Prioritizing professionals? How the democratic and professionalized nature of interest groups shapes their degree of access to EU officials

Abstract

Interest groups are key intermediary actors between civil society and public officials. The EU has long emphasized the importance of interacting with representative groups that involve their members. Additionally, there is an increasing trend toward the professionalization of groups that invest in organizational capacities to efficiently provide policy expertise. Both member involvement and organizational capacity are crucial features for groups to function as transmission belts that aggregate and transfer the preferences of their members to policymakers, thus reinforcing the legitimacy and efficiency of governance systems. Yet, not all groups have these organizational attributes. This paper quantitatively examines the effects of interest groups’ investment in member involvement and organizational capacity on the level of access to EU Commission officials. The results indicate that member involvement does not pay off in terms of higher levels of access. In contrast, groups with high organizational capacities have more meetings with public officials of the Commission.

Role orientation and organizational strategy among policy professionals in civil society

“…In relation to earlier research on professionalization and the tension created when interest organizations develop business-like strategies (Sanders and McClellan 2014;Kreutzer and Jäger 2011), this article emphasizes the tension between strategic decisions connected to role orientations that may have consequences for the democratic development, and for the CSO's potential contribution to civic engagement. The functional differentiation (Albareda 2020) and professionalization of civil society, understood as employing more experts (Salamon 1999), could perhaps enhance the organizations' advocacy performance, and it does not necessarily have to decrease members' involvement and internal democracy (Heylen et al 2020). This article, however, points specifically toward the importance of the types of policy professionals taking office within CSOs.…”

“…Not all types of policy professionals were interviewed across all organizations. However, judging by the organizations' web pages, all organizations in the selection can be characterized by high organizational capacity, meaning that they are skilled in generating policy expertise and a high level of access to decision-makers (see Albareda 2020).…”

“…Scholars have used a variety of terms to define strategy and policy engagement of CSOs (e.g., Grossmann 2012;Binderkrantz 2005;Halpin and Fraussen 2017;Albareda 2020). Some scholars distinguish between insider and outsider groups using different strategies (e.g., Grant 2000Grant , 2004Maloney et al 1994).…”

Approaching the legitimacy of self-appointed representatives: from responsiveness to reflexivity

“…The quest for success-in form of access-may oppose an interest group's inclination to assure legitimacy through reflexivity. Some scholars postulate that the biggest obstacle of achieving legitimate representation is the credo for effectiveness and with it, an increased professionalisation of interest groups (Albareda 2020;Maloney 2012Maloney , 2015Halpin 2006Halpin , 2010. This indicates a potential tradeoff between reflexivity and thus enhanced legitimacy on the one hand, and professionalisation and access on the other.…”

A matter of information, discussion and consequences? Exploring the accountability practices of interest groups in the EU

“…In contrast to transmission belt practice, many studies have shown a trend among groups towards professionalization characterized by elite-level (staff and leadership) dominated decision-making and less membership participation and involvement (Albareda 2020;Jordan and Maloney 1998;Halpin 2006Halpin , 2010Klüver and Saurugger 2013;Maloney 2015). As noted by van Deth and Maloney (2012, p. 2): 'From the beginnings of the 1980s we see a gradual organizational change.…”