IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v12y2018i2p238-262.html

Interest group representation in the formal design of European Union agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Ixchel Pérez Durán

Abstract

This article examines the decision to include interest group representation (IGR) in the most important decisionmaking bodies of European Union agencies (EAs). The study shows that there is considerable variation among agencies: some agencies have no IGR, others have formal rules that establish a clear distribution of the number of representatives among stakeholders, while other agencies are ambiguous with regard to the number of representatives that each group should have. In addition, interest group representatives have the right to vote in some of the agencies with IGR, while in others they only have an advisory role. This article identifies three broad types of groups normally represented: representatives of capital (e.g. industry), representatives of labor (e.g. trade unions), and citizens' representatives (e.g. non‐governmental organizations, consumer groups). The findings suggest that informative agencies are more likely to have IGR than agencies performing operational/management tasks. The findings also suggest that the involvement of the European Parliament in the design of EAs is more likely to lead to a provision for the representation of stakeholders. Finally, case studies of the European Food Safety Agency and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work demonstrate that interest groups could play an important role by pushing European Union institutions to include stakeholder representatives in EAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ixchel Pérez Durán, 2018. "Interest group representation in the formal design of European Union agencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 238-262, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:238-262
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12150
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trygve Ugland & Frode Veggeland, 2006. "Experiments in Food Safety Policy Integration in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 607-624, September.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:44:y:2006:i::p:607-624 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    4. Mahoney, Christine, 2007. "Lobbying Success in the United States and the European Union," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 35-56, May.
    5. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    6. Elinor Ostrom, 1986. "An agenda for the study of institutions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 3-25, January.
    7. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    8. Schmitter, Philippe C. & Streeck, Wolfgang, 1999. "The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies," MPIfG Discussion Paper 99/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Susanne K. Schmidt, 2000. "Only an Agenda Setter?," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 37-61, February.
    2. John M. de Figueiredo & Rui J.P. de Figueiredo, 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," NBER Working Papers 8981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Aseem Prakash, 1999. "A new‐institutionalist perspective on ISO 14000 and Responsible Care," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(6), pages 322-335, November.
    4. De Figueiredo, John M. & De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., 2002. "The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation," Working papers 4247-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    6. Alberto Alesina & Guido Tabellini, 2003. "Bureaucrats or Politicians?," Working Papers 238, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    7. Ayranci, Evren, . "Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 3(3), pages 1-22.
    8. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    9. Scott Moore & Joshua Fisher, 2012. "Challenges and Opportunities in GRACE-Based Groundwater Storage Assessment and Management: An Example from Yemen," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(6), pages 1425-1453, April.
    10. Rick K Wilson & Catherine C Eckel, 2013. "Elinor Ostrom: “A Magnificent and Irreplaceable Treasure”," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(3), pages 486-495, January.
    11. Schmidt, Susanne K., 1996. "Sterile debates and dubious generalisations: An empirical critique of European integration theory based on the integration processes in telecommunications and electricity," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    12. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    13. Schmidt, Susanne K., 2002. "Die Folgen der europäischen Integration für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Wandel durch Verflechtung," MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    14. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    15. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Alan Hamlin, 2014. "Reasoning about rules," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 68-87, March.
    17. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. Tanner Jones & Ryan Quandt, 2025. "An iridescent sunset: An empirical analysis of sunset legislation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 85-123, October.
    19. Jodi L. Short & Michael W. Toffel & Andrea R. Hugill, 2016. "Monitoring global supply chains," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1878-1897, September.
    20. Estache, Antonio & Wren-Lewis, Liam, 2010. "What Anti-Corruption Policy Can Learn from Theories of Sector Regulation," CEPR Discussion Papers 8082, Centre for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:238-262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.