It’s not all about the money: Explaining varying policy portfolios of regional representations in Brussels

Abstract

The literature on territorial lobbying in the European Union (EU) has paid much attention to the interaction between regional representations in Brussels and the member-state central governments, and the relations of these representations with the European institutions. Surprisingly, far less systematic research has been conducted on the policies that regional representations prioritize when they lobby in Brussels. In this article, we focus on the policy portfolios of these organizations and analyze variation concerning the domains and issues these regional representations prioritize. Empirically, we demonstrate that the size and the nature of a policy portfolio is not primarily affected by the capabilities of a regional representation, but rather results from structural ties of regional lobbyists with other public and private interests. This claim is corroborated by data collected through a telephone survey with 127 officials from regional offices and trans-regional associations.Regional authorities, that is sub-state jurisdictions such as provinces, counties, regions and länder, mobilize in large numbers in the European Union (EU), often by establishing a permanent representation in Brussels (Donas and Beyers, 2013a). Following Swenden et al (2006, p. 864) we denote these actors as regions, which are meso-level jurisdictions situated between local units of government (such as municipalities) and the central government. The Brussels-based representations of these entities act as communication channels between the region and the European institutions. They monitor policy developments in Brussels, functioning as a kind of

No place like home? Explaining venue selection of regional offices in Brussels

“…The identification of these policy processes relies on data collected through a telephone survey with 127 regional representations (conducted in the autumn of 2011 and winter of 2012; see Donas et al [2014]). These interviews pointed at four cases that were most salient to regional representations late 2011-early 2012: the Regional Policy Reform; the CAP Reform; TEN-T; and Horizon 2020.…”

Think tanks and strategic policy-making: the contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems

“…Like most political organizations, think tanks must make decisions as to which specific policy issues they will engage with (Halpin 2015, see also Donas et al 2014). Due to limited resources and attention, they cannot pursue all policy issues that possibly are of interest to them.…”

You'll Never Lobby Alone. Explaining the Participation of Sub‐national Authorities in the European Commission's Open Consultations

“…First, based on a survey amongst 127 regional offices conducted in 2011-12 we identified five policy areas that were considered as highly salient amongst regional representatives (for more details, see Donas et al, 2014). First, based on a survey amongst 127 regional offices conducted in 2011-12 we identified five policy areas that were considered as highly salient amongst regional representatives (for more details, see Donas et al, 2014).…”

“…In order to analyse the participation pattern of SNAs in open consultations, we mapped all the stakeholders that were active in eight consultations situated in five distinct policy areas. First, based on a survey amongst 127 regional offices conducted in 2011-12 we identified five policy areas that were considered as highly salient amongst regional representatives (for more details, see Donas et al, 2014). This concerns the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), EAP (Environment Action Programme), H2020 (Horizon 2020), COH (Cohesion Policy) and TEN-T (Trans-European Network for Transport).…”