Search results

Two central questions arise with the first being how national parties and interest groups, which have in common the ambition to influence their national state on behalf of their citizens, operate and change at the EU level. The second question is concerned with the consequences these changes have with regard to their influence capacity at both the European and the national level. Within the frames of 'democracy' and 'influence' and based on new empirical evidence, it is described how national parties and interest groups function at the EU level and how they change due to their Europeanisation. Following those frames, new evaluations of how they function on both political levels are presented. Evidence found strongly suggests that the national parties are the current losers and the national interest groups are the current winners of Europeanisation. Finally, recommendations are offered, how the parties could best start to diminish their influence-lag at the EU level. Adapted from the source document.

Public affairs management at the level of the European Union (EU) undergoes rapid changes, due to a combination of: (1) recent transformations of the EU playing‐field; (2) new ways and forms of playing by interest groups that want to influence the EU; and (3) a more professional preparation for this playing. Before we shall focus on the rising new trends, their main causes and major effects on PAM, we present to the non‐specialist first the general basics of EU decision‐making. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractA highly politicised arena in the EU has been caused by the 1998 Commission legislative proposal with regard to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The debate over different interests became more intense.During the EU decision‐making process concerning GMOs, two larger coalitions cutting across institutions and countries waged the fight: one was led by industry and was in favour of GMOs and the other was against and mainly rooted in nongovernmental lobby groups. In mid‐2001, the 'anti' movement had gained a (temporary) winning position. In an attempt to explain this, it was concluded that the industrial lobby has been nonchalant in its preparatory work for public affairs management, by not carefully studying the various stakeholders, issues, time developments and the boundaries of this arena. With the benefit of hindsight it can be seen that the industrial lobby itself has missed opportunities and made unforced errors. Copyright © 2003 Henry Stewart Publications

This paper assesses the role & impact of "insourced experts" on EU law-making. After explaining the principal reasons for the use of such experts, the analysis goes on to examine in detail the different avenues by which such expertise is introduced into the policy process: "expert" committees, comitology committees, & Council working groups. Finally, an assessment of the impact of in-sourcing expertise is made. It is argued that distinct positive aspects to the phenomenon exist -- which is normatively fortunate, as in-sourcing expertise is likely to be an enduring feature of the EU policy process. Adapted from the source document.