IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v21y2020i2p312-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining interest group access to the European Commission’s expert groups

Author

Listed:
  • Carl Vikberg

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that interest group access to the European Commission is biased in favor of specific interests and against diffuse interests. Yet, patterns of access vary between policy areas. In this article, I map and explain the relative access of specific and diffuse interests to the European Commission’s expert groups. I find that specific interests gain more access in general, but there are considerable variations across issues. I argue that variations in access across expert groups are explained by the relative ability of specific and diffuse interests to contest policies in different policy areas. This argument gains support by statistical analyses using a novel dataset comprising all expert groups with interest group participants. The findings suggest that a political logic helps explain variations in specific and diffuse interest access to the Commission.

Suggested Citation

  • Carl Vikberg, 2020. "Explaining interest group access to the European Commission’s expert groups," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 312-332, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:2:p:312-332
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116519886365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116519886365
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116519886365?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pollack, Mark A., 1994. "Creeping Competence: The Expanding Agenda of the European Community1," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 95-145, April.
    2. Dür, Andreas & De Bièvre, Dirk, 2007. "Inclusion without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 79-101, May.
    3. Åse Gornitzka & Ulf Sverdrup, 2015. "Societal Inclusion in Expert Venues: Participation of Interest Groups and Business in the European Commission Expert Groups," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 151-165.
    4. Mark A. Pollack, 2000. "The End of Creeping Competence? EU Policy‐Making Since Maastricht," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 519-538, September.
    5. Arndt Wonka & Iskander De Bruycker & Dirk De Bièvre & Caelesta Braun & Jan Beyers, 2018. "Patterns of Conflict and Mobilization: Mapping Interest Group Activity in EU Legislative Policymaking," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 136-146.
    6. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Lohmann, Susanne, 1998. "An Information Rationale for the Power of Special Interests," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(4), pages 809-827, December.
    8. Iskander De Bruycker, 2016. "Pressure and Expertise: Explaining the Information Supply of Interest Groups in EU Legislative Lobbying," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 599-616, May.
    9. Rauh, Christian, 2019. "EU politicization and policy initiatives of the European Commission: the case of consumer policy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(3), pages 344-365.
    10. Rainer Eising, 2007. "Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 329-362, September.
    11. Coate, Stephen & Morris, Stephen, 1995. "On the Form of Transfers in Special Interests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(6), pages 1210-1235, December.
    12. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    13. Hanegraaff, Marcel & Beyers, Jan & Braun, Caelesta, 2011. "Open the door to more of the same? The development of interest group representation at the WTO," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 447-472, October.
    14. Marcel Hanegraaff, 2015. "Transnational Advocacy over Time: Business and NGO Mobilization at UN Climate Summits," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 83-104, February.
    15. Rasmussen, Anne & Carroll, Brendan J., 2014. "Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Union Online Consultations," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 445-459, April.
    16. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frederik Stevens & Iskander De Bruycker, 2020. "Influence, affluence and media salience: Economic resources and lobbying influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 728-750, December.
    2. Sarah Arras & Jan Beyers, 2020. "Access to European Union Agencies: Usual Suspects or Balanced Interest Representation in Open and Closed Consultations?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 836-855, July.
    3. Jan Beyers & Marcel Hanegraaff, 2017. "Balancing friends and foes: Explaining advocacy styles at global diplomatic conferences," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 461-484, September.
    4. Roman Senninger, 2017. "Issue expansion and selective scrutiny – how opposition parties used parliamentary questions about the European Union in the national arena from 1973 to 2013," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 283-306, June.
    5. Bert Fraussen & Adrià Albareda & Caelesta Braun, 2020. "Conceptualizing consultation approaches: identifying combinations of consultation tools and analyzing their implications for stakeholder diversity," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 473-493, September.
    6. Bastiaan Redert, 2020. "Stakeholder Mobilization in Financial Regulation: A Comparison of EU Regulatory Politics over Time," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1433-1451, November.
    7. Roberta Rocca & Katharina Lawall & Manos Tsakiris & Laura Cram, 2024. "Communicating Europe: a computational analysis of the evolution of the European Commission’s communication on Twitter," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1223-1274, October.
    8. Jale Tosun & Laura Zöckler & Benedikt Rilling, 2019. "What Drives the Participation of Renewable Energy Cooperatives in European Energy Governance?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 45-59.
    9. Justin Greenwood & Christilla Roederer-Rynning, 2019. "In the Shadow of Public Opinion: The European Parliament, Civil Society Organizations, and the Politicization of Trilogues," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 316-326.
    10. von Malmborg, Fredrik, 2022. "Theorising member state lobbying on European Union policy on energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Susanne Lohmann & Deborah M. Weiss, 2002. "Hidden Taxes and Representative Government: The Political Economy of the Ramsey Rule," Public Finance Review, , vol. 30(6), pages 579-611, November.
    12. Iskander De Bruycker & Anne Rasmussen, 2021. "Blessing or Curse for Congruence? How Interest Mobilization Affects Congruence between Citizens and Elected Representatives," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 909-928, July.
    13. Jan Beyers & Sarah Arras, 2021. "Stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of regulatory decision‐making: A survey experiment in Belgium," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 877-893, July.
    14. Guri Rosén, 2019. "Proving Their Worth? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Members of the European Parliament," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 266-278.
    15. Blom, Tannelie & Radulova, Elissaveta & Arnold, Christine, 2008. "Theorizing Modes of Governance in the EU: Institutional Design and Informational Complexity," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 4, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    16. Iskander De Bruycker, 2017. "Politicization and the public interest: When do the elites in Brussels address public interests in EU policy debates?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 603-619, December.
    17. Rauh, Christian, 2019. "EU politicization and policy initiatives of the European Commission: the case of consumer policy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 26(3), pages 344-365.
    18. Adam W. Chalmers, 2020. "Unity and conflict: Explaining financial industry lobbying success in European Union public consultations," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 391-408, July.
    19. Marcel Hanegraaff & Arlo Poletti, 2021. "It's economic size, stupid! How global advocacy mirrors state power," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1326-1349, October.
    20. Adam W Chalmers, 2013. "With a lot of help from their friends: Explaining the social logic of informational lobbying in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(4), pages 475-496, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:21:y:2020:i:2:p:312-332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.