Lobby Groups and political consultancy Flashcards
Classification possibilities of interest groups
(- legal definition)
- group membership structure (no members, individuals, mixed membership, organisational members)
- scope (general, sectoral, trade union, occupational, individual)
- level of mobilisation (international, EU, national, regional)
- size (staff, budget)
EU Transparency register classifications
- professional consultancy/ law-firms/ self-employed consultants
- in-house lobbyists and trade/business/professional associations (most registrants)
- non-governmental organisations
- think-tanks, research and academic institutions
- organisations representing churches and religious communities
- organisations representing local, regional and municipal authorities
-> further split-ups on lower levels possible
Group membership - typical levels of European Associations
Firms (level 1) join in national organisations (level 2); national organisations unite in European associations (level 3)
Pro + cons of European Associations
Pro:
- large budget/staff, highly specialised staff
Cons:
- finding a consensus can be difficult (27 national associations)
- individual firms started lobbying, too, decreasing the influence of the European association
- > initiatives to engage firms more closely with the association’s work
Mixed membership of European associations
e. g.:
- national associations, European associations, firms (e.g. FoodDrinkEurope)
- national associations, firms (European Federation of Bottled Waters)
Organisations with no (formal) membership
- political consultancy, law firms
- think tanks
- other formats: networks, houses, …
Geographical scope of European associations
Firms have no “geography”:
- most European associations cover all EU MS + often EEA
- activities focus on EU institutions
- national associations often have their own Brussels office (in addition)
Sectoral scope of associations
- some groups represent general interests
- others are sector-specific
- some are very specific
- firms
- in terms of information: highly specialised sectoral associations
On which levels are interest groups active?
Inside: backstage, expert groups, advisory bodies, etc.
Outside: the ‘arena’ where IGs communicate among themselves, with policy-makers + their own constituents (in addition to outside lobbying)
Nature of political issues
First order norms:
very particularistic, concern a few IGs, highly technical and sector-specific; narrow range of groups needed, no large coalitions required (e.g. the specifics of a specific policy plan)
Second order norms: dividing issues, diverging opinions, large number of groups involved; concern a sector, no spill-over to broader political environment (e.g. policy options)
Third order norms: unifying issues, relatively uncommon, legitimacy of a policy discussed (not necessarily a practical solution) (e.g. Should we regulate?)
Directional vs. instrumental influence
- directional: general policy shift which entails a profound shift in policy views
- instrumental: adapt existing policy tools
Modes of interaction
- bargaining: influencing through delivering expertise, knowledge
- > aim to get e.g. favourable regulation, subsidy
- arguing: aiming at changes in factual beliefs/preferences, framing of interpretations and understandings (no intention to change something specific)
- acquiescence: try to influence voting behaviour
Organisational diversity - relevant dimensions within IGs
- encompassiveness: differing in terms of scope
- leadership autonomy: dependence on constituency for the chosen course of action (less autonomous -> limited flexibility; more autonomous -> less inhibited by internal decision-making)
Strengths and weaknesses of different organisational formats
Activities of highly specialised IGs
- would usually be relevant for first/second order issues where influence is instrumental
- bargaining
- use inside arena
Activities of encompasing IGs
- would usually be relevant for second/third order issues where influence is directional
- arguing, agenda setting
- use inside and outside arena
Pros and cons of political consultancy services
Pros:
- allow firms or IGs to outsource some tasks
- for smaller IGs and firms: advice on stragety and procedure
- showing members that they receive ‘value’ for membership fees (credible costly signal)
- firms can lobby outside of an association, if common position is unsufficient for them
- EU consultants might be helpful for seeking alliance partners on a specific proposal + assisting alliance in lobbying strategy, communication, etc.
Cons:
- financial costs
- loss of control of an operation
- risk of losing own network among policy-makers
Empirics of consultancy hiring
- business IGs are more likely to hire consultants than non-business IGs
- lobbying budget is most likely to be between €10,000 and €99,999
Guéguen’s current model of lobbying
Impact of unity and conflict between an association and individual firm lobbying
- alignment: both association and firm lobby on the same issue at the same time; members engage in costly lobbying to support association’s position
- > higher predicted lobbying success
- opposition: lobbying on the same issue, diverging preferences
- > least efficient form of lobbying
- delegation: association takes position on an issue, member firm stays silent
- > mediocre predicted lobbying success
- control: firm lobbies on an isssue, but association stays silent
- > mediocre predicted lobbying success
-> with individual firms being more active in lobbying, it became more challenging + possible conflicts between associations and individual firms
