Access and agenda-setting in the European Union: Advocacy NGOs in comparative perspective

Abstract

In the European Union (EU), rights advocacy NGOs increasingly seek to influence supranational policy making. The success of immigration and asylum NGOs in inserting themselves into policy making depends on existing (in)formal ties to EU institutions. In contrast, human rights-based NGOs received institutional support through the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) containing a civil society platform that aggregates NGO claims. This article applies a comparative framework derived from the literature on transnational advocacy, using the distinction between venues and frames as starting points for analysis. It compares both sets of NGOs, exploring issues of institutional access and agenda-setting, and examines the strategies and objectives of advocacy NGOs in these two different political settings: while immigration and asylum advocates rely mainly on pluralistic lobbying strategies and pre-given, exogenous institutional opportunity structures, Fundamental Rights Platform NGOs engage in a novel approach in which civil society actors endogenously co-constitute aspects of participatory governance in the EU. On the basis of interviews with NGOs and EU officials, we conclude that each of these strategies exhibit specific trade-offs based on the nature of the relationship to the EU institutions. It is argued that each type of access has its idiosyncratic drawback: while immigration and asylum advocacy may result in dispersed opportunities to steer outcomes at the EU level, the inclusion of rights-based NGOs in the FRA limits their strategic repertoire. Finally, issue-specificity also conditions agenda-setting as higher issue convergence enables more focused framing, while a diffuse issue spectrum yields weaker frames and authority.

The impact of media and NGOs on four European Parliament discourses about conflicts in the Middle East

“…This result indicates the need to explore the effects of social media on political agenda setting, a subject urgently requiring the attention of academic researchers. Even when our findings are limited to an agenda setting theoretical approach, the higher presence of traditional media over NGOs in the parliamentary agenda may also corroborate the thesis about the mediatization of political actors (Strömbäck, 2008) while also underscoring the difficulties NGOs still face accessing and influencing political institutions (Joachim, 2007; Thiel and Uçarer, 2014).…”

“…This result indicates the need to explore the effects of social media on political agenda setting, a subject urgently requiring the attention of academic researchers. Even when our findings are limited to an agenda setting theoretical approach, the higher presence of traditional media over NGOs in the parliamentary agenda may also corroborate the thesis about the mediatization of political actors (Strömbäck, 2008) while also underscoring the difficulties NGOs still face accessing and influencing political institutions (Joachim, 2007;Thiel and Uçarer, 2014). The fact that the presence of media (traditional and social) and NGOs has not increased over time and that their ups and downs throughout conflicts have been confirmed suggests less that the issue of public opinion has become increasingly relevant in parliamentary debates over time, and more that the presence of focusing events in conflicts (Cobb and Elder, 1971), particularly during phases of escalation, has become increasingly important.…”

“…NGOs are regarded as an important influence on the formation of the public agenda as well as on the local, national and international political agendas (Joachim, 2007; Mathews, 1997; Teggen et al, 2004). This is mainly because NGOs have gained credibility as well as the confidence of institutions and the public (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2002; Thiel and Uçarer, 2014), and because they possess hands-on experience and updated information about what is happening in warring regions (Jordan and Van Tuijl, 2000). Although the influence of NGOs has been widely recognized at climate talks and is unparalleled in any other area (Mathews, 1997), its importance to issues involving violent conflicts seems assured, given that producing and disseminating conflict-related knowledge have become fundamental aspects of their mission (Meyer and Sangar, 2015).…”

Organizações internacionais não-governamentais no sistema de governança global: a ICAN e o tratado sobre a proibição de armas nucleares

“…A estrutura de oportunidade se refere às dimensões do ambiente político as quais as oings estão integradas que podem tanto impor constrangimentos, quanto proporcionar oportunidades para o exercício de suas atividades e, portanto, impactam em sua capacidade de promover mudanças na estrutura de governança global (Joachim, 2007;Thiel & Uçarer, 2014). Joachim (2007) identifica três aspectos centrais que compõe a estrutura de oportunidade das oings: (i) o acesso a órgãos decisórios internacionais, (ii) a presença de aliados em meio aos demais governadores globais; (iii) a existência de alinhamentos políticos contrários e de divergência percebida de interesses entre os Estados (Joachim, 2007).…”

CSOs and EU Border Management: Cooperation or Resistance? The Case of Frontex Consultative Forum

“…However, while the already complex multilevel system of governance creates new access points for CSOs, it also increases the challenges for CSOs to be able to cope with such a system. Moreover, the issue areas of border control, migration, and asylum are currently among the most politicized and complex policies in the EU (Thiel & Uçarer, 2014), thus making it very complex for poorly organized and scarcely resourceful organizations to remain updated and informed. Indeed, in this field competences are blurred, and actors change rapidly considering the need for swift response in a continuously evolving situation.…”