In the European Union (EU), rights advocacy NGOs increasingly seek to influence supranational policy making. The success of immigration and asylum NGOs in inserting themselves into policy making depends on existing (in)formal ties to EU institutions. In contrast, human rights-based NGOs received institutional support through the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) containing a civil society platform that aggregates NGO claims. This article applies a comparative framework derived from the literature on transnational advocacy, using the distinction between venues and frames as starting points for analysis. It compares both sets of NGOs, exploring issues of institutional access and agenda-setting, and examines the strategies and objectives of advocacy NGOs in these two different political settings: while immigration and asylum advocates rely mainly on pluralistic lobbying strategies and pre-given, exogenous institutional opportunity structures, Fundamental Rights Platform NGOs engage in a novel approach in which civil society actors endogenously co-constitute aspects of participatory governance in the EU. On the basis of interviews with NGOs and EU officials, we conclude that each of these strategies exhibit specific trade-offs based on the nature of the relationship to the EU institutions. It is argued that each type of access has its idiosyncratic drawback: while immigration and asylum advocacy may result in dispersed opportunities to steer outcomes at the EU level, the inclusion of rights-based NGOs in the FRA limits their strategic repertoire. Finally, issue-specificity also conditions agenda-setting as higher issue convergence enables more focused framing, while a diffuse issue spectrum yields weaker frames and authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
These interviews are cited as #1a, #2a, and so on to distinguish them from the FRA interviews.
Some immigration and asylum NGOs are also formally connected to the FRA through the Fundamental Rights Platform, but they make up only a small part of all Platform groups. (Amnesty International EU Office, CARITAS EUROPA, ENAR – European Network against Racism, European Women’s Lobby – EWL, Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Migration Policy Group).
Beyers, J., Eising, R. and Maloney, W. (eds.) (2009) Interest Group Politics in Europe: Lessons from EU Studies and Comparative Politics. New York: Routledge.
Brysk, A. (2005) Human Rights and Private Wrongs: Constructing Global Civil Society, Global Horizons. New York: Routledge.
Chowdhury, A. (2011) The giver or the recipient? The peculiar ownership of human rights. International Political Sociology 5 (1): 35–51.
Clark, A.M. (2001) Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cram, L. (2011) The importance of the temporal dimension: New modes of governance as a tool of government. Journal of European Public Policy 18 (5): 636–653.
Donnelly, J. (2003) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Greenwood, J. (2009) Institutions and civil society organizations in the EU’s multi-level system. In: J.M. Joachim and B. Locher. (eds.) Transnational Activism in the UN and the EU: A Comparative Study. New York: Routledge, pp. 90–100.
Joachim, J.M. and Locher, B. (eds.) (2009) Transnational Activism in the UN and the EU: A Comparative Study. New York: Routledge.
Jönsson, C. and Tallberg, J. (eds.) (2010) Transnational actor participation in international institutions: Where, why and with what consequences? In: Transnational Actors in Global Governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–22.
Kohler-Koch, B. (2010) Civil society and EU democracy: ‘Astroturf’ representation? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 100–116.
Labitzke, J. (2012) Consultation processes as a practice of legitimacy in the EU legislative process. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 20 (3): 323–336.
Liebert, U. and Trenz, H.-J. (2011) The New Politics of European Civil Society. New York: Routledge.
Lindgren, K. and Persson, T. (2011) Participatory Governance in the EU. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mingst, K. (2009) Civil society organizations in the United Nations. In: J. Joachim and B. Locher. (eds.) Transnational Activism in the UN and the EU: A Comparative Study. New York: Routledge, pp. 21–29.
Niessen, J. (2001) Overlapping interests and conflicting agendas: The knocking into shape of EU immigration policies. European Journal of Migration and Law 3 (3–4): 419–434.
Princen, S. (2009) Agenda-setting in the European Union. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Princen, S. (2011) Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy 18 (7): 927–943.
Princen, S. and Kerremans, B. (2008) Opportunity structures in the EU multilevel system. West European Politics 31 (6): 1129–1146.
Prügl, E. and Thiel, M. (eds.) (2009) Diversity in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saurugger, S. and Klüver, H. (2013) Opening the black box: The professionalization of interest groups in the EU. Interest Groups & Advocacy 2 (2): 185–205.
Scholte, J.A. (ed.) (2011) Building Global Democracy: Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steffek, J., Kissling, C. and Nanz, P. (eds.) (2008) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Steffek, J. and Hahn, K. (eds.) (2010) Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tarrow, S. (1998) Power in Movement. Social Movement and Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Uçarer, E.M. (2009) Negotiating third-country national rights in the European Union. In: E. Prügl and M. Thiel. (eds.) Diversity in the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 59–76.
Uçarer, E.M. (2009) Safeguarding asylum as a human rights: NGOs and the European Union. In: J. Joachim and B. Locher (eds.) Transnational Activism in the UN and the EU. New York: Routledge, pp. 116–132.
About this article
Cite this article
Thiel, M., Uçarer, E. Access and agenda-setting in the European Union: Advocacy NGOs in comparative perspective. Int Groups Adv 3, 99–116 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/iga.2014.1
- European Union
- civil society
- human rights