Connecting Society and Policymakers? Conceptualizing and Measuring the Capacity of Civil Society Organizations to Act as Transmission Belts

Abstract

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are considered important intermediaries between citizens and policymakers. They are assumed to function as transmission belts that filter societal preferences and channel them to policymakers. Although the ability of CSOs to connect civil society with policymakers has been put into question, it has rarely been theoretically specified and empirically tested. This paper develops a conceptualization of CSOs that examines their capacity to function as transmission belts. It does so by distinguishing two organizational dimensions related to member involvement and organizational capacity. The paper draws on a large survey of CSOs active at the EU to empirically assess these organizational dimensions and relate them to basic CSOs' characteristics. The findings indicate that one out of three organizations approximates the ideal-type transmission belt. The findings contribute to a better understanding and assessment of CSO's potential contribution to policy-making in representative democracies.

Organizing Transmission Belts: The Effect of Organizational Design on Interest Group Access to EU Policy‐making

“…First, as has been demonstrated, organizational design of interest groups matters. Future research should focus on how precisely it affects successful mobilization and political advocacy (Albareda, 2018). Therefore, future research could for instance delve into governance structures of interest groups and examine other relevant factors such as the professionalization of the staff (Klüver, 2012); the identity of the organization (Halpin and Daugbjerg, 2015); the autonomy of and the relationship between governance and executive boards (Martínez-Díaz, 2009); and the behavioural dimension of organizations (Saz-Carranza and Ospina, 2011).…”

“…The transmission belt function is a complex issue of organizational design, yet how interest groups organize themselves to successfully fulfill such intermediary positions is a relatively understudied phenomenon (but see Albareda, 2018). As Halpin (2014, p. 1) observes: 'Scholars would no doubt accept them [issues of organizational design] as salient, but they remain understudied.…”

The costs of interest representation – a resource perspective on informational lobbying

“…This also explains why groups with political capacities are able to provide a combination of both types of information, which, ultimately, may allow more efficient lobbying through the provision of different types of information. A potential explanation is that groups do not only learn about preferences when they interact with their members and supporters but also gather policy relevant expert information (Wright, 1996;Johansson and Lee, 2014;Albareda, 2018). Hence, close interactions with citizens and knowledge on public preferences seem to be valuable resources for an interest group that can be used for providing information to policymakers.…”

“…Interest groups are commonly described as intermediates between citizens and the policymaking level by organizing, aggregating, and transmitting public preferences (Truman, 1951;Wright, 1996;Rasmussen et al, 2014;Eising and Spohr, 2017). Yet it requires certain organizational features to generate policy-relevant information and act efficiently as a transmission belt, and groups vary in their capacities to do so (Albareda, 2018;Albareda and Braun, 2018). The capacity to act as a transmission belt is thus, among other things, determined by how such groups organize their information flows, that is, how they interact with their members and supporters and how such information can be channelled to the policymaking level (ibid.).…”

“…This also speaks to a line of research that looks more at the internal organization of groups and how they interact with their members. Groups that want to transmit the preferences of their members and constituents to policymakers have to be attentive to their members' preferences (Albareda, 2018). This, however, requires certain organizational features that facilitate the alignment of preferences with members (Kohler-Koch, 2010) such as consultations, internal surveys, plenary discussions, meetings, and working groups (Albareda, 2018).…”