Interest Groups in the Policy-Making Process in Croatia

Part of the New Perspectives on South-East Europe book series (NPSE)


This chapter seeks to explore the emergence of the modern landscape of Croatian interest groups and the strategies they use to gain access and exert influence in national policy-making venues. It reflects on specific political and social circumstances that affected the development of the scene of organized interests since the early 1990s. In addition, the article explores elements of different forms of organization and articulation of interests that have become entrenched in policy-making processes in Croatia, ranging from pluralism and neo-corporatism to still widespread clientelistic arrangements with some of the most powerful interest groups. The chapter also provides insights into the main factors that determine interest groups’ influence and choice of lobbying strategies. Finally, it analyses the impact of the EU accession on increasing trends of institutionalization of consultation with interest groups in policy-making and gradual adaptation of interest groups’ influence-seeking behaviour to new policy dynamics at both national and EU levels.


Clientelist Arrangements European Bank For Reconstruction And Development (EBRD) Regional Self-government SOEs State-owned Enterprises Distributional Coalitions 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bajo, A. (2009). Struktura zaposlenih u lokalnim jedinicama, Institut za javne financije. Downloaded 29 September 2017.
  2. Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C. (2008). Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue Definition in the European Union. European Union Politics, 9(3), 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2016). Croatia Country Report, BTI 2016. Downloaded 30 September 2017.
  4. Bežovan, G. (2004). Civilno društvo. Zagreb: Globus.Google Scholar
  5. Butković, H. (2017). The Rise of Direct Democracy in Croatia: Balancing or Challenging Parliamentary Representation? Croatian International Relations Review, 23(77), 39–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CERANEO. (2013). Indeks održivosti organizacija civilnog društva u Hrvatskoj u 2012.živosti%20OCD-a.pdf. Downloaded 26 September 2017.
  7. Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (CCRC). (2015). Decision No. U-VIIR-1158/2015. Downloaded 4 October 2017.
  8. Dahl, R. A. (1967). Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  9. Deloitte. (2016). Central Europe Top 500: An Era of Digital Transformation. Downloaded 25 July 2017.
  10. Dvornik, S. (2009). Actors Without Society – The Role of Civil Actors in the Post-Communist Transformation. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.Google Scholar
  11. DZS (Državni zavod za statistiku). (2008). Persons in paid employment, by activities. Priopćenje. Downloaded 2 October 2017.
  12. DZS (Državni zavod za statistiku). (2011). Persons in paid employment, by activities. Priopćenje, Downloaded 2 October 2017.
  13. EBRD. (2017a). Life in Transition Survey III: A decade of Measuring Transition. Downloaded 24 June 2017.
  14. EBRD. (2017b). Life in Transition Survey II: After the Crisis. Downloaded 24 June 2017.
  15. Ekonomski institut Zagreb (EIZG). (2014). Analiza plaća u javnom i privatnom sektoru. Downloaded 20 August 2017.
  16. Eurostat. (2017). Employment and Activity by Sex and Age – Annual Data. Downloaded 18 August 2017.
  17. Ferrera, M. (1996). ‘The “Southern Model” of Welfare in Social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(17), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fink-Hafner, D. (2014). Towards the Dominance of the Executive. Anali Hrvatskog politološkog društva : časopis za politologiju, 10(1), 71–90.Google Scholar
  19. Fink-Hafner, D. (2015). A Framework for Studying the Development of Civil Society on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1980s. In D. Fink-Hafner (Ed.), The Development of Civil Society in the Countries on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since the 1980s (pp. 1–22). Ljubljana: Založba FDV.Google Scholar
  20. Franić, J. (2012). Zapošljavanje na lokalnoj razini u Republici Hrvatskoj tijekom gospodarske krize. Institut za javne financije. Downloaded 2 October 2017.
  21. Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  22. Glaurdić, J., & Vuković, V. (2016). Voting After War: Legacy of Conflict and the Economy as Determinants of Electoral Support in Croatia. Electoral Studies, 49, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godišnjaci Ministarstva financija. (2017). Downloaded 11 August 2017.
  24. Grdešić, M. (2006). Tranzicija, sindikati i političke elite u Sloveniji i Hrvatskoj. Politička misao, 43(4), 121–141.Google Scholar
  25. HZMO. (2017). Statističke informacije Hrvatskog zavoda za mirovinsko osiguranje. Downloaded 6 September 2017.
  26. Kotarski, K., & Petak, Z. (2018). Croatia’s Post-communist Transition Experience: The Paradox of Initial Advantage Turning into a Middle-Income Trap (this Volume).Google Scholar
  27. Lowi, T. J. (1979). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  28. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (2006). Interest Groups and EU Policy Making: Organisational Logic and Venue Shopping. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European Union: Power and Policy Making (pp. 247–268). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Mirić, J. (1971). Interest Groups in the Political System of Yugoslavia. Revija za sociologiju, 1(1), 56–72.Google Scholar
  30. Olson, M. (1982). Rise and Decline of Nations – Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ott, K., & Bronić, M. (2016). Zaduženost županija, gradova i općina od 2002.–2014., Institut za javne financije, Downloaded 6 October 2017.
  32. Petak, Z., & Vidačak, I. (2015). The Political and Institutional Determinants of Civil Society Development in Croatia Since the 1980s. In D. Fink Hafner (Ed.), The Development of Civil Society in the Countries on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since the 1980s (pp. 95–120). Ljubljana: Založba FDV.Google Scholar
  33. Piattoni, S. (2001). Clientelism in Historical and Comparative Perspective. In S. Piattoni (Ed.), Clientelism, Interests and Democratic Representation (pp. 1–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rusinow, D. (Ed.). (1988). Yugoslavia: A Fractured Federalism. Washington, D.C.: Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
  35. Škiljić Ravenščak, A. (2012). USKOK podnio optužnicu protiv Rubale i još 68 osoba, Večernji list. Downloaded 30 September 2017.
  36. Šonje, V. (2018). The Competitiveness of Croatian Economy: The Comparison of Private and Public Sector Enterprises, (this Volume).Google Scholar
  37. Stambolieva, M. (2016). Welfare State Transformation in the Yugoslav Successor States-From Social to Unequal. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Strange, S. (1988). States and Markets: An Introduction to International Political Economy. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  39. Stubbs, P., & Zrinščak, S. (2015). Citizenship and Social Welfare in Croatia: Clientelism and the Limits of ‘Europeanisation’. European Politics and Society, 16(3), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas, C. S. (Ed.). (1993). First World Interest Groups – A Comparative Perspective. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  41. Thomas, C. S. (2017). Interest Groups, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Downloaded 7 June 2017.
  42. Vidačak, I., & Škrabalo, M. (2014). Exploring the Effects of Europeanization on the Openness of Public Administration in Croatia. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava – Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, 14(1), 149–187.Google Scholar
  43. Vučković, V., & Basarac Sertić, M. (2013). The Effect of Political Institutions on the Size of Government Spending in European Union Member States and Croatia. Financial Theory and Practice, 37(2), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. WHO. (2017). People Receiving Social/Disability Benefits per 100,000. Downloaded 10 September 2017.
  45. Woll, C. (2014). The Power of Inaction: Bank Bailouts in Comparison. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zakošek, N. (1995). Organizirani interesi u Hrvatskoj. Erasmus, 3(11), 28–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Political ScienceUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations