Tuesday June 29 ArrivalsWednesday June 30 Introductory class with Jan Beyers

Room M.002, 9.00 – 15.00Thursday July 1 Master class with David Lowery

Room M.002, 9.00 – 15.00Friday July 2 No working session, visit to Brussels, co-organized with Hans Diels

Saturday July 3 Morning working session with Jan Beyers or Hans Diels (TBC)Room C.101, 9.00 – 12.00Social program in the historical city of Antwerp

Sunday July 4 Social Program in the historical city of AntwerpMonday July 5 Master class with William Maloney

Room M.002 9.00 – 12.00Working session with William Maloney or Dirk De BièvreRoom M.002 13.00 – 15.00

Tuesday July 6 Master class with William MaloneyRoom M.002 9.00 – 12.00Working session with Arlo Polleti or Dirk De BièvreRoom M.002 13.00 – 17.0017.00: deadline essay

Wednesday July 7 Master class with Joost Berkhout and Jan BeyersRoom M.002 9.00 – 12.00Working session with Joost Berkhout or Marcel HanegraaffRoom M.002 14.00 – 15.00Presentation by studentsRoom M.002 15.00 – 17.00Closing dinner + certificate award: 19.00, Restaurant ‘de Talloorkes’ (details to be confirmed at the start of the summer school)

Overview of courses

TRIP TO BRUSSELS (with Hans Diels)

07:45: Everybody is expected to gather in Antwerp Centraal Station (train departs at 08:06)

09:45 Arrival European Parliament

10:00-12:00 : Panel discussion on Interest Group PoliticsTopics: - Which sort of strategies or resources are useful in order to gain influence?- How should groups organize themselves in order to survive in Brussels?- Interest groups: facilitating or hindering representative governance?- Registering interest groups: how far should we go?- Is there a business bias in the interest group system?- Interesting cases of success and failure of interest groups.

Participants: Bart Staes (MEP, Greens/European Free Alliance), Erik Wesselius (Alter EU), Dr. Pieter Bouwen (European Commission/Visiting Professor KULeuven), Pieter Verhelst (Boerenbond, Belgian Farmers Union), Dr. Stijn Billiet (Coordinator sp.a delegation to the EP), Moderator: Prof. Jan Beyers (University of Antwerp)

TRIP TO BRUSSELS (with Hans Diels)

12:00-14:00: Lunch at the European parliament

14:00-15:00: European Commission: Speech by Mr. Gerard Legris, Head of the unit responsible for Transparency and relations with stakeholders in the Secreteriat General about the ‘Register for Interest Representatives.

16:00-17:30: The daily life of a lobbyist (Weber Shandwick offices)Lecture by James Watson (Account Director Public Affaris, Weber-Shandwick) about working day to day as a lobbyist. 

Assignment

“Successful completion of the summer school will be awarded with a certificate indicating 3 credits according to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). Awarding this certificate depends on two conditions; firstly, active participation in the course and, secondly, writing a short essay (about 10 pages).”

- active participation, reading, questions, discussion…

- a 10-page essay which includes:a) a short literature review regarding a topic related to the courseb) this could be related to your PhD-thesis or researchc) it is not expected to present original research or datad) you are allowed to co-author this essay

- deadline: Tuesday 6 July at 17:00

- presentations at 7 July between 15:00 and 17:00

- facilities, library, internet-access (see Piet De Vroede) 

‘… policies emerge from the interaction of parties, bureaucrats, companies, membership-based groups, trade bodies, groups with few members, competing elites and public opinion’

Jordan, Halpin and Maloney, 2004

Groups as democratizing agents? (II)Why studying interest groups?

Mobilization and maintenance stage

Community stage

Exercise of influence stage

Political outcome stage

Key question

Why do individuals and interest organizations mobilize?

Why do interest populations take a specific form?

Why and how do interest groups seek influence?

Why do some interest organizations have more influence than others?

Focus of theory construction

Individuals and/or individual organization

Interest populations

Issues and strategies

Political system, issues and strategies

Dependent variable

Collective action Density, diversity and change of populations

Strategies of organizations

Policies, government recognition of problem

The influence production process

Lowery, D. and H. Brasher (2004). Organized Interests and American Government. New York, Mc Graw Hill; and Lowery, D. and V. Gray (2004). "A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests." Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 163-175.

Names and people

de Toccqueville

PutnamRousseauMadisonTrumanOlson

SchattschneiderStreeck and Schmitter

opinions range from -> hostile: specific interest organizations at the disadvantage of the general interest

-> optimistic: civil society organizations that empowers citizens

Name dropping

interest groups interest organizations

interest associations pressure groups

special interest organization citizen groups

public interest groupsvoluntary organizations (page 198, Jordan et al.)

non governmental organizations social movement organizations

civil society organizations

What is an interest group?

organizations (identifiable)

political interests (a function)

informality (do not seek governing power)

-> diversity and quantity potentially very large

membership

goals: specialized – general

institutionalized

define by function or by a priori normative criteria~ bottom-up versus top-down

Jordan, G., D. Halpin, et al. (2004). "Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Directions?" British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 195-212.

