DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Damjan Lajh Europeanization of Interest Groups: Comparing the case of Slovenia with and DebatEU Jean Monnet Paper No 2019/01 June 2019 URL: jmce-.eu

To cite this article: Lajh, D. (2019). Europeanization of Interest Groups: Comparing the case of Slovenia with Lithuania and Belgium. DebatEU Jean Monnet Paper, 2019/01.

JEAN MONNET PAPERS publishes pre-print manuscript on the policymaking process and policy studies in . The series is interdisciplinary in character and accept papers in the field of political science, international relations, European studies, sociology, law and similar. It publishes work of theoretical, conceptual as well as of empirical character and it also encourages submissions of policy- relevant analyses, including specific policy recommendations.

Papers are available in electronic format only and can be downloaded in pdf-format at jmce- ljubljana.eu.

Issued by , Faculty of Social Sciences Kardeljeva ploščad 5 1000 Ljubljana Email: [email protected] Tel: +386 1 5805 227 Fax: +386 1 5805 103 www.fdv.uni-lj.si

This publication has been co-funded with support from Erusmus+ Programme of the . This publication [communication] reflects the views only of the authors, and the cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

1

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Europeanization of Interest Groups: Comparing the case of Slovenia with Lithuania and Belgium Damjan Lajh

Abstract: Slovenian accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004 was marked with simultaneously high support from politics and citizens. As a state with corporatist tradition, a special role in EU decision-making processes should have had also Slovenian interest groups. Indeed, Slovenian interest groups set up connections with alike organizations from EU Member States as well as EU-level organizations already before the full membership. At the same time, with the start of negotiation process interest groups had become included in the adoption of the acquis. Since many interest groups operated on voluntary basis with no staff or small number of staff, organizations from EU Member States as well as from the EU-level, provided national organizations with important information, expert knowledge, and know-how on EU policymaking. In this paper we analyse the process of Europeanization of Slovenian interest groups since the beginning of accession process to the EU. Our main research question is: “How the Europeanisation process influenced the interest groups in Slovenia?” To answer our research question we will build on the typology of Europeanization of interest groups theoretically developed by Johansson and Jacobsson (2016) and focus on the following six explaining factors of the Europeanization of interest groups: (1) contacts with EU policymakers and institutions; (2) interest in EU policymaking; (3) funding by EU projects and programmes; (4) networking with EU umbrella organizations; (5) participation in open consultations; (6) relationship with members. We will analyse correlations between the various types of Europeanization. To study the effects of Europeanization process we will apply the Web survey data gathered in frame of Comparative Interest Group Survey project among the population of national interest groups in Slovenia (N=439) and compare results with case of Lithuania as the most similar case: newer EU member state, post- and newer democracy and Belgium as most different case: EU founding state, and established democracy from Western Europe.

Key words: Europeanisation, Slovenia, interest groups, comparative analysis

Damjan Lajh is associate professor at Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ljubljana, Jean Monnet professor, Head of Centre for political science research, recipient of Altiero Spinelli prize for outreach 2018 and coordinator of University of Ljubljana Jean Monnet centre of excellence.

2

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Introduction The process of Europeanization had an important effect on the politics, institutions, administration, political culture and actors in Member States. This effect has been gradually increasing with the European Union (EU) having more competences and influence on diverse policy areas as well as with enlargement process. For the newer Member States that have approached EU since 2004 the effect of Europeanization was more intense since in rather short period of time they had to adapt to the membership as well as adopt the acquis. From the start of the negotiations process and until the full membership, the Member States already had to adapt their policymaking processes and administration. This means also the establishment of coordination of EU affairs that dealt with EU matters. What is an additional characteristic of Europeanization of newer Member States is that most of them represent new democracies with socialist past that needed to adapt also to democratic way of policymaking. In this article, we will concentrate on the case of Slovenia, which had to establish itself as an independent state by founding also new political institutions and enlarging the administration. This process took place simultaneously with processes of Europeanization and with opening the boarders and establishing market economy. The individual effect of Europeanization is thus taking into account also the effects of internationalisation, globalisation and processes of democratisation, unknown and hard to measure. We will compare the research results with the case of Lithuania that went through a similar path as Slovenia. Lithuania also joined the EU in 2004, while it gained its independence in 1990 from Soviet Union. The research results will be compared also to the case of Belgium as most different country, which is an established democracy and EU founding state.

