Recent scholarly work on higher education institutions (HEIs) within an EU context has focused on how universities and their core activities have been affected by EU education policy. The... Show moreRecent scholarly work on higher education institutions (HEIs) within an EU context has focused on how universities and their core activities have been affected by EU education policy. The organisation of HEIs in order to shape European decision-making on higher education, mainly through their presence in Brussels, has received much less attention. This article therefore focuses on how HEIs organise their EU representation and explains their choice for a specific organisational form, distinguishing between individual (i.e. a Brussels office), collective (i.e. via an association) and mixed representation (the combination of both a Brussels office and membership of an association). After systematically mapping the organisational form of 250 HEIs, we apply a mixed methods design to test our hypotheses derived from previous research on interest representation and lobbying. Our findings illustrate that the distance from Brussels is a key factor in the decision to open a Brussels office or join an association, whereas financial resources appear imperative for combining both forms of representation. Furthermore, we identify additional underlying motives for choosing a particular mode of representation, in particular the importance of information exchange, visibility and networking. Show less
The bureaucratic reputation literature stipulates that bureaucracies strategically aim to maximize reputational benefits and minimize reputational damages through targeted communication strategies... Show moreThe bureaucratic reputation literature stipulates that bureaucracies strategically aim to maximize reputational benefits and minimize reputational damages through targeted communication strategies. Departing from this assumption and using an extensive dataset on the media coverage of 54 legislative acts, we examine the conditions under which commissioners appear in the news and which communication strategies they pursue. Our analyses show that commissioners are more likely to appear in news coverage in the context of technically complex issues. We find that if a regulation is less politically conflictual, they are more likely to promote the commission's policy preferences, whereas they adopt a more passive style of communication in the face of political conflict. The findings further our understanding of regulatory policymaking by explaining bureaucratic behaviour through a communicational lens. Show less
This chapter focuses on the consultation approaches and tools government have at their disposal to manage the agenda-setting phase and organize consultation process and, in this way, shape the... Show moreThis chapter focuses on the consultation approaches and tools government have at their disposal to manage the agenda-setting phase and organize consultation process and, in this way, shape the participation and formulation of policy demands by external stakeholders. It outlines three types of consultation approaches: open, closed, and hybrid. The chapter then describes the strategies and motives that clarify preferences for certain consultation tools and approaches, addressing these questions from the perspectives of policymakers as well as external stakeholders. When designing consultation processes, determining specific approaches, and selecting particular tools, a central point of attention involves the extent to which they create an equal playing field among external stakeholders. This notion can be related to the treatment of policy participants and the way in which their input is processed, as well as to the open nature of the process and the ease of participation. The chapter finally addresses these two key characteristics of consultation processes and their fairness and inclusiveness. Show less
Fraussen, B.; Albareda, A.; Braun, C.H.J.M.; Maloney, W. 2021
Interest groups are perceived as vehicles that can enhance the legitimacy of public institutions at the national and supranational level. However, the potential of these organizations to enhance... Show moreInterest groups are perceived as vehicles that can enhance the legitimacy of public institutions at the national and supranational level. However, the potential of these organizations to enhance democratic representation is often questioned and has rarely been systematically analysed. In this article, we examine the under-researched area of interest group accountability, a key component for groups to realize their democratic potential. To do this, we take an organization-centric and top-down perspective and develop a tailored analytical framework including three key dimensions—information, discussion and consequences. Drawing on data from a large-scale survey of interest groups active at the EU level, we find considerable variation in the extent to which groups demonstrate practices related to these three accountability dimensions. Furthermore, while receiving funding from EU institutions does not have any significant effect on interest group accountability, we find that organizations representing businesses interests more frequently develop accountability practices related to the dimensions of discussion and consequences, whereas citizen groups are more focused on the information dimension. Show less
Students of public policy have rightly spent considerable effort setting out the types of policy instruments or tools available to policy makers, the way these are packaged up, and the comparative... Show moreStudents of public policy have rightly spent considerable effort setting out the types of policy instruments or tools available to policy makers, the way these are packaged up, and the comparative effectiveness of combinations. Recent work has extended the policy tools framework beyond a more or less exclusive focus on implementation to other stages of the policy cycle. One nascent strand of this important work concerns the agenda-setting phase, where scholars aim to understand the instruments – procedural and structural – that government uses to shape the issues that it has to address (in terms of both volume and content). For scholars of organised interests this debate holds particular relevance, given that groups are one of the primary agents charged with making policy demands. Yet there has been little engagement between scholarship on interest groups and this ongoing discussion around agenda-setting tools. This chapter probes agenda setting from the interest group perspective. It identifies the range of drivers that shape decisions by groups to prioritise issues onto their lobbying agendas. It then unpacks four dimensions of interest group agendas, and ultimately identifies ideal-type agenda-setting styles. Show less
Gaining an audience on social media is an important goal of contemporary policy advocacy. While previous studies demonstrate that advocacy-dedicated nonprofit organizations—what we refer to as... Show moreGaining an audience on social media is an important goal of contemporary policy advocacy. While previous studies demonstrate that advocacy-dedicated nonprofit organizations—what we refer to as advocacy groups—use different social media tools, we still know little about what specific audiences advocacy groups set out to target on social media, and whether those audiences actually engage with these groups. This study fills this gap, deploying survey and digital trace data from Twitter over a 12-month period for the Australian case. We show that while groups target a variety of audiences online, there are differences between group types in their strategic objectives and the extent to which particular audiences engage with them. Business groups appear to target elite audiences more often compared with citizen and professional groups, whereas citizen groups receive more online engagement from mass and peer audiences. Show less
Braun, C.; Albareda, A.; Fraussen, B.; Müller, M. 2020
Stakeholder engagement is often considered an essential component of regulatory policymaking and governance. Our main aim in this paper is to explain variation in stakeholder engagement across... Show moreStakeholder engagement is often considered an essential component of regulatory policymaking and governance. Our main aim in this paper is to explain variation in stakeholder engagement across regulatory trajectories. More specifically we aim to assess why some regulatory policymaking processes attract a larger and more diverse set of stakeholders, while others attract much smaller and more homogenous regulatory crowds. We build on a newly established dataset of primary data regarding stakeholder engagement in EU regulatory governance to test our assumptions. We find that both the salience and the number of different consultation instruments affect the density and diversity of stakeholder engagement, whereas the complexity of regulations seems to mainly affect the density of stakeholder engagement. The combination of both institutional and regulation-specific drivers of stakeholder engagement in regulatory governance yields relevant implications for the study of responsive regulation and the role stakeholders can fulfill in regulatory decision-making. Show less
Interest groups cannot advocate on every issue they might consider relevant. They must decide what issues to prioritise and which ones to leave to one side. In this article, we examine how groups... Show moreInterest groups cannot advocate on every issue they might consider relevant. They must decide what issues to prioritise and which ones to leave to one side. In this article, we examine how groups seek to balance different internal and external considerations when prioritizing issues, and which factors might explain variation in the relative strength of these drivers. We integrate data of a survey of national interest groups in Australia with findings from interviews with a cross section of high-profile groups. While the literature often suggests a clash between external political considerations and internal membership demands, we find that groups view these drivers as largely compatible. Our explanatory analysis points to the policy orientation and insider status of the group, its democratic character, and the extent to which it faces competition for membership contributions, as important factors shaping the relative strength of distinct drivers of internal agenda setting. Show less
Contemporary governance is increasingly characterized by the consultation of different types of stakeholders, such as interest groups representing economic and citizen interests, as well as public... Show moreContemporary governance is increasingly characterized by the consultation of different types of stakeholders, such as interest groups representing economic and citizen interests, as well as public and private institutions, such as public authorities and firms. Previous research has demonstrated that public officials use a variety of tools to involve these actors in policymaking. Yet, we have limited knowledge on how particular consultation approaches relate to stakeholder participation. To what extent do open, closed and hybrid consultation approaches, with the first two, respectively, referring to the use of public and targeted tools, and the third one implying a combination of both of them, relate to the policy engagement of a different set of stakeholders? In this paper, we identify the different tools used by the European Commission to engage stakeholders in policymaking and assess how variation in consultation approaches relates to stakeholder participation via a descriptive and multivariate analysis. We rely on two datasets: a regulatory database that contains detailed information on 41 EU regulations and a stakeholder database that comprises 2617 stakeholders that were involved in these regulations through different consultation tools. Our main finding is that implementing different consultation approaches affects stakeholder diversity. Specifically, closed consultation approaches lead to a lower level of business dominance than hybrid approaches that combine open and targeted consultation tools. Show less
Insight into the internal organization of interest groups is crucial for understanding their representative function and intermediary role in contemporary democracies. The particular organizational... Show moreInsight into the internal organization of interest groups is crucial for understanding their representative function and intermediary role in contemporary democracies. The particular organizational features of groups shape their ability to fulfill their potential as “transmission belts” between society and the state. Given these important repercussion of organizational choices, it is not surprising that decisions about the specific mission of the organization, the type of members, and their precise role in decision-making processes are often strongly contested when a new interest group is being established. Once these choices have been made, however, an organization’s mission and structure tend to be rather inert and mostly evolve in a path-dependent, incremental manner (Fraussen, 2014).This chapter defines interest groups as membership-based formal organizations, who seek to represent the interests of a particular constituency or advocate for a particular cause in the political arena. This chapter first clarifies the importance of the internal organization of interest groups and subsequently addresses the use and value of different group typologies. The last two sections focus on clarifying feature- and identity-based approaches for identifying variation in organizational form and explore how digital technologies might alter the organizational design of interest groups and how they conceive and involve their constituency. Show less
Interest groups—collective voluntary organizations for which political advocacy is a primary task such as business associations and citizen groups—are key agents engaging with the bureaucracy.... Show moreInterest groups—collective voluntary organizations for which political advocacy is a primary task such as business associations and citizen groups—are key agents engaging with the bureaucracy. While understudied, research on the relations between interest groups and civil servants highlights the importance of the bureaucratic arena. Recent studies present different perspectives on the interactions between these two actors and also highlight the process of issue prioritization, an important aspect of (internal) agenda setting within groups. This is a key process to study as it provides insight into why groups allocate their attention and resources to a specific set of policy issues, and in this way it clarifies how interest groups put representation into practice. Issue prioritization within groups can be conceptualized as being guided by five drivers: internal responsiveness, policy capacities, niche seeking, political opportunity structure, and issue salience. Recent scholarship has highlighted how rather than privileging one driver over another, this process is first and foremost a balancing exercise in which groups take on board various internal and external considerations. Similar processes are at work within bureaucracies. The intersection of prioritization processes of civil servants and interest groups is an important area for future research. Show less
Ascertaining which interest groups are considered relevant by policymakers presents an important challenge for political scientists. Existing approaches often focus on the submission of written... Show moreAscertaining which interest groups are considered relevant by policymakers presents an important challenge for political scientists. Existing approaches often focus on the submission of written evidence or the inclusion in expert committees. While these approaches capture the effort of groups, they do not directly indicate whether policy makers consider these groups as highly relevant political actors. In this paper we introduce a novel theoretical approach to address this important question, namely prominence. We argue that, in the legislative arena, prominence can be operationalised as groups being mentioned strategically – used as a resource – by elected officials as they debate policy matters. Furthermore, we apply a machine learning solution to reliably assess which groups are prominent among legislators. We illustrate this novel method relying on a dataset of mentions of over 1300 national interest groups in parliamentary debates in Australia over a six-year period (2010–2016). Show less