Jordan, Halpin and Maloney (2004)

pressure participant

policy participant

interest or pressure group (page 205)

policy-centred group

ExcerciseGreenpeace, Nokia, BEUC, ERT, Business Europe, University of Antwerp

Mair (2006)

• Record low turnouts since 1990

• Electoral volatility peaking in the 1990s

• Declining ratios of party membership to the electorate

• Declines in absolute numbers of party members

• Policymaking that is increasingly segmented

• Non-majoritarian policymaking, less electoral competition

Mair, P. (2006). Polity-Scepticism, Party Failings, and the Challenge to European Democracy. Ulenbeck Lecture.

UK Governing Party Membership Trends

Party Year MembershipLabour 1952 1,014,000 Labour 2007 200,000

Conservative 1953 2,806,000Conservative 2006 247,394

Source: Guardian Unlimited, 12th June 2007; 24dash.com 2006; Jordan and Maloney, 2007.

2006 Directory of British Associations

7755 organizations (48% formed between 1966-1995) -------------------------------------------------Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 1 million

Amnesty International, Greenpeace, FoE, Countryside Alliance ALL +100,000

Braun-Poppelaars, C., J. Berkhout, et al. (2010). Belangenorganisaties in de Nederlandse democratie: beleidsexperts of vertegenwoordigers, unpublished manuscript.

Groups in the Netherlands

Year of foundation

1998

1994

1990

1986

1982

1978

1974

1970

1966

1962

1958

1954

1950

1946

1935

1928

1924

1919

1905

1843

Cu

mu

late

d fre

que

ncie

s

300

200

100

0

Domain

Agriculture(125)

Industry (279)

Services(254)

Professions(48)

Regions (12)

Diffuse Inter-ests (149)

Various Inter-ests (18)

Note:Source: General Secretariat of the European Commission. CONNECS data set, May 2002. Vertical lines denote the implementation of different treaties or treaty changes.

bias is not simply a matter of variation among a given population, in particular not in the EU

– some sections of society are difficult to organize: => can we blame the interest group system for this?

– re-organized by political institutions: 1% of the EU budget, some get 80 to 90% of their budget from the EU

=> logic institutions want not to be dependent on one single interest

– citizens support so-called civil society organizations are not a representative sample of society; middle class

=> skewed citizen involvement can some re-distributive effects

– much bias is the result of group specialization and the division of competencies not a matter of EU institutions granting no access

BIAS

What is the democratic potential of interest groups?Solidarity Representation

Constituency Non-human, future generation

Human

Overlap affiliated and constituency possible?

No Yes

Can constituency speak in its own voice

No yes

Linkage Supporters Members

Implications for democratizing potential

Difficult and not necessarily needed: affiliated are not beneficiaries

Possible and might be needed: affiliated are benificiaries

Source of legitimacy Epistemic arguments about needs of solidarity, values

Being responsive to membership: a mandate

Source: Halpin, D. R. (2006). "The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation." Public Administration 84(4): 919-940.

Implications

– internal democracy (involving members, consultation) is difficult for solidarity groups (see Maloney)

– members are a costs; succesful diffuse interest organizations are strongly professionalized and features characterised by weak membership input

– “deliberation”• with citizens will be weak• if it occurs; it will be mediated through the media,• for legitimating positions, epistemic claims will prevail

– “representativeness” is a tricky device for granting and regulating access

Groups as democratizing agents? (II)Implications

- the pluralist perspective; representation (Truman)

- the economic perspective; exchange perspective (Olsen)

- the neo-pluralist perspective1) CA is not that severe2) enterpreneurs3) not all membership-based4) weak evidence

-> population dependency (David Lowery)-> no micro-level bias (168)-> also competition for maintenance (among politically similar organizations)-> contingency and context (see difference)-> variation in strategic context

Groups as democratizing agents? (II)Theoretical perspectives (Lowery and Gray, 2004)

Pluralism as a network of interest intermediation

ORIGINS- limits of the Jacobin state- Catholic social doctrine, subsidiarity- end class conflict (left and right)

Post-war political economic settlement in continental and Nordic European countries

- can be conceived as an exchange (pp. 446-7)- difference with pluralism- macro- versus meso-corporatism- surrounded by ideological controversy- logic of influence versus logic of membership (p. 451-2)

Groups as democratizing agents? (II)Neo-corporatism (Streeck and Kenworthy, 2005)

See also: Schmitter, P. C. and W. Streeck (1999 [1982]). The organization of business interest. Studying associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. Discussion paper 99/1. Cologne, Germany, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

Corporatism as a network of interest intermediation

logic of influence versus logic of membership

Schmitter, P. C. and W. Streeck (1999 [1982]). The organization of business interest. Studying associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. Discussion paper 99/1. Cologne, Germany, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.