‘With or without you’? Revisiting territorial state-bypassing in EU interest representation

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

“…On the contrary, irrespective of what is at stake, the national PR is always a relevant interlocutor, and especially more autonomous regions are eager to touch base with the higher levels in the PR. These findings are in line with other research that concludes that the regionalization of European states has not hollowed out member state representation and that sub-state authorities collaborate intensively with central state authorities, rather than bypassing them (Tatham 2008;2010;; see also Moore 2008).…”

“…Departing from a federalism or regionalism perspective, many authors have studied the interaction between sub-state and national governments and focused primarily on the vertical dimension of territorial politics (Borras 1993;Jeffrey 2000;Marks et al 1996;Marks et al 2002;Moore 2008;Tatham 2008Tatham , 2010. Other scholars have analysed the lobbying activities of SNAs at the EU level and showed that regional representations make strategic use of multiple institutional channels when seeking to influence policy outcomes (Bomberg and Peterson 1998;Hooghe 1995;Hooghe and Marks 1996;Rowe 2011).…”

All by themselves? Legislative regions and the use of unmediated access to the European level

“…Marks, Haesly and Mbaye 2002;Marks et al 1996;Jeffery 1997;Jeffery 2000;Nielsen and Salk 1998;Moore 2006). However, while early studies argue that greater constitutional strength has a positive impact on the lobbying activities of a region (Marks et al 1996;Nielsen and Salk 1998;Marks, Haesly and Mbaye 2002), Tatham (2010) suggests that regions with a greater number of competences are less likely to engage in conflictual strategies in Brussels and more likely to cooperate with their central governments.…”

“…Both Tatham (2010) and Bauer (2006) identify party politics as an explanatory factor for inter-regional differences in preferences or the style of interest representation.…”

International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement

“…The argument that diplomacy takes place beyond the confines of the state is well established (Betsill and Corell 2008). However, the homogeneity of the state and the capacity of sub-state bodies to pursue their interests directly, by bypassing the state and engaging bilaterally with other sub-national, national, supranational and international organizations, or influencing the foreign policy agenda through the state, has been addressed by a number of writers, often in the context of EU interest representation (Aldecoa 1999, Opp 2005, Tatham 2010). The activities of municipal authorities and other regional public bodies, as they seek to promote their (regional) interests in the context of the London Olympics, articulates these tensions.…”