely failed to shift policy outcomes in their favour” (Dür and De Bievre 2007 : 79).

At the level of interest group membership, problems of collective action have generated deeper insights into why not all interests are able to mobilize and represent their preferences equally (Greenwood 2002 ; Aspinwall and Greenwood 1997 ; van Waarden 1991 ). This framework has been used to explain different degrees of mobilization and effectiveness in EU politics. Diffuse interests such as NGOs in the field of development, human rights, environment or consumerism have been compared to special interests such as business or agriculture from this point of view. According to Mancur Olson’s utilitarian explanation (Olson Jr 1965 ), the readiness of individuals to organize and engage in collective action presupposes the existence of incentives which diffuse interests cannot adequately provide. This results in NGOs’ lacking the ability to offer resources such as mobilization of voters to political decision-makers and reduces the possibilities for diffuse interests to organize and become effectively involved in EU politics (Dür and De Bievre 2007 : 81–83; Jordan and Maloney 2007 ; Geyer 2001 ).

This type of interest group research overlaps with research on new social movements which, however, comes to a more optimistic assessment of NGOs’ ability to mobilize and gain influence in EU politics because it takes sociological explanations and cognitive factors into consideration. New social movement research has developed a distinctive framework to explain contentious politics, political mobilization, and political change (see Koopmans 1996 ; Tarrow 1991 ; Kriesi 1987 ; Section 4.2). Carlo Ruzza’s contribution in the edited volume on “Influence and interests in the European Union” (Ruzza 2002 ) highlights the expansion of interest group research towards sociological explanations.

Ruzza uses the concept of ‘frame-bridging’ to explain the flow of ideas from social movements to EU institutions via interest groups. This, in turn, explains the mobilization and impact of “social movement related public-interest associations” on EU policies in the field of environment, anti-racism and regionalism. Ruzza argues that “the presence and increasing popularity of collegial forms in politics, and the EU’s concern for transparency and the participation of civil society, foster frame-bridging processes” (Ruzza 2002 : 114–115). He also points to the importance of communication in consensus-oriented arenas to explain the impact of public interest groups in EU institutions (see Ruzza 2004 ; compare Pollack 1997 ), thus highlighting the significance of cognitive capacities to explain influence in the EU system of governance.

These trends have challenged the output-oriented conception of citizens’ involvement on which interest group research traditionally built. They shifted the attention of interest group researchers towards the input-dimension of democratic legitimacy (see Greenwood 2004 ; Bouwen 2003 ), and they encouraged the discussion of new explanatory frameworks which take cognitive factors into consideration (see Warleigh and Fairbrass 2002 ). This has facilitated the consolidation of research on interest groups, social movements, and civil society (see Smismans 2006a ; Knodt and Finke 2005 ; Balme et al. 2002 ). I will argue that most advocates of civil society in EU affairs are concerned with input oriented legitimacy and participatory democracy.

However, before I turn to research on civil society and participatory democracy in EU affairs, I will give a brief overview of theoretical conceptions of civil society and state-society relations in the next chapter. They will serve as a starting point for categorizing the literature on civil society and participatory democracy in EU governance in Section 4 of this essay.