There is life after the Commission: An empirical analysis of private interest representation by former EU-commissioners, 1981–2009

Article

Abstract

Our sample includes 92 former EU commissioners who left the seven Commissions serving from 1981 to 2009. We find that 36 (39%) became private interest representatives after leaving the Commission—14 with registered institutions, 22 with non-registered institutions. Our probit analysis shows that an ex-commissioner is significantly more likely to turn lobbyist if he or she is still young and has been in charge of competition, the internal market, industry or taxation. At the 10% level of significance, the probability is lower if the commissioner has been proposed by a left wing government, has stepped down after the introduction of the code of conduct (1999) or has retired from the Delors I Commission, and the probability is higher for commissioners from central Europe. The descriptive statistics reveal in addition that the share of private interest representatives in all ex-commissioners is largest for Portuguese, Austrian, Bulgarian and Maltese commissioners and zero for Scandinavians. With regard to the commissioners’ training, 48% of the lawyers but only 35% of the economists have become lobbyists. Commissioners who have turned private interest representatives have on average stayed somewhat longer (6.3 years) with the Commission than the others (5.5 years). Registered lobbyism is significantly more likely than non-registered lobbyism if the ex-commissioner is a lawyer, has been in charge of competition, the internal market, industry or taxation and—at the 10% level—has been proposed by a left wing government.

Keywords

European Union European Commission Interest groups Lobbying 

JEL codes

F53 F55 

Supplementary material

11558_2011_9128_MOESM1_ESM.do (6 kb)
ESM 1(DO 5 kb)
11558_2011_9128_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (241 kb)
ESM 2(PDF 241 kb)
11558_2011_9128_MOESM3_ESM.dta (40 kb)
ESM 3(DTA 40 kb)

References

  1. Andersen, S. S., & Eliassen, K. A. (1991). European community lobbying. European Journal of Political Research, 20, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartus, T. (2005). Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. The Stata Journal, 5, 309–329.Google Scholar
  3. Berkhout, J., & Lowery, D. (2008). Counting organized interests in the European Union: A comparison of data sources. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 489–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broscheid, A., & Coen, D. (2007). Lobbying activity and fora creation in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 346–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coen, D. (1997). The evolution of the large firm as a political actor in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 4, 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coen, D. (2007). Empirical and theoretical studies in EU lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coen, D. (2009). Business lobbying in the European Union. In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying in the European Union: Institutions, actors, and issues (pp. 145–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Coen, D. (2010). European business and government relations. In D. Coen, W. Grand, & G. Wilson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business and government (pp. 285–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corijn, E., Vandermotten, C., Decroly, J.-M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2009). Brussels as an international city. Brussels Studies, Synopsis 13.Google Scholar
  10. Crain, W. M., & McCormick, R. E. (1984). Regulators as an interest group. In J. E. Buchanan & G. Tullock (Eds.), The theory of public choice—II (pp. 287–304). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eckert, R. D. (1973). On the incentives of regulators: The case of taxicabs. Public Choice, 14, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckert, R. D. (1981). The life cycle of regulatory commissioners. Journal of Law and Economics, 24, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falke, J. (1996). Comitology and other committees: A preliminary empirical assessment. In R. H. Pedler & G. F. Schäfer (Eds.), Shaping European law and policy: The role of committees and comitology in the political process (pp. 117–165). Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  14. Hix, S., & Høyland, B. (2011). The political system of the European Union (3rd ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Hoedeman, O. (2010). Failure to act—the Commission turns a blind eye to conflicts of interest. In Alter-EU (Ed.), Bursting the Brussels bubble (pp. 103–113). Brussels: Alter-EU.Google Scholar
  16. Jankowski, H.-D., & Bohr-Jankowski, K. (2010). Europa 2010—Das Ende der Solidarität. München: Herbert Utz Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. MacMullen, A. (2001). Joining the European executive: Career trajectories of European commissioners. Dept. of Politics: University of Durham.Google Scholar
  18. Marshall, D. (2010). Who to lobby and when: Institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament committees. European Union Politics, 11, 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (1999). Interests. In L. Cram & N. Nugent (Eds.), Developments in the European Union (pp. 105–129). New York: St. Martin.Google Scholar
  20. Obradovic, D. (2009). Regulating lobbying in the European Union. In D. Coen & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying in the European Union: Institutions, actors, and issues (pp. 298–334). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vaubel, R. (2008). The political economy of labor market regulation by the European Union. Review of International Organizations, 3, 435–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vaubel, R. (2009). The European institutions as an interest group. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Hobart Paper 167.Google Scholar
  24. Wonka, A., Baumgartner, F. R., Mahoney, C., & Berkhout, J. (2010). Measuring the size and scope of the EU interest group population. European Union Politics, 11, 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Vaubel
    • 1
  • Bernhard Klingen
    • 1
  • David Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations