Compare EU Lobbying And Domestic Lobbying Using Two Different States

Development
In the last thirty years increases in the size of the EU and its regulatory influence have resulted in a growth in the amount and the nature of lobbying by private groups, public organisations and governmental actors. Currently, there are something around 15000 lobbyists in Brussels of various sizes and geographical interests.

The dominant actors of the sixties were the groups corresponding to the original intentions of the European Coal and Steel Community and then the European Economic Community. However, the EU’s changing role has resulted in a ballooning of lobbying. Since the 80s single market integration was a catalyst for the growth of lobbying, as private firms and local communities sought to protect their existing markets and communities from potentially damaging reforms. Now lobbying extends to the environment, home affairs, and foreign and security policy.

However, there are concerns that further enlargement will overcrowd debate and cause imbalances, as the EU institutions will have less and less time to listen to individual concerns, thereby reducing the substance of consultation. This is particularly so as it is unlikely that there will be a significant increase in staff relative to the enlargement.

The growing importance of EU policy is now making some national interest groups more Eurocentric or begin to look at issues from a more European perspective, rather than continuing to define problems in purely national terms

Private Lobbying
The largest actor, with over 1,000 organisations and over 250 lawyer groups, consisting of private economic and business interests, the largest of which are the chemicals industry (150), and food and drink (140) as a result of CAP.

There is a preference for ‘pan European’ economic interests, as they tend to get consensus easier than more national centric lobby groups

There is a strong presence of companies from outside the EU, especially the US because of the high levels of investment in Europe.

Public Lobbying
Over 300 public organisations reside in Brussels. The most active are environmental, public health, human rights, and animal welfare NGOs such as Greenpeace.

The EU encourages the smaller organisations and often offers funding as a cost effective way of getting research without the need for a more expensive official research departments. However, groups such as Greenpeace refuse this as they feel that this affects their impartiality.

Government
Brussels has government representation from national embassies and local lobbies. Currently there are over 360 groups of which there are 167 connected non-EU embassies.

EU member states are extremely well represented, especially regional governments, of which the German Lander is particularly influential. However, this has created friction between national and local government, as there are often different priorities. For instance, Scotland’s Highlands and Islands region had to fight to keep its funding in the 1990s. Currently Gordon Brown is trying to coordinate the regional development fund that it receives from the EU.

It has been suggested that EU lobbying allows for issues ignored on a domestic level can get a second change through EU lobbying.

Lobbying
Linguistics is required: French and English are a minimum but also German, Spanish, and even Dutch.

Unlike countries such as the US the lack of a strong party system results in political campaign funds having little effect on political decision-making.

The introduction of new technology has made its presence felt in Brussels, with email being used more extensively than other political capitals and the mass of information on the internet allowing for ease of research. This is felt to be particularly useful to pan-European trade associations which have a huge logistical problem in trying to secure a unified position.

However, face-to-face contact is still important, with a system in place allowing lobbyists the optimum amount of access within the EU parliament. Trips between Belgium and Strasburg are seen as a useful way of forging contacts, through networking on the four hour train journey, over the fine local food and hotel lobbies.

This research was written by Jonathan McHugh in January 2005

References

• Elizabeth Bomberg and Alexander Stubb - The European Union: How Does It Work? Oxford University Press, 2003
• Michelle Cini European Union Politics Oxford University Press 2003

Why Is A High Level Of Employment Typically A Microeconomic Policy?

The Government has a strong incentive to maximise the size of the labour force and ensure that as many people are working as possible. Fiscally it is more beneficial because tax revenues increase during periods of high employment, as the Government has more people earning and therefore it receives more tax receipts. Low levels of unemployment would result in reduced social security payments which can be more beneficially spent elsewhere in the economy.

If there are more people working then the economy is closer to the production possibility frontier, which results in people earnings increasing and there being and there possibly being a wider range of goods available in the economy. These factors may also result in higher rates of growth in the economy over time, as the higher levels of demand in the economy may encourage firms to innovate to maximise their profit potential in the larger economy.

Frictional and structural unemployment and hysteresis can result in huge social problems. People out of work encounter huge stresses in attempting to find new employment, as they feel worse about themselves and are concerned about their declining standard of living. This can also result in crime because some people may consider it an easier option. This can be especially true for individual areas, with the decline in an industry or service predominantly effecting the same social classes or skills groups. In some cases if they live close to each other in an area such an economic decline could increase crime levels significantly.

Employment is usually considered on a macroeconomic rather than a microeconomic level to deal with unemployment. It is considered more cost and time effective to alleviate structural and frictional problems with job centres and work schemes or tackle persistent unemployment through the whole economy. The microeconomic response would have to address individual markets and it would probably be a lot more difficult and inefficient to correct than a more general macroeconomic policy.

This article was written by Jonathan McHugh in June 2005