De vraag of lobbyregulering zinnig en effectief is, is niet gemakkelijk te beantwoorden. Enerzijds is belangenvertegenwoordiging een cruciale levensader voor elk democratisch politiek systeem,... Show moreDe vraag of lobbyregulering zinnig en effectief is, is niet gemakkelijk te beantwoorden. Enerzijds is belangenvertegenwoordiging een cruciale levensader voor elk democratisch politiek systeem, anderzijds leidt het regelmatig tot uitwassen die juist indruisen tegen de principes van een representatieve democratie. Een antwoord op de vraag of regulering van het lobbyproces zinnig is, moet dus zowel rekening houden met de essentie van het proces voor democratische besluitvorming als de onmiskenbaar negatieve externaliteiten. In dit stuk ontwikkelen wij een evaluatiekader gericht op drie belangrijke potentiële neveneffecten van belangenvertegenwoordiging: een ongelijk speelveld, ontoegankelijke en ondoorzichtige besluitvorming, en beleidsuitkomsten die belangenverstrengeling impliceren. In dit artikel nemen we de voorgestelde maatregelen in de initiatiefnota Lobby in Daglicht, alsook de daaropvolgende kabinetsreactie en genomen maatregelen nader onder de loep. We werpen hierbij de vraag op of dit pakket aan maatregelen en regelgeving een gepast antwoord vormt op de geïdentificeerde problemen, en meer fundamenteel of door de sterke focus op meer transparantie een aantal andere belangrijke aspecten van belangenvertegenwoordiging over het hoofd worden gezien. Onze belangrijkste conclusie is dat de huidige set aan maatregelen een blinde vlek heeft voor het meest fundamentele probleem met betrekking tot belangenvertegenwoordiging dat op alle vlakken doorwerkt, namelijk een ongelijk speelveld tussen verschillende maatschappelijke groepen. Show less
Communities of civil society organizations are characterized by substantial volatility, as new organizations are continuously established and old ones are regularly disbanded. This article aims to... Show moreCommunities of civil society organizations are characterized by substantial volatility, as new organizations are continuously established and old ones are regularly disbanded. This article aims to improve our understanding of the dynamic nature of civil society by focusing on a particular aspect of organizational maintenance, namely, mortality anxiety. Building upon previous work that assesses actual and perceived survival chances of civil society organizations, we examine how inter-organizational competition, ties with public authorities, and the internal institutionalization of civil society organizations shape how these groups assess their survival chances. Our results demonstrate that high levels of inter-organizational competition and a strong reliance on government funding significantly increase mortality anxiety. Furthermore, they highlight the importance of a professionalized and internally differentiated structure. We rely on survey data and focus on the case of Belgium, in this way providing a first assessment of mortality anxiety in a neo-corporatist political system. Show less
The ongoing embrace of interest groups as agents capable of addressing democratic deficits in governing institutions is in large part because they are assumed to contribute democratic legitimacy to... Show moreThe ongoing embrace of interest groups as agents capable of addressing democratic deficits in governing institutions is in large part because they are assumed to contribute democratic legitimacy to policy processes. Nonetheless, they face the challenge of legitimating their policy advocacy in democratic terms, clarifying what makes them legitimate partners in governance. In this article we suggest that digital innovations have disrupted the established mechanisms of legitimation. While the impact of this disruption is most easily demonstrated in the rise of a small number of ‘digital natives’, we argue that the most substantive impact has been on more conventional groups, which typically follow legitimation logics of either representation or solidarity. While several legacy groups are experimenting with new legitimation approaches, the opportunities provided by technology seem to offer more organizational benefits to groups employing the logic of solidarity, and appear less compatible with the more traditional logic of representation. Show less
Although scholarship has highlighted the role of stakeholders in policy making, less is known about the preparations they make that lay the groundwork for their lobbying activities. This article... Show moreAlthough scholarship has highlighted the role of stakeholders in policy making, less is known about the preparations they make that lay the groundwork for their lobbying activities. This article links ideas on collaborative governance with the study of agenda setting within interest groups. We outline an orthodox mode of agenda setting that anticipates groups possess a proactive policy mode, an institutionalized policy platform, and a pyramid-like agenda structure. Subsequently, we use this orthodox mode as a heuristic device for examining agenda structures and processes, combining survey data on the practices of groups in Australia with illustrative qualitative evidence. Show less
