Advertisement

Theoretical Implications of EU Funding of Advocacy Activities

  • Rosa Sanchez SalgadoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Sanchez Salgado discusses theoretical models on the European Union (EU) system of interest representation, arguing that public funding should be included in any effort at theorization. For the moment, pluralism and neo-pluralism are the mainstream models to illustrate current systems of interest representation. Sanchez Salgado argues that other models such as elitism, neo-corporatism, and associative democracy should also be included in current research and academic discussions, especially when EU funding is taken into account. With some illustrative evidence from the EU system, the chapter shows that, given the existence of an extensive system of public support of advocacy activities, associative democracy seems to be the theoretical model that applies to a greater amount of policy sectors at the EU level. Rather than proposing any specific theoretical model, this chapters suggests that it is difficult a priori to have a definitive preference regarding the role of public authorities and public funding in a system of interest representation.

References

  1. Bauer, M. W. (2002). Limitations to agency control in EU policy making: The commission and the poverty programmes. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(3), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boin, C., & Marchesetti, A. (2010). Friends of the EU. The cost of a taxpayer-funded green lobby. London: International Policy Network.Google Scholar
  3. Chaves, M., et al. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity? American Sociological Review, 69(2).Google Scholar
  4. Coen, D. (2007). Empirical and theoretical studies in EU lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1992). Secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics and Society, 20, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (2001). Associations and democracy. In P. Hirst & V. Bader (Eds.), Associative democracy, the real third way. London: FrankCass.Google Scholar
  7. Cram, L. (2011). The importance of the temporal dimension: New modes of governance as a tool of government. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 636–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullen, P. (2009). Pan-European NGOs and social rights: Participatory democracy and civil dialogue. In J. Jutta & L. Birgit (Eds.), Transnational activism in the UN and the EU (pp. 134–146). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Economist. (2004). How independent are the civil-society organizations beloved by the European Commission? The Economist, 21 October. Accessed July 24, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/node/3308986
  10. European Commission. (2010). Call for proposals VP/2010/012, establishment of 3-year framework partnership agreements with EU-level NGO Networks, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2012). Call for proposals VP/2012/001, industrial relations and social dialogue. Available http://ec.europa.eu.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/social/BlobServlet?docId=7449&langId=en.pdf?
  12. European Commission. (2016a). A new start for social dialogue. One year after. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission (www). (2016b). Employment, social affairs and inclusion. Accessed July 24, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=329&langId=en
  14. Fazi, E., & Smith, J. (2006). Civil dialogue-making it work better. Brussels: CSCG.Google Scholar
  15. Financial Transparency System. (2017). Website, data retrieved on the August 8, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm
  16. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). A niche theory of interest representation. The Journal of Politics, 58(1), 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenwood, J. (2007). Review article: Organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenwood, J. (2009). Institutions and civil society organizations in the EU’s multilevel system. In J. Jutta & L. Birgit (Eds.), Transnational activism in the UN and the EU. Madison: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Haas, E. (1968). The uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces: 1950–1957. Stanford: SUP.Google Scholar
  20. Hirst, P. Q. (1992). Comments on secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics and Society, 20(4), 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holyoke, T. T. (2014). Interest groups and lobbying: Pursuing political interests in America. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  22. Khaldoun, A. (2014). Get money get involved: CSOs reactions to donor funding and their potential involvement in the public policy processes. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 968–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (2004). A neo-pluralist perspective on research on organized interest. Political Research Quarterly, 51(1), 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Madison, J. (1787). The federalist papers, 10. Accessed July 28, 2017, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
  25. Mahoney, C. (2004). The power of institutions. State and interest group activity and the European Union. European Union Politics, 5(4), 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mansbridge, J. (2011). Clarifying the concept of representation. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2006). Interest groups and EU policy-making. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. McFarland, A. (2007). Neopluralism. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molenaers, N., Jacobs, B., & Dellepiane, S. (2014). CSOs and aid fragmentation: The Belgian case. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 378–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mosley, J. (2012). Keeping the lights on: How government funding concerns drive the advocacy agendas of nonprofit homeless service providers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: HUP.Google Scholar
  32. Ruzza, C. (2011). Social movements and the European interest intermediation of public interest groups. Journal of European Integration, 33(4), 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanchez Salgado, R. (2014a). Europeanizing civil society. How the EU shapes civil society organizations. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanchez Salgado, R. (2014b). Rebalancing EU interest representation? Associative democracy and EU funding of civil society organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2).Google Scholar
  35. Sanchez Salgado, R. (2017). Europeanization of civil society organizations in times of crisis? Exploring the evolution grant-seeking strategies in the EU multi-level system. European Politics and Society, 18(4), 511–528.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2017.1286283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitter, P. C. (1979). Still the century of corporatism? In G. Lehmbruch & P. C. Schmitter (Eds.), Trends towards corporatist intermediation (pp. 7–52). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Steen, O. I. (1996). Autonomy or dependency? Relations between non-governmental international aid organizations and government. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7(2), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Streeck, W., & Schmitter, P. (2007). From national corporatism to transnational pluralism: Organized interest in the single European market. Politics and Society, 19, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Truman, D. B. (1971). The governmental process. New York: Knopf (originally published in 1951).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations