Lobbying or Interest Representation Public expectations? Sabine Saurugger Sciences Po Grenoble

Image of lobbying and interest representation at the domestic or at the EU level What are interest groups? Does more regulation and more transparency lead to more legitimacy?

1. Image of lobbying and interest representation No poll on this issue However: media analysis How the media talks about interest groups European Value Survey 2008 Citizen participation in groups Experts

Trade Unions Parties Churches Humanitarian organizations others Particip. per country Austria 21,5 11,4 31,7 8,3 36,3 21,8 Belgium 27,6 6,4 6,7 6,5 41,5 17,7 Germany 14,0 3,3 18,8 5,8 38,1 16,0 Danmark 64,4 6,2 26,8 30,2 27,8 Spain 5,5 2,8 6,0 4,0 69,6 17,6 Finland 45,8 24,8 3,8 52,4 26,6 France 9,1 2,0 4,7 57,2 15,7 UK 2,7 13,5 3,5 37,8 14,7 Greece 5,3 1,4 1,0 81,2 18,6 Hungary 5,9 1,5 0,7 81,1 19,0 Irland 18,9 3,9 4,9 44,0 19,3 Israël 14,1 8,5 5,4 51,5 16,5 Italy 8,8 3,2 5,0 4,4 72,9 Luxembourg 22,2 5,7 5,6 8,6 28,6 Netherlands 21,6 26,2 7,9 26,1 17,3 Norway 47,3 9,2 15,2 17,0 27,7 23,3 Poland 6,1 1,7 3,0 0,5 87,6 19,8 Portugal 5,2 1,9 80,3 19,4 Sweden 55,6 8,4 24,5 23,4 Slovenia 4,2 7,8 64,7 20,3 Mean 13,8 3,4 10,9 56,9 17,9

Percentage of people that think having experts, not government, make decisions according to what they think is best for the country would be a very or fairly good idea (EVS 2008)

2. What are interest groups? One of the reasons of missing polls on this issue: absence of a clear definition and understanding what groups do. Interest groups are a phenomenon in all societies When attempting to regulate, one has to keep in mind What they are How they act What resources they have

Definition Beyers et al. (2008, p. 1106-1107) define interest groups as “all membership organizations which have a political interest, which are organized and which do not strive for public office”.

Influencing political actors Main difference between political parties and interest groups However: interest groups have become political parties … Better? The role of interest groups

Resources Action repertoires/strategies Financial Social Societal Negotiation and consultation (lobbying) Expertise Protest (public opinion, political actors, media) Judicialisation (litigation strategies) Politisation (transformation in a political party) Or Inside and Outside strategies

3. Knowing all this: is a register needed? Transparency makes influence more difficult. Electoral pledges Quiet Politics (Pepper Culpepper)

However, different evaluation of transparency. Basis of representative and participatory democracy. Chari and Crepaz (2014, 2017) argue that regulation of lobbying in the EU has improved. From the first rules introduced by the European Parliament in 1996, to the regulation of the Commission in 2008 and finally the Joint Transparency Register in 2011, EU lobbying legislation has progressed. Robustness: Centre for Public Integrity index (applies a point score on 48 questions under the eight dimensions discussing for example, the definition of lobbyists, registration details, spending disclosures, electronic filing, and cooling off period. Index results are included in a point scale ranging from 1 (minimal robustness) to 100 (maximum robustness). Efficiency of the regulation: Registration rates increased and registration became more detailed. .

Naurin et al. Transparency in rationale refers to information on the substance of the decision and of the facts and reasons on which it was based. Transparency in process refers to information on actions such as deliberations, negotiations, and votes that took place among and between the decision makers during the decision-making process and were thus directly fed into the decision. Transparency can indeed generate legitimacy. However, no “fishbowl transparency”, with full openness of the decision-making process. Decision makers may improve their legitimacy simply by justifying carefully afterward the decisions taken behind closed doors. Only when behaviour close to a deliberative democratic ideal was displayed can openness of the process generate more legitimacy than closed-door decision making with postdecisional justifications. Finally: Legitimacy effects of transparency can only be realized if the public recognizes the difference between a transparent and a nontransparent process, but not all transparency reforms may be that visible to a modestly attentive public.

Conclusion Aim: to reinforce legitimacy through transparency. Who is representing interests and through which action repertoires? Transparency in rationale Transparency in process Communication with citizens. Alter-EU, Corporate Europe Observatory