What is also characteristic of new Member States from Central and that have been joining the EU since 2000s is the establishment and fast development of interest groups systems in the that played key role also during the transition. The interest groups system in Slovenia started to develop with revolution in the 19th century. It has reached the level of Western European countries before the War II (Kolarič, Črnak-Meglič, & Vojnovič, 2002). However, with the change of political system and the introduction of the socialist system during the the further development of interest groups has been for some decades frozen. Gradual changes in the Constitution during the Yugoslavia slowly allowed more independence for interest groups and less state control over organisations that were allowed and organised by the state. With the 1980s the new social movements developed, such as peace movement, feminist, anti-psychiatric, concerning LGBT rights and environment that placed

3

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 new issues on the political agenda and put pressure on the government in a direction of democratisation ( & Fink-Hafner, 2018; Fink-Hafner, 1992). During the transition period and after the independence the number of interest groups escalated. Citizens started to organise themselves in variety of societies and associations which resulted in almost doubled interest groups population size (Fink-Hafner, 1998, Črnak-Meglič & Rakar, 2009). Organisations that were based on almost voluntary bases started to network and cooperate with similar and umbrella organisations from Europe and elsewhere with the aim of getting important information and skills (Fink-Hafner, 2007).

In this paper we will concentrate on the influence of Europeanization effects on interest groups since the accession processes of Slovenia until today. Our main research question is: “How the Europeanization processes effect the interest groups in Slovenia?” To answer our research question we will build on the typology of Europeanization of interest groups theoretically developed by Johansson and Jacobsson (2016) and focus on the following six explaining factors of the Europeanization of interest groups: (1) contacts with EU policymakers and institutions; (2) interest in EU policymaking, (3) funding by EU projects and programmes; (4) networking with EU umbrella organizations; (5) participation in open consultations; (6) relationship with members. We will analyse each Europeanization type separately and look into the correlation between different types of interest groups. In order to be able to estimate the level of each Europeanization type we will compare research results with the most similar case, Lithuania and the most different case, Belgium. This will help us also estimate weather research results can be representative also for other EU member states.

We will continue the article by defining the Europeanization process in relationship to interest groups. In the next section we will explain the role of Slovenian interest groups in EU policymaking during the accession stage and today, when Slovenia is a full member. After the description of methodology and data follows the empirical analysis and main conclusions of the article.

Europeanization of interest groups

The overview of literature does not offer us one single, unified definition of the process of Europeanization. In most political science literature, Europeanization process is seen as complex and multidimensional process connected to innovation, modernisation, changes or adaptation (Lajh & Novak, 2015). Thus, it is necessary to define Europeanization every time we use this concept (Radaelli, 2000; 2003). Europeanization has an impact on various

4

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 dimensions of political, economic and social life in member states and accession states (Lajh & Novak, 2015). Olsen (2003, p. 334) identifies five areas that change under the effect of Europeanization: (1) changes in external territorial borders, (2) establishment and development of political institutions on EU level, (3) export of EU governance mode outside of EU borders, (4) political project that supports building of united and politically strong Europe and (5) penetration of EU institutions and decision-making processes in national and subnational systems of governance.

However, every change in member and accession states can be hardly assigned just to the process of Europeanization (Grabbe, 2003). Europeanization is focused on the actual effects of European integration processes. To talk about Europeanization we thus need to deal first with the European integration processes (Lajh & Novak, 2015). Prior to accession processes of a Member State to the EU we deal mostly with globalisation and internationalisation processes. Although Europeanization processes encourage public policy changes it also allows some differences among the Member States and it is not a process of harmonisation (Radaelli, 2003). Europeanization thus cannot be reduced to the processes and actions that take place just in but we have to take into account also the processes at national, regional and local levels (Radaelli, 2003). After all interest groups may engage in EU policymaking in variety of ways not just by lobbying in Brussels (Novak & Lajh, 2018). This justifies the analysis of Europeanization not just in different but also in different policy areas and individual Member States.

Research on Europeanization processes focuses predominantly on how process of EU integration and EU policy making changed Member States, policies, politics and polity (Johansson & Jacobsson, 2016). It changes politics in a way that EU political dynamics become part of national politics and national policymaking (Ladrech, 1994, p. 69; Börzel, 1999, p. 574) and demands adjustments in national institutions (Knill & Lehmkuhl, 1999). To explain the effects of Europeanization we can also look into the degree to which national policies and institutions adjusted and adapted to EU policies by the use of “the goodness of fit” model (Börzel & Risse, 2003). Most research focuses on the effects of EU integration and EU policymaking on state structures, institutions and the Member States. Maurer, Mittag, and Wessels (2003, p. 54) place into the focus of their analysis public policy actors. They define Europeanization as a process in which governmental, parliamentarian and nongovernmental actors change their attention and invest their resources and time to EU policymaking (Maurer et al., 2003, p. 54). The actors-centred approach focuses on how national actors “do” with EU

5

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 in national processes (Johansson & Jacobsson, 2016). National public policy actors can take an active stance in EU policymaking by engaging, interpreting, appropriating or ignoring the processes of European integration (Woll & Jacquot, 2010, p. 113). Lately we can thus notice also the increase of interest on Europeanization of interest groups. Scholars predominantly focus on involvement of interest groups in EU policymaking, participation in EU umbrella organisations as well as the effects of EU funding on interest groups (e.g. Sanchez-Salgado, 2014; Johansson & Jacobsson, 2016; Pritoni, 2017; Fink-Hafner, Hafner-Fink, & Novak, 2015a; Klüver, 2010; Maloney, Hafner-Fink, & Fink-Hafner, 2018; Novak & Lajh, 2018; Sanchez-Salgadov & Demidov, 2018).

The EU offers many ways of accession to decision-makers that interest groups can take advantage of (Beyers, 2002, p. 591). Additionally, the EU offers different resources such as legal, financial, cognitive and normative, political and institutional resources that interest groups can use and transform them into political activities with the aim to influence the policy results (Woll & Jacquot, 2010). Interest groups have to take advantage of these opportunities if they want to influence the policy results. What is more national interest groups should follow a “dual strategy” to promote their interests in front of national and EU institutions in order to increase their impact on the EU public policy process (Eising, 2004, p. 216). By the Europeanization of interest groups we can understand their increased role in the processes of EU policymaking at the national level as well as taking over the European dimension instead of national one (Warleigh, 2001, p. 620). Interest groups may refer to the EU and use it when they need it, in other cases they would refer to the national level (Johansson & Jacobsson, 2016). At the same time institutions can also affect and cause changes in domestic actors and interest groups interests, ideas and identities in a process of learning (Risse, Cowles, & Caporaso, 2001, p. 12). As stressed by Johansson and Jacobsson (2016), interest groups are not only objects of Europeanization but also themselves have an influence on EU and are as such also subjects of Europeanization.

There are different ways in which interest groups are engaged in Europeanization processes. Johansson and Jacobsson (2016) define six types of Europeanization of interest groups.

1. Regulatory Europeanization takes into consideration the shaping of the legal environment in which interest groups are active. In this case interest groups adapt to the changes as well as engage in lobbying with intention to influence these policy changes. 2. Discursive Europeanization happens through the changes of thinking about policy, politics or policies, affects the agenda orientation of interest groups and builds a

6

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

common knowledge base at the EU level. Interest groups may also resists and refuse European idea and norms. 3. Financial Europeanization shows the dependency of interest groups on EU funding. For EU level organizations the funding by EU projects and programmes is very important but it includes also funding to national, regional and local interest groups (Mahoney & Beckstrand, 2011; Sanchez-Salgado, 2014). In countries where their lack of national funding or there is an absence of culture of citizens donating for the causes of interest groups (Stakeholder meeting, 2018) EU funds may be highly valuable for the operation of interest groups. Financial Europeanisation has influenced interest groups in a way to become more professionalised in order to be able to compete for these resources. However, EU funds are often short term and conditioned by co-financing with own resources. This leads to short-term project-oriented financing that for small interest groups from Central and Eastern Europe can mean focusing their activities only on projects and relying on temporal staff (Stakeholder meeting, 2018). 4. Organizational Europeanization can translate in interest groups involvement in EU level umbrella organisations or networking with similar organizations from the EU member states and their multileveled relationship. Inclusion in EU level organisation can mean a strategy to influence EU policymaking (Novak & Lajh, 2018) or may help interest groups to influence domestic policymaking by enabling dialog with national institutions (Fink-Hafner, 2007). 5. Participatory Europeanization refers to changes in participatory opportunities such as possibilities to participate in European Citizens Initiative, open consultations of European Commission or other arenas such as European Social Forums. 6. Identity Europeanization happens through social interactions taking place by individuals networking and participating in European process. In this case, the political socialisation function of interest groups (Warleigh, 2001) is important. Beside interest groups’ influence on EU policy results interest groups should also educate constituency about EU public policies and include them in formulating positions of interest groups towards EU related topics (Warleigh, 2001, p. 623).

EU is not located just in the Brussels bubble but impacts beyond Brussels (Sanchez-Salgado & Demidov, 2018) and influences interest groups in variety of ways, which is the main argument of our paper. We will continue with an overview of Europeanization on Slovenian interest groups, which are the focus of this paper since the accession period until today.

7

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Europeanisation of interest groups in Slovenia

Although EU institutions and public policies create additional opportunities for national organisations to influence public policies, not all national organisations decide to take advantage of EU access points (Beyers & Kerremans, 2007, p. 460). Level of interest groups involvement in EU policymaking when trying to pursue their goals is dependent with various factors (Lundberg & Sedelius, 2014, p. 323). While an important minority of interest groups represent their interests regularly at the EU level most of groups (also those that represent business interests) remain predominantly active at the national level (Eising, 2008, p. 16). Although national interest groups recognise the importance of EU policymaking and also try to influence EU policies their priorities are predominantly focused on national level and local level (Lundberg & Sedelius, 2014, p. 323).

Europeanization of Slovenian interest groups began with the processes of Slovenian access to the EU. In 1996 Slovenia signed European agreement with which began its accession and negotiation processes in the EU. Less than a decade later, in 2004, Slovenia became a full member of the EU. Already with the accession processes we could noticed the effects of Europeanization on Slovenian interest groups. In particular, Slovenian interest groups became members of EU level organisations. Through the networking with the EU level interest groups, Slovenian interest groups gained access to know-how and transferred the knowledge of EU interest groups to national environment (Fink Hafner et al., 2012; Fink Hafner et. al., 2015a). Interviews between 97 selected organizations in Slovenia in 2012 in 11 policy fields revealed that 76.3% of organizations are members of EU interest groups. In 1996, 66.7% of organisations networked with EU interest groups. Time devoted to networking with similar organisations from abroad is increasing as well. In 2012, 52.6% of organizations devoted a lot of their time to such networking, while in 1996 39.1%, which was still a high percentage (Fink Hafner et al., 1996; Fink Hafner et al., 2012).

Although collective representation of interests and access to policy information are key reasons to join the EU umbrella organizations while material encouragements of EU level organizations to its national member organization play a minor role (Eising, 2008, p. 15). EU level represented for Slovenian interest groups also an additional option for financing. Funding from EU projects and programmes become increasingly important in light of measures during economic crises and lack of citizens support in forms of donations (Stakeholder meeting, 2018). In 2012, 57.7% of interviewed organizations were financed also in frame of EU programmes and projects while for 22 organisations EU funds represented one of the three key sources of

8

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 funding. The EU is after all one of the most important public donators. Several representatives of interest groups are financially supported by EU as European funding represents part of broader strategy for decreasing democratic deficit and increasing political participation (Sanchez-Salgado, 2014, p. 337).

At the same time Slovenian interest groups’ contacts with EU level decision-makers and institutions remained very limited. The same can be said for the participation of Slovenian interest groups in open consultations organised by the European Commission (Stakeholder meeting, 2018). Nonetheless, we may notice an increased registration of Slovenian interest groups in EU Transparency Register. In June 2019, 69 interest groups from Slovenia are registered in the register (Transparency Register, 2018), while in August 2015 only 24 Slovenian interest groups were registered (Lajh & Novak, 2015). When interest groups decided to contact EU institutions the issue had to be of particular importance to them. Additionally, they preferred to contact institutions with Slovenian representatives such as Slovenian members of the or Council of the EU where they can contact The Permanent Representation of the of Slovenia to the EU in Brussels, or national ministries and officials. Another option for inclusion in EU policymaking was participation in process of preparing national positions towards the European Commission’s legislative proposals (Novak & Lajh, 2018).

Since 1996 the European integration process have affected and changed Slovenian interest groups in several ways. Fink-Hafner, Hafner-Fink and Novak (2015b, p. 81) defined five ways in which Europeanization had a change of: (1) the institutional opportunity structure for interest group activities, where the relationship between interest groups and parliaments have been changed by adaptation to integration into the EU political system while the role of the executive has strengthen (2) internationalisation of some interest groups though membership in EU and international organisations that offered support predominantly in the form of knowhow and experiences to domestic interest groups, (3) interest groups political culture into more active interest groups, (4) interest groups organisational modes into different types of interest groups and (5) the influence of interest groups within the national and EU political system in direction to become more influential and successful in their lobbying (Fink-Hafner et al, 2015b, p. 81). Despite Europeanization having an effect on interest groups in direction of more active and influential interest groups Slovenian interest groups remain in comparison with some older and bigger member states less active when it comes to EU level policymaking (Hafner-Fink et al., 2016).

9

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Data and Methods In the empirical part of our paper we will describe the current stage of Europeanization of Slovenian interest groups. We will understand the Europeanization processes more broadly than just contacts with EU decision-makers as a process that influences national interest groups in a variety of ways. The analysis is based on data that have been collected in an original cross-national survey of interest groups (Beyers et al., 2016, see www.cigsurvey.eu). We will limit our analysis to the case of Slovenia. First a comprehensive mapping of the interest groups population at the national level has been done. The sampling was based on the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Public Legal Records and Related Services (AJPES) database, which is the primary source of public information on business entities in Slovenia but where also all legal entities need to be registered. The population consists of 1203 organisations of which 439 (36%) participated in the survey. Later the survey has been submitted to all groups in the population. Interest groups are defined as non-governmental organized groups, who act with the purpose of influencing political decisions. We included in the survey also latent groups whose primary purpose may not be influencing political decisions. The population of interest groups includes broad range of groups, such as business organisations, professional associations, trade unions, cause groups, identity groups, leisure groups and institutions and public authorities.

In the empirical analysis we will try to answer our question how Europeanized are interest groups in Slovenia? We will approach Europeanization process as a process that influences in variety of ways and build on the typology of Europeanization of interest groups developed by Johansson and Jacobsson (2016). Firstly, we will present the status of Slovenian interest groups on particular type of Europeanization. In the second stage we will the correlation between different types of Europeanization. The research results for Slovenia will be compared to results for Lithuania and Belgium to help us estimate weather the levels of types of Europeanisations are low or high.

Based on the available data in our survey we have operationalised each type of Europeanization with the following variables:

1. Regulatory Europeanization: For this type of Europeanisation we will be interested in contacts that interest groups had with EU level institutions during the last year. The exact question is as follows: “During the last 12 months, how often has your group actively sought access to the following EU-level institutions and agencies in order to influence public policies?”. The interest groups evaluated the frequency of contacts on

10

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

the scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is we did not seek access, 2 is at least once, 3 is at least once every three months, 4 is at least once a month and 5 is at least once a week. We will be interested in contacts with seven EU institutions: Commissioners and their cabinets; Officials in the DGs of the Commission; Member-state delegations/Permanent representations in Brussels; the Council secretariat; Leadership of EP party groups and/or European party federations; Other members of the European Parliament and European regulatory agencies. The values for the frequency of contacts with institutions will be added together and divided by seven to get an average frequency of contacts with EU institutions. 2. Discursive Europeanization will be operationalised with the increase of interest in EU policy making. The wording of the question is: “Policies originating from the European Union have a different level of importance for different organizations. How important are these policies for your organization? EU policies are: 1 the most important focus; 2 an important focus; 3 a less important focus, 4 other areas take more of our time; 5 of no importance whatsoever”. 3. Financial Europeanization will be operationalised with funds received from EU project and programmes. The exact wording of the question is: “Organizations get financial support from different sources. Please indicate the percentage of your organization’s 2015 budget that came from the various sources listed below. (Estimations of percentages are sufficient and very helpful.) Funding from the European Union (e.g. payments from EU projects or programs)”. 4. Organizational Europeanization is operationalised with networking with EU level interest groups. The exact wording of the question is: “One way of achieving your goals is by becoming a member of a European or international interest organizations or network. Are you member of one or more European / international organizations or networks?”. 5. Participatory Europeanization takes into account taking the advantages of different opportunity structures at EU level. Since we do not have data for participation at open consultations organised by European Commission or in advisory boards at EU level we will analyse the data for general participation in consultations and advisory boards. The exact wording of the questions is: “During the last 12 months, how often has your organization been involved in any of the following activities? Responded to open consultations by the government” and “Served on advisory commissions or boards”. The frequency of participation was measured on the scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is we did

11

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

not do this, 2 is at least once, 3 is at least once every three months, 4 is at least once a month and 5 is at least once a week. The answers to both questions will be added together and divided by two to get the average frequency for participation in opportunity structures. 6. Identity Europeanization will take in consideration the relationship between ineterst groups and their members. We will analyse the answers to two questions. The wording of the first question is: “Thinking about your organization’s position on public policies, how would you rate the influence of the following actors? Your membership”. The answers were given on the scale from one to four where 1 is very influential, 2 is somewhat influential, 3 is note very influential and 4 is not at all influential. The wording of the second analysed question is: “Thinking about your organization's decisions on political strategies, how would you rate the influence of the following actors? Your membership” The answers were provided on the same scale from 1 to 4. The answers to both questions were latter added together and divided by two to get the average influence of members within interest groups. This type of Europeanisations has some limits in the analyses. The questions on the influence on interest groups has been asked only to interest groups with membership base.

