Over the past 20 years, the number of lobbyists in Brussels increased rapidly. The Lisbon treaty of 2009 reinforced this effect drastically as EU institutions became more powerful. Consequently, there was a shift in the lobbying strategy of many interest groups increasingly focusing on EU decision makers instead of state governments. In 2017, approximately 15,000 lobbyists were positioned in Brussels. The rising trend of lobbying in the EU has several effects on policy and decision making of EU institutions. The European Union finds itself in a challenging position due to the rise of eurosceptic parties, problems with European integration, the economic crisis, and the overall concern about the democratic legitimacy of the EU.
Legitimacy as a concept describes the rightfulness of a government in terms of either doing the right thing in the right way with the right people or in terms of political sciences as the overall belief of society in the rightness of the system. The legitimacy of the EU is debatable, and lobbying is on a rising trend. Therefore, this paper addresses the following research question: Does lobbying facilitates or impedes EU’s legitimacy?
Firstly, the paper focuses on the definitions of the key concepts and links them to the EU. Secondly, responsible lobbying will be discussed. Additionally, the paper will investigate the relationship between lobbying in the EU and legitimacy more in depth, by using the author's own framework, while considering several dimensions and scales of lobbying and by citing multiple examples. Lastly, a conclusion will be given.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definitions of key concepts
2.1. Legitimacy and the EU
2.2. Lobbying and the EU
3. Responsible lobbying
4. Lobbying and legitimacy
4.1. Responsible lobbying and legitimacy
4.2. Irresponsible lobbying and legitimacy
5. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Topics
This paper examines the influence of lobbying activities on the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, specifically investigating whether such practices facilitate or impede the EU's legitimacy through the lenses of input, output, and throughput legitimacy.
- Analysis of the relationship between lobbyist influence and EU institutional decision-making.
- Differentiation between responsible and irresponsible lobbying practices.
- Application of the concepts of input, output, and throughput legitimacy to EU governance.
- Evaluation of case studies involving corporate lobbying and their impact on public policy.
- Proposals for increasing transparency and ethical standards in European lobbying.
Excerpt from the Book
4.1. Responsible lobbying and legitimacy
Lobbying is a crucial component of the policy making in the EU. Bouwen (2002) states that the EU has a demand for access goods for their own functioning and that the interest groups need to supply this access goods to gain access to the EU institutions. This increases input legitimacy as the participation of people increases, illustrated by Figure 1. It also enhances output legitimacy as the EU institutions are able to achieve better solutions and gain insights into certain problems from expert knowledge (Bouwen, 2002). The Case of Michelin’s Green tires is an excellent example to describe these effects. The development of green tires is a crucial factor to decrease the carbon emissions of cars. Michelin did a lot of R&D on this topic and was consequently able to lobby for an international grading system on tires (Hanoteau, 2009). They were able to enhance the input legitimacy by pushing topics which are relevant for society on the political agenda and then enhanced the results by providing expert knowledge to the political institutions. This describes the basic effect responsible lobbying has on legitimacy on the EU.
This process can be specified by looking at how lobbyists interact with the different levels of the EU decision making. To illustrate, the case of the lobbying process from eBay for taxation in ecommerce will be used. The case revolves around the fact that when a company sells a product online it charges the value-added tax (VAT) rate of its own country. However, the EU wanted to change this policy so that the company should charge the VAT rate of the country where the customer is from instead (Laurinkari, 2018). This would lead to a fair distribution of the VAT rate charges. The three institutions in the EU decision-making process demand different access goods from interest groups to improve their own functioning. The European Commission requires expert knowledge to formulate a good proposal (Bouwen, 2002). After a proposal has been formulated it will be passed over to the European Parliament, where the parliament votes on it.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the growing influence of lobbyists in Brussels since the Lisbon Treaty and introduces the central research question regarding their impact on EU legitimacy.
2. Definitions of key concepts: Explores the theoretical foundations of legitimacy—specifically input, output, and throughput—and defines the changing nature of lobbying within the EU context.
3. Responsible lobbying: Details the criteria for responsible lobbying, emphasizing the need for ethical conduct, transparency, and organizational accountability.
4. Lobbying and legitimacy: Examines practical examples of lobbying impacts, contrasting how responsible versus irresponsible practices influence democratic legitimacy in the EU.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, arguing that lobbying can enhance EU legitimacy only if it adheres to strict ethical standards and transparency requirements.
Keywords
Lobbying, European Union, Democratic Legitimacy, Input Legitimacy, Output Legitimacy, Throughput Legitimacy, Responsible Lobbying, Policy Making, European Commission, European Parliament, Interest Groups, Transparency, Ethical Frameworks, Decision-Making Process.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper fundamentally investigates the intersection between interest group lobbying and the perceived democratic legitimacy of European Union institutions.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the categorization of lobbying (responsible vs. irresponsible), the mechanisms of EU policy-making, and the framework of political legitimacy.
What is the main research question?
The central research question is whether lobbying practices within the European Union facilitate or impede the overall legitimacy of the institution.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, applying a custom framework to evaluate lobbying effects through the lenses of input, output, and throughput legitimacy, supported by industry case studies.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the definition of legitimacy in political science, the evolution of lobbying in the EU, the characteristics of ethical lobbying, and the comparative impact of different lobbying strategies.
What defines the research's character?
The work is characterized by the use of institutional political theory, real-world corporate lobbying examples, and a strong focus on democratic accountability.
How does the case of Michelin illustrate the author's argument?
The Michelin case demonstrates how responsible lobbying can provide expert knowledge that helps policymakers solve complex problems, thereby enhancing both input and output legitimacy.
What is the author's stance on the influence of tobacco lobbyists?
The author highlights the tobacco industry as an example of irresponsible lobbying, where massive resources were used to block public health legislation, negatively impacting the EU's output legitimacy.
What solutions are proposed to improve lobbying transparency?
The paper suggests implementing a more detailed lobbying register, requiring increased transparency regarding political meetings, and establishing independent rating agencies to monitor lobbying behavior.
- Quote paper
- Felix Pütz (Author), 2020, The Strengths of Lobbying. How Lobbying Influences the Legitimacy of the European Union, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1119127
