Does professionalization vary across interest group type? Even though an empirical assessment of interest group professionalization is crucial to understand their potential for enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, little is known about the internal configuration of interest groups. Although some argue that professionalization differs systematically across interest group type, others suggest that institutional pressures lead to converging professionalization patterns, so that cause groups and sectional groups are similarly professionalized. However, these assertions are based on case studies focusing only on a small number of interest groups, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions. To overcome this important shortcoming, we provide an empirical analysis of professionalization patterns that is based on a comprehensive survey conducted among a wide variety of interest groups. Our findings indicate that professionalization patterns do not vary systematically across interest group type. By contrast, cause groups and sectional groups are similarly professionalized.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Although we agree that these distinctions can be problematic, in the sense that these groups could be based on a continuum (that is, the case of QUANGOS (quasi-non-governmental organizations) or GONGOS (Governmentally organized Non-governmental organisations), the interest group literature on which this article is based continues to use this differentiation.
Olson (1965) by contrast distinguished different types of interest groups based on the size of groups. Even though size is a crucial characteristic, we argue that the typology of Steward allows for a more general typology as it simultaneously takes into account the membership structure and the nature of the interest.
In addition to distinguishing between cause and sectional group, we also include a dummy variable in the empirical analysis that differentiates between national and European interest groups. We have also repeated the empirical analysis for a more fine-grained actor type classification that distinguishes between cause groups, business associations and professional associations. The results are substantially the same irrespective of the actor type classification.
Given that the dependent and independent variables of this study were measured by a survey that was conducted in 2009 and 2010 in the framework of this broader project, this article is only based on interest groups lobbying the EU institutions with regard to the 56 selected proposals.
The precise question wording is as follows: ‘How often do you offer additional training to your employees who deal with monitoring and commenting on public policy?’
The precise question wording is as follows: ‘On average, how many years of working experience do your employees who deal with monitoring and commenting on public policy have at the time when you hire them?’
The precise question wording is as follows: ‘What is the highest level of education of your staff that deals with monitoring and commenting on public policy? Please indicate how many per cent of your staff have the following highest degree of education (Total=100%).’
We have also computed measures for the absolute number of staff with a PhD and the absolute number of staff with a Master’s degree in order to check in a regression analysis whether there is a systematic difference between sectional and cause groups in terms of the number of highly educated staff. Neither the regression analysis of the absolute number of staff with a PhD nor the regression analysis of the absolute number of staff with a Master report a systematic effect of interest group type.
Abbott, A.D. (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Beyers, J. (2004) Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics 5 (2): 211–240.
Beyers, J. (2008) Policy issues, organisational format and the political strategies of interest organisations. West European Politics 31 (6): 1188–1211.
Beyers, J., Eising, R. and Maloney, W. (2008a) Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics 31 (6): 1103–1128.
Beyers, J., Eising, R. and Maloney, W.A. (2008b) Special Issue: The politics of organised interests in Europe: Lessons from EU studies and comparative politics. West European Politics 31 (6): 1103–1302.
Beyers, J. and Kerremans, B. (2007) Critical resource dependencies and the Europeanization of domestic interest groups. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (3): 460–481.
Blau, P.M., Heydebrand, W.V. and Stauffer, R.E. (1966) The structure of small bureaucracies. American Sociological Review 31 (2): 179–191.
Blau, P.M. and Schoenherr, R.A. (1971) The Structure of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Cavaille, A. (2004) Au nom de femmes: Trajectoires sociales et carrières associatives au Lobby Europeéen des Femmes. Paper Presented at the Workshop ‘Société civile organisée et gouvernance européenne’: IEP de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France, 21–23 June.
Dauvin, P. and Siméant, J. (2002) Le Travail Humanitaire: Les Acteurs des ONG, du siège au Terrain. Paris, France: Presses de Sciences Po.
della Porta, D. and Caiani, M. (2009) Social Movements and Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diani, M. (2003) Leaders or brokers? Positions and influence in social movement networks. In: M. Diani and D. McAdam (eds.) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–122.
Dür, A. (2008) Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics 9 (4): 559–576.
Dür, A. and De Bièvre, D. (2007) Inclusion without influence? NGOs in European trade policy. Journal of Public Policy 27 (1): 79–101.
Eising, R. (2007) Institutional context, organizational resources and strategic choices: Explaining interest group access in the European Union. European Union Politics 8 (3): 329–362.
Gobin, C. (1997) L’Europe syndicale. Entre désir et réalité. Brussels, Belgium: Ed. Labor.
Greenwood, J. (2002) Inside the EU Business Associations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hickson, D.J. and Thomas, M.W. (1969) Professionalization in Britain: A preliminary measurement. Sociology 3 (1): 37–53.
Hooghe, M. and Stolle, D. (eds.) (2004) Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Imig, D.R.I. and Tarrow, S.G. (2001) Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jordan, G. and Maloney, W.A. (1997) The Protest Business? Mobilizing Campaign Groups. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Klüver, H. (2010) Europeanization of lobbying activities: When national interest groups spill over to the European level. Journal of European Integration 32 (2): 175–191.
