A matter of information, discussion and consequences? Exploring the accountability practices of interest groups in the EU

Abstract

Interest groups are perceived as vehicles that can enhance the legitimacy of public institutions at the national and supranational level. However, the potential of these organizations to enhance democratic representation is often questioned and has rarely been systematically analysed. In this article, we examine the under-researched area of interest group accountability, a key component for groups to realize their democratic potential. To do this, we take an organization-centric and top-down perspective and develop a tailored analytical framework including three key dimensions-information, discussion and consequences. Drawing on data from a largescale survey of interest groups active at the EU level, we find considerable variation in the extent to which groups demonstrate practices related to these three accountability dimensions. Furthermore, while receiving funding from EU institutions does not have any significant effect on interest group accountability, we find that organizations representing businesses interests more frequently develop accountability practices related to the dimensions of discussion and consequences, whereas citizen groups are more focused on the information dimension.

Approaching the legitimacy of self-appointed representatives: from responsiveness to reflexivity

“…By taking into account the, albeit limited, catalogue of research on the institutional design facilitating deliberation processes within interest groups, this conception will generate some degree of overlap with literature on responsiveness and the transmission belt function. This paper will draw from the work conducted by several researchers: Miller (1994), Day (1999), Halpin (2006), Panda (2007), Kohler-Koch and Buth (2009), Mosley and Grogan (2012), Berkhout (2013), Fraussen et al (2015), Leardini et al (2017), Fraussen and Halpin (2018) and Fraussen et al (2021). However, the key contributions relevant to this conceptualisation will be those of Albareda (2018), Johansson and Lee (2014) and Andrasik and Mead (2019).…”

The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries

“…In his view, interest groups, particularly when they are "encompassingly" organised into associations, potentially create opportunities for the effective management of economies. This debate has resurfaced in recent studies on stakeholder engagement in, for instance, regulatory consultations (e.g., Fraussen et al, 2021). As with distortion and bias, interest groups are primarily judged on the basis of consequences, such as policy outputs or, in contemporary terms, regulatory legitimacy (e.g., Braun & Busuioc, 2020), that are external to the interest organisation itself.…”

“…We are not alone in our focus on voice practices as an important benchmark for the representative quality of interest groups (e.g., Albareda, 2018;Bolleyer & Correa, 2022;Fraussen et al, 2021;Heylen et al, 2020;Warren, 2001). Voice is understood to have both formal and behavioural components.…”

The representative capacity of interest groups: explaining how issue features shape membership involvement when establishing policy positions

“…Moreover, previous work has highlighted trends toward professionalization, which often implies (more) limited involved of membership (e.g., Jordan and Maloney 1997;Albareda 2020b). At the same time, other work demonstrates continued member-focused orientation of groups (Heylen et al 2020;Fraussen et al 2021).…”