The representation of migrant and refugee interests by European umbrella organisations: evidence of strain?

The representative capacity of interest groups: explaining how issue features shape membership involvement when establishing policy positions

“…From a leadership perspective, the varying roles implemented and identified here might be the most logical and pragmatic way to manage member involvement. As stated by Strolovitch (2007 p. 208), “not every organization can represent every constituent or potential constituent at all times, nor can organization flout the exigencies of organizational maintenance or focus exclusively on disadvantaged subgroups to the exclusion of majorities and advantaged groups.” However, the inability to represent different members may lead to what is described as the “representational strain,” where “some interests are better represented than others” (Schnyder 2016 p. 748 see also Rodekamp 2014; Kröger 2018). In other words, policy positions – even those that are characterized as “unifying issues” – might not always be representing all the members, particularly when interest groups have members that vary considerably in terms of resources.…”

“…2020). More specifically, Schnyder (2016) studies “which issues figure most prominently in the umbrellas’ work, and how well they mirror the priorities of the constituency” and finds that issues of high importance to (some) members are not always sufficiently addressed by umbrella groups. Relatedly, Strolovitch (2006) examines which policy issues are prioritized within interest groups by distinguishing between majority issues, disadvantaged-subgroup issues, and advantaged-subgroup issues.…”

“…Interest groups whose members are organizations (e.g., firms and NGOs) and/or associations (e.g., trade and professional associations, or federations of NGOs) are particularly relevant because they enjoy high degrees of access and influence among public officials at the national (Binderkrantz et al 2015; Fraussen et al. 2015) and supranational level – particularly in the European Union (EU) (Schnyder 2016; Berkhout et al. 2017; Albareda and Braun 2019).…”

“…2017; Albareda and Braun 2019). By representing the interest of their organizational members, these interest groups perform a vital intermediary function at the EU level because they are expected to connect societal voices with policymakers (Rodekamp 2014; Schnyder 2016; Kröger 2018). As a result of their representative nature and often sizable constituency, these interest groups can contribute to an efficient and legitimate policy process that also facilitates policy implementation (Junk 2019).…”

Négocier des voies de passage sûres : comment les acteurs non étatiques participent à la gestion des frontières

“…Ces évolutions ont fait de l'Europe une véritable forteresse (Weber, 2013) et ont suscité des contestations multiples, allant du registre du secours (Pallister-Wilkins, 2017) à ceux de la dénonciation radicale (Monforte, 2016) et de la désobéissance civile (Lendaro, 2018). Parmi ces critiques de la frontière au nom de valeurs morales, des groupes mènent aussi des recours en justice -contre les pratiques de push-back (refoulement) ou de nonsecours (Basilien-Gainche, 2016) -, ou encore des activités de plaidoyer : celles-ci sont souvent le fait d'organisations-parapluies (Schnyder, 2016), d'experts universitaires ou d'ONG faiblement connectés aux mouvements sociaux (Guiraudon, 2001). Les moments critiques sont toutefois l'occasion de mobilisations plus larges de l'opinion (Dany, 2019), et de porosités entre les interventions par le haut de plaidoyers sur les politiques migratoires et, par le bas, sur des pratiques localisées de contrôle des personnes autorisées à entrer.…”