The INTEREURO Project: Logic and structure

Abstract

This article outlines both the overall structure of the INTEREURO Project (Comparative Research on Interest Group Politics in Europe) and the theoretical foci, research activities and data sets generated by its several modules. We provide this description for two purposes. First, it provides a necessary backdrop for understanding the remaining essays in this special issue. Importantly, we do not believe that the methodological challenges we faced are unique to the INTEREURO Project. Rather, they characterize any large-N research project on interest representation. Thus, we hope that these articles based on the INTEREURO Project are useful to a broad range of scholars. Our second purpose is to describe for the wider community of interest organization scholars the INTEREURO Project and the data generated thereby.

The Participation of Slovenian Civil Society Organisations in EU Policymaking: Explaining their Different Routes

“…The INTEREURO survey (Beyers, Chaqués Bonafont, Dür, Eising et al 2014a;Intereuro 2014): Based on a sample of the 20 most salient EU legislative proposals on the EU agenda between 2008 and 2010 (Beyers, Dür, Marshall & Wonka 2014b), we selected the most salient EU legislative proposals according to their mass media prominence. We decided on policy-centred sampling and to include the most salient issues to ensure that lobbying would take place (Beyers et al 2014b).…”

“…In line with our research question, we analysed the different routes national CSOs may take to participate in the EU policy formulation and implementation stages. We operationalised each route using interview questions posed to 23 CSOs from the INTEREURO survey (Beyers et al 2014a). Those routes and questions are:  Direct route operationalised by direct contacts with EU institutions during policy formulation (how regularly have you provided information to the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Council of the European Union?).…”

“…When all of these obstacles are considered, it is no surprise that direct contacts with EU institutions in the Slovenian case are quite rare. As many as 15 of the organisations interviewed (more than two-thirds) had never approached any EU institution (Beyers et al 2014a). The most active are organisations from the environment & energy policy field (see Table 1).…”

“…Slovenian CSOs have little contact with EU officials since most contacts seem to be directed toward individual MEPs (five organisations, see Table 1) and national officials in specialised working groups of the Council. In both cases, organisations approach national contacts (Slovenian MEPs and Slovenian ministers in the Council), who function as a bridge to EU institutions (Beyers et al 2014a). Further, when we compare these figures with an analysis of 97 interest groups (Fink-Hafner et al 2012), contacts with EU-level institutions are similarly rare.…”

“…In our case, more than half the organisations network with EU-level CSOs when participating in EU-level policy outcomes. (Beyers et al 2014a). …”