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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The call for a Finance Watch. http://www.finance-watch.org/about-us/why-finance-watch. Accessed 25 August 2016.
- 2.
Guest lecture by a representative from Dutch Association of Insurance to the course “Lobbying in Europe and Beyond,” University of Amsterdam, 2010.
References
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.
Boin, C., & Marchesetti, A. (2010). Friends of the EU. The cost of a taxpayer-funded green lobby. London: International Policy Network.
Chaves, M., et al. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity? American Sociological Review, 69(2).
Coen, D. (2007). Empirical and theoretical studies in EU lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 333–345.
Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1992). Secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics and Society, 20, 393–411.
Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (2001). Associations and democracy. In P. Hirst & V. Bader (Eds.), Associative democracy, the real third way. London: FrankCass.
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.
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.
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
European Commission. (2010). Call for proposals VP/2010/012, establishment of 3-year framework partnership agreements with EU-level NGO Networks, Brussels.
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?
European Commission. (2016a). A new start for social dialogue. One year after. Brussels: European Union.
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
Fazi, E., & Smith, J. (2006). Civil dialogue-making it work better. Brussels: CSCG.
Financial Transparency System. (2017). Website, data retrieved on the August 8, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). A niche theory of interest representation. The Journal of Politics, 58(1), 91–111.
Greenwood, J. (2007). Review article: Organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 333–357.
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.
Haas, E. (1968). The uniting of Europe: Political, social and economic forces: 1950–1957. Stanford: SUP.
Hirst, P. Q. (1992). Comments on secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics and Society, 20(4), 473–480.
Holyoke, T. T. (2014). Interest groups and lobbying: Pursuing political interests in America. Boulder: Westview Press.
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.
Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (2004). A neo-pluralist perspective on research on organized interest. Political Research Quarterly, 51(1), 163–175.
Madison, J. (1787). The federalist papers, 10. Accessed July 28, 2017, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
Mahoney, C. (2004). The power of institutions. State and interest group activity and the European Union. European Union Politics, 5(4), 441–466.
Mansbridge, J. (2011). Clarifying the concept of representation. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 621–630.
Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2006). Interest groups and EU policy-making. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and policy-making. London: Routledge.
McFarland, A. (2007). Neopluralism. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 45–66.
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.
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.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: HUP.
Ruzza, C. (2011). Social movements and the European interest intermediation of public interest groups. Journal of European Integration, 33(4), 453–469.
Sanchez Salgado, R. (2014a). Europeanizing civil society. How the EU shapes civil society organizations. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Sanchez Salgado, R. (2014b). Rebalancing EU interest representation? Associative democracy and EU funding of civil society organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2).
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.
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.
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.
Streeck, W., & Schmitter, P. (2007). From national corporatism to transnational pluralism: Organized interest in the single European market. Politics and Society, 19, 133.
Truman, D. B. (1971). The governmental process. New York: Knopf (originally published in 1951).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sanchez Salgado, R. (2019). Theoretical Implications of EU Funding of Advocacy Activities. In: Dialer, D., Richter, M. (eds) Lobbying in the European Union. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98800-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98800-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98799-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98800-9
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)