The Influence of Business Associations in the European Decision Making Process

Diplomarbeit von Uli Bethke

Abstract:

Since the adoption of the Single European Act (SEA) in 1986 more and more competencies have been transferred by EU Member States to decision makers in Brussels. Beside the objective of the completion of the Single Market the scope of Community policies has widened to political co-operation, technological development, and social policy. In addition, the powers of the European Parliament were strengthened and qualified majority voting was introduced for decisions related to the completion of the internal market.

Since the summits of Maastricht and Amsterdam European integration has further gained in momentum. National governments again handed over sovereignty to the European level. Jacques Delors’ famous quote that 80% of regulations impacting on the economic sphere were decided in Brussels today demonstrates the shift of competency. Within the last 15 years Brussels has become an important centre of power.

This transference of power to the European level also has affected the behaviour of interest groups. Before 1986 it usually was sufficient to lobby the own national administration in order to influence regulations. The main function of European peak organisations at the time was on the one hand to monitor events in Brussels and report them back to their member federations on the other hand they formed a transnational network for the exchange of information. The growing power of European institutions and the strengthening of the supranational element within the European Union required interest groups to broaden their participation in the European decision making process.

In addition, the technical problems regarding the realisation of the internal market, e.g. harmonisation of services, standardisation of products etc. has triggered off an enormous demand for technical input on the side of the European institutions. Since the adoption of the SEA, thus, interest groups have proliferated. New groups with new interests have emerged. Long established organisations have increased their financial and personnel resources.

After Washington D.C., Brussels has become the second biggest boomtown for lobbying activities. In 1992 the Commission has estimated that approximately 3000 special interest groups with a total of 10,000 lobbyists try to influence the institutions of the European Union. The directory of interest groups lists 891 European peak organisations. Beside these Eurogroups a myriad form of actors all trying to get their voices heard in the policy process has established offices in Brussels:

- National public representations e.g. the European regions.

- National interest organisations e.g. DIHT, CBI.

- Associations of multi-national companies, e.g. ERT.

- Single corporations, e.g. DaimlerChrysler.

- Consultants and law firms, e.g. Edelman, APCO Europe.

- Individual professional lobbyists.

- European peak organisations of national interest groups, e.g. UNICE, BEUC, ETUC.

Regarding the function of Eurogroups the number of producer interests by far prevails over other groups. From figures alone the influence and power of the various interests, however, can not be derived. Producer groups are so numerous because they all represent a different sector of the market. Often these interests are in conflict, e.g. the producers of furniture do not necessarily have the same interests as those of computers.

After the completion of the internal market in 1992 the number of interest groups has stagnated or even slightly declined. With the accession of the EU candidate countries it is likely that a new boom of lobbying will set in soon.

The objective of the case study will be to determine what influence EUROCHAMBRES as a business association representing SMEs has on the European decision-making process. This question immediately triggers off a whole set of subordinate questions. What are business associations? What is the European decision making process? What are the criteria and factors that determine the influence of interest groups on the policy process in general and on the EU decision making process in particular? What are the indicators that tell us whether an interest organisation can meet these determinants of influence? Does or in how far does EUROCHAMBRES meet the criteria that are relevant for influence in the European decision making process?

In my study I will provide answers to all of these questions. My analysis is designed as a case study. Case studies deal with one particular object, e.g. a country, a political system, an institution, an organisation etc. Depending on the research situation case studies can have two functions: case studies either try to arrive at generalisations or they aim to describe the singularity of a case. The latter usually are used when no comprehensive theoretical background has been established in the field of research and it is still necessary to collect data in order to set up hypotheses.

My analysis of EUROCHAMBRES rather falls within the second category as no research on business associations representing small and medium sized enterprises has been carried out so far. The objective of the study therefore is to reduce the empirical gap and contribute to the establishment of a theory of European interest mediation.

In order to arrive at relevant conclusions empirical data has to be collected. For that purpose in political science a variety of different research methods are applied. Methods describe the way and the procedure of collecting relevant quantitative and/or qualitative data on the object of research. The choice of individual methods or a mix of methods is not determined in advance but has to be selected by the scientist depending on his object of study and his or her research design.

For the purpose of my study I have chosen a mix of three methods: observation, expert interview, and content analysis. They are the most widely applied methods in qualitative research. I have been able to apply these research methods during a three months traineeship from 10 April to 7 July 2000 with EUROCHAMBRES.