Klüver, H. (2012a) Biasing politics? Interest group participation in European policy making. West European Politics 35 (5): 1114–1133.
Klüver, H. (2012b) Informational lobbying in the European Union: The effect of organizational characteristics. West European Politics 35 (3): 491–510.
Klüver, H. (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions and Policy Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Buth, V. (2011) Der Spagat der Europäischen Zivilgesellschaft: Zwischen Profesionalität und Bürgernähe. In: B. Kohler-Koch and C. Quittkat (eds.) Die Entzauberung partizipativer Demokratie: Zur Rolle der Zivilgesellschaft bei der Demokratisierung von EU-Governance. Frankfurt: Campus 167–210.
Kohler-Koch, B., Quittkat, C. and Buth, V. (2008) Civil Society Organisations under the impact of the European Commission’s Consultation Regime. Paper Presented at the CONNEX Final Conference: Mannheim, 8 March.
Kollman, K. (1998) Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kubicek, H. and Welter, G. (1985) Messung der Organisationsstruktur: Eine Dokumentation von Instrumenten zur quantitativen Erfassung von Organisationsstrukturen. Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.
Lahusen, C. (2004) Institutionalisierung und Professionalisierung des europäischen Lobbyismus. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 35 (4): 777–794.
Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (1987) Statistical Analysis With Missing Data. New York: Wiley.
Mahoney, C. (2007) Lobbying success in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 27 (1): 35–56.
Mahoney, C. (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Maloney, W.A. (2008) The professionalization of representation: Biasing participation. In: B. Kohler-Koch, D. de Biévre and W. Maloney (eds.) Opening EU-Governance to Civil Society. Gains and Challenges. Mannheim: CONNEX Report Series n° 5: 69–85.
Maloney, W.A. (2011) The democratic contribution of professionalized representation. In: J. van Deth and W.A. Maloney (eds.) New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action. London: Routledge.
Marks, G. and McAdam, D. (1996) Social movements and the changing structure of political opportunity in the European community. West European Politics 18 (2): 249–278.
McGrath, C. (2005) Towards a lobbying profession: developing the industry’s reputation, education and representation. Journal of Public Affairs 5 (2): 124–135.
Meyer, D.S. and Tarrow, S.G. (1998) The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Passy, F. (2003) Social networks matter. But how? In: M. Diani and D. McAdam (eds.) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–48.
Princen, S. and Kerremans, B. (2008) Opportunity structures in the EU multilevel system. West European Politics 31 (6): 1129–1146.
Quittkat, C. (2011) The European commission’s online consultations – A success story? Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (3): 653–674.
Richardson, J. (2000) Government, interest groups and policy change. Political Studies 48 (5): 1006–1025.
Ronit, K. and Schneider, V. (2000) Private Organisations in Global Politics. London: Routledge.
Ruzza, C. (2004) Europe and Civil Society: Movement Coalitions and European Governance. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Sanchez-Salgado, R. (2007) Comment l’Europe construit la société civile. Paris, France: Dalloz.
Saurugger, S. (2006) The professionalisation of interest representation: A problem for the participation of civil society in EU governance. In: S. Smismans (ed.) European Governance and Civil Society. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 260–276.
Saurugger, S. (2012) The professionalization of EU’s civil society: A conceptual framework. In: J. van Deth and W.A. Maloney (eds.) New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action. London: Routledge.
Schmitter, P.C. and Streeck, W. (1999) The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. MPIfG Discussion Paper 99 (1): 1–95.
Siméant, J. (2005) What is going global? The internationalization of French NGOs ‘without borders’. Review of International Political Economy 12 (5): 851–883.
Skocpol, T. (2003) Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Stewart, J.D. (1958) British Pressure Groups: Their Role in Relation to the House of Commons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Streeck, W., Grote, J.R., Schneider, V. and Visser, J. (eds.) (2006) Governing Interests: Business Associations Facing Internationalization. London: Routledge.
Tarrow, S. (1995) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Deth, J. and Maloney, W.A. (eds.) (2011) New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action. London: Routledge.
Warleigh, A. (2001) ‘Europeanizing’ civil society: NGOs as agents of political socialization. Journal of Common Market Studies 39 (4): 619–639.
Wonka, A., Baumgartner, F.R., Mahoney, C. and Berkhout, J. (2010) Measuring the size of the EU interest group population. European Union Politics 11 (3): 463–476.
Zald, M.N. and McCarthy, J.D. (1987) Ressource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. In: M.N. Zald and J.D. McCarthy (eds.) Social Movements in An Organizational Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, pp. 15–42.
We thank William Maloney, Joost Berkhout, Grant Jordan and the anoynmous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions
About this article
Cite this article
Klüver, H., Saurugger, S. Opening the black box: The professionalization of interest groups in the European Union. Int Groups Adv 2, 185–205 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2013.2
- European Union
- interest groups
- organizational structure