Overview of courses

1. Overview of courses

2. TRIP TO BRUSSELS (with Hans Diels) • 07:45: Everybody is expected to gather in Antwerp Centraal Station (train departs at 08:06) • 09:45 Arrival European Parliament • 10:00-12:00 : Panel discussion on Interest Group Politics • Topics: • - Which sort of strategies or resources are useful in order to gain influence? • - How should groups organize themselves in order to survive in Brussels? • - Interest groups: facilitating or hindering representative governance? • - Registering interest groups: how far should we go? • - Is there a business bias in the interest group system? • Interesting cases of success and failure of interest groups. • Participants: Bart Staes (MEP, Greens/European Free Alliance), Erik Wesselius (Alter EU), Dr. Pieter Bouwen (European Commission/Visiting Professor KULeuven), Pieter Verhelst (Boerenbond, Belgian Farmers Union), Dr. Stijn Billiet (Coordinator sp.a delegation to the EP), Moderator: Prof. Jan Beyers (University of Antwerp)

3. TRIP TO BRUSSELS (with Hans Diels) 12:00-14:00: Lunch at the European parliament 14:00-15:00: European Commission: Speech by Mr. Gerard Legris, Head of the unit responsible for Transparency and relations with stakeholders in the Secreteriat General about the ‘Register for Interest Representatives. 16:00-17:30: The daily life of a lobbyist (Weber Shandwick offices) Lecture by James Watson (Account Director Public Affaris, Weber-Shandwick) about working day to day as a lobbyist.

4. Assignment • “Successful completion of the summer school will be awarded with a certificate indicating 3 credits according to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). Awarding this certificate depends on two conditions; firstly, active participation in the course and, secondly, writing a short essay (about 10 pages).” • active participation, reading, questions, discussion… • a 10-page essay which includes: • a short literature review regarding a topic related to the course • this could be related to your PhD-thesis or research • it is not expected to present original research or data • you are allowed to co-author this essay • deadline: Tuesday 6 July at 17:00 • presentations at 7 July between 15:00 and 17:00 • facilities, library, internet-access (see Piet De Vroede)

5. Groups as democratizing agents? (II) Why studying interest groups? ‘… policies emerge from the interaction of parties, bureaucrats, companies, membership-based groups, trade bodies, groups with few members, competing elites and public opinion’ Jordan, Halpin and Maloney, 2004

6. The influence production process Lowery, D. and H. Brasher (2004). Organized Interests and American Government. New York, Mc Graw Hill; and Lowery, D. and V. Gray (2004). "A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests." Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 163-175.

7. Names and people • de Toccqueville • Putnam • Rousseau • Madison • Truman • Olson • Schattschneider • Streeck and Schmitter • opinions range from • -> hostile: specific interest organizations at the disadvantage of the general interest • -> optimistic: civil society organizations that empowers citizens

8. Name dropping interest groups interest organizations interest associations pressure groups special interest organization citizen groups public interest groups voluntary organizations (page 198, Jordan et al.) non governmental organizations social movement organizations civil society organizations

9. What is an interest group? • organizations (identifiable) • political interests (a function) • informality (do not seek governing power) • -> diversity and quantity • potentially very large • membership • goals: specialized – general • institutionalized define by function or by a priori normative criteria ~ bottom-up versus top-down Jordan, G., D. Halpin, et al. (2004). "Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Directions?" British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 195-212.

10. Jordan, Halpin and Maloney (2004) • pressure participant • policy participant • interest or pressure group (page 205) • policy-centred group • Excercise • Greenpeace, Nokia, BEUC, ERT, Business Europe, University of Antwerp

11. Mair (2006) • Record low turnouts since 1990 • Electoral volatility peaking in the 1990s • Declining ratios of party membership to the electorate • Declines in absolute numbers of party members • Policymaking that is increasingly segmented • Non-majoritarian policymaking, less electoral competition Mair, P. (2006). Polity-Scepticism, Party Failings, and the Challenge to European Democracy. Ulenbeck Lecture.

12. UK Governing Party Membership Trends Party Year Membership Labour 1952 1,014,000 Labour 2007 200,000 Conservative 1953 2,806,000 Conservative 2006 247,394 Source: Guardian Unlimited, 12th June 2007; 24dash.com 2006; Jordan and Maloney, 2007.

13. 2006 Directory of British Associations 7755 organizations (48% formed between 1966-1995) ------------------------------------------------- Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 1 million Amnesty International, Greenpeace, FoE, Countryside Alliance ALL +100,000

14. Groups in the Netherlands Braun-Poppelaars, C., J. Berkhout, et al. (2010). Belangenorganisaties in de Nederlandse democratie: beleidsexperts of vertegenwoordigers, unpublished manuscript.

16. Note: Source: General Secretariat of the European Commission. CONNECS data set, May 2002. Vertical lines denote the implementation of different treaties or treaty changes.

17. BIAS bias is not simply a matter of variation among a given population, in particular not in the EU • some sections of society are difficult to organize: => can we blame the interest group system for this? • re-organized by political institutions: 1% of the EU budget, some get 80 to 90% of their budget from the EU => logic institutions want not to be dependent on one single interest • citizens support so-called civil society organizations are not a representative sample of society; middle class => skewed citizen involvement can some re-distributive effects • much bias is the result of group specialization and the division of competencies • not a matter of EU institutions granting no access

18. What is the democratic potential of interest groups? Source: Halpin, D. R. (2006). "The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation." Public Administration 84(4): 919-940.

19. Groups as democratizing agents? (II) Implications Implications • internal democracy (involving members, consultation) is difficult for solidarity groups (see Maloney) • members are a costs; succesful diffuse interest organizations are strongly professionalized and features characterised by weak membership input • “deliberation” • with citizens will be weak • if it occurs; it will be mediated through the media, • for legitimating positions, epistemic claims will prevail • “representativeness” is a tricky device for granting and regulating access

20. Groups as democratizing agents? (II) Theoretical perspectives (Lowery and Gray, 2004) • the pluralist perspective; representation (Truman) • the economic perspective; exchange perspective (Olsen) • the neo-pluralist perspective • CA is not that severe • enterpreneurs • not all membership-based • weak evidence -> population dependency (David Lowery) -> no micro-level bias (168) -> also competition for maintenance (among politically similar organizations) -> contingency and context (see difference) -> variation in strategic context

21. Pluralism as a network of interest intermediation

22. Groups as democratizing agents? (II) Neo-corporatism (Streeck and Kenworthy, 2005) ORIGINS • limits of the Jacobin state • Catholic social doctrine, subsidiarity • end class conflict (left and right) Post-war political economic settlement in continental and Nordic European countries • can be conceived as an exchange (pp. 446-7) • difference with pluralism • macro- versus meso-corporatism • surrounded by ideological controversy • logic of influence versus logic of membership (p. 451-2) See also: Schmitter, P. C. and W. Streeck (1999 [1982]). The organization of business interest. Studying associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. Discussion paper 99/1. Cologne, Germany, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

23. Corporatism as a network of interest intermediation logic of influence versus logic of membership Schmitter, P. C. and W. Streeck (1999 [1982]). The organization of business interest. Studying associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. Discussion paper 99/1. Cologne, Germany, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.