The research objective will be pursued in four consecutive steps. First of all the basic terminology of the research design, business associations as well as the European decision making process, have to be defined: definitions serve as a conceptual framework for research. Their function is to assign meaning to a selected part of reality. Conceptual ambiguity can be eliminated. The specific features of both business associations and the European decision making process will be explained and defined.

In a second step the concept of influence of interest organisations will be introduced. This will be done by looking at how the two most prominent theories in political science dealing with interest mediation account for the influence of interest organisations. Based on the general findings of pluralist and neo-corporatist theory I will then look into the more specific concept of influence of interest organisations in the decision making process of the European Union.

In a third step the concept of influence of interest organisations will be operationalised. Indicators for the influence of interest organisations on the EU decision making process have to be established before via the application of these indicators the influence of my research object EUROCHAMBRES can be determined.

Finally, the findings on the influence of EUROCHAMBRES on the European decision making process will be examined by looking into three lobbying campaigns of the organisation.

Table of Contents:

1.	Introduction	5
1.1	Interest groups in the European Union	5
1.2	Research on the Role of European Business Associations in the European Decision Making Process	7
1.3	The Argument	10
1.4	Method and Methodology	12
1.5	Structure	15
2.	The Object of Research	17
2.1	A Definition of Business Associations	17
2.2	The Five Stages of the European Decision Making Process	18
3.	The Influence of Interest Groups in the Decision Making Process	22
3.1	The Theoretical Approach	22
3.1.1	The Pluralist Explanation of Influence	22
3.1.2	The Neo-Corporatist Explanation of Influence	24
3.1.3	Summary	27
3.2	The Requirements of European Policy Makers	28
3.2.1	The Dependence of the EU Decision Making Process on Interest Groups	28
3.2.2	Political Resources Required by Policy-Makers	30
3.2.2.1	Information	30
3.2.2.2	Legitimacy	34
3.2.2.3	Miscellaneous Resources	35
3.2.3	Summary	37
4.	EUROCHAMBRES' Influence in the European Decision Making Process	39
4.1	An Operationalisation of the Concept of Influence	39
4.2	The Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry - An Overview	43
4.2.1	Origin and History of Chambers of Commerce and Industry	43
4.2.2	EUROCHAMBRES - Origin and Mission	44
4.3	The Availability of Political Resources within EUROCHAMBRES	45
4.3.1	Technical Expertise	45
4.3.1.1	General Introduction	45
4.3.1.2	The Availability of Technical Expertise	46
4.3.2	Budget	48
4.3.3	The EUROCHAMBRES Network	49
4.3.3.1	General Introduction	49
4.3.3.2	Representativeness of the Network	49
4.3.3.3	The Comprehensiveness of the Network	50
4.3.3.4	The Usefulness of the Eurchambres Network to Policy Makers	51
4.3.4	EUROCHAMBRES' Access to the Decision Making Process	54
4.4	The Mobilisation of Political Resources - the Organisability of EUROCHAMBRES	60
4.4.1	The Degree of Horizontal Organisability	61
4.4.2	The Degree of Vertical Organisability	71
4.5	Summary	79
5.	Case Studies of EUROCHAMBRES Lobbying	83
5.1	EUROCHAMBRES' Role in the European Social Dialogue	83
5.1.1	Social Policy at European Level	83
5.1.2	The European Social Dialogue under the Protocol on Social Policy	83
5.1.3	EUROCHAMBRES' Position in the Social Dialogue	85
5.1.4	EUROCHAMBRES' Lobbying in the Context of the Social Dialogue	86
5.1.5	Shortcomings of the Lobbying Campaign	87
5.1.6	Summary	89
5.2	EUROCHAMBRES and the Issuing of Certificates of Origin	89
5.2.1	Certificates of Origin	89
5.2.2	The Position of the National Chamber Associations	90
5.2.3	The Certificates of Origin Meeting	90
5.2.4	Summary	91
5.3	EUROCHAMBRES' Lobbying in the Gateway to Japan Programme	92
5.3.1	Exporting to Japan	92
5.3.2	Prologue - The European Court of Justice Ruling	92
5.3.3	Fighting for a legal basis	93
5.3.4	The EUROCHAMBRES lobbying campaign	94
5.3.5	Summary	96
6.	Conclusion	97
7.	Annex	101
7.1	Interviews	101
7.2	Questionnaire	103
8.	Bibliography	105
8.1	Primary Sources	105
8.2	Books, Periodicals, Newspapers	106