Results

Regulatory Europeanization

Slovenian interest groups have very rarely contacts with EU institutions. None of the organisations has contacts at least once a week. But taking into account that interest groups are active in a specific and that for the specific area polices are not formulated all the time this may be no surprise. Additionally, Brussels is quite distant from Slovenian interest groups and the cost of contacting EU institutions is high. For this reason, interest groups probably limit their contacts to the amount that is necessary. However, 78.5% of Slovenian interest groups did not contact EU institutions at all during the last year. The most frequent access is to members of the European Parliament. European Parliament is probably the exception because interest groups can contact also members of parliament that come from Slovenia. Belgian interest groups are on the other hand more likely to contact EU institutions. This is no surprise after all Belgian interest groups are located in exact proximity of all EU institutions. Still 56.1% of Belgian interest groups does not seek access to any EU institution and the mean values for frequency of access to individual EU institution is not particularly higher. Lithuania interest groups are quite similar to the Slovenian, 71.3% of interest groups does not seek access to EU

12

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

decision-makers. Also, the frequency of contacts with individual EU institutions is similar to the situation in Slovenia.

Figure 1: Frequency of contacts with EU institutions, mean value

At least once 5 a week

4

3

2

We did not seek access 1 Commissioners Officials in the Member-state The Council Leadership of EP Other members and their cabinets DGs of the delegations/ secretariat party groups and/ of the European Commission Permanent or European party Parliament representations in federations Brussels

Slovenia Belgium Lithuania

Discursive Europeanization

Although Slovenian interest groups have very rare contacts with EU institutions, they still have an interest in EU policies and find them important. Almost 40% of organisations believe that EU policies are important or very important for them. Another 33.9% find them less important because they use more time for other areas. EU level policymaking is similarly important for Belgian and Lithuanian interest groups. However, the percentage of groups that find EU policymaking of no importance for them is the largest in Slovenia. When we compare Slovenian interest groups to Belgian interest groups the share of interest groups from Belgian that do not find EU policies important is 10% smaller compared to the share of Slovenian groups. In average Slovenian interest groups spend approximately 10% of their time at European level. Although 34.9% of interest groups spend no time at EU level, almost 20% of interest groups spend more than 25% of their time at European level when it comes to advocacy and lobby activities. However, we have to keep in mind that interest groups can participate in EU policy making also at the national level.

13

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Figure 2: Importance of EU level policymaking for Slovenian interest groups

The most important focus Lithuania

An important focus Belgium

Slovenia A less important focus, other areas take more of our time 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Of no importance whatsoever

Financial Europeanization

EU funds can be especially important for organisations that do not have a stable source of funding such as membership fees, options to be financed by the national funds or regular donations. For 17.3% of Slovenian interest groups EU funds represent at least partial financial source. For three percent of organisations EU projects and programmes EU funds are the main financial source. In average, interest groups that are financed by EU funds receive a quarter of their resources with EU projects and programmes. For Belgian interest groups EU funds are not that important. Only 10.4% of interest groups are at least partially funded by EU projects and programmes and for these groups in average EU funds represent only 14.26% of their budget. In Lithuania, the EU funds are of greater importance. As many as 36.57% of interest groups are at least partially funded by EU. For the interest groups that receive EU funds, these in average represent 34.39% of their budget.

For majority of Slovenian interest groups membership subscriptions represent the main financial source (45.1%). Funding from national government is the main source of funding for 17.1% of interest groups and donations and gifts from individuals are the most important financial source for 10.8% of interest groups. Since EU funds are given for shorter period of time (for a period of a few years) it is better for interest organisations to have more permanent financial resources that enable them building on their professional knowledge as well as to be more active in policymaking. EU funds demand implementation of some activities for the money they receive, leaving them with not enough time to dedicate to advocacy activities. Additionally, competition for EU funds is very high. It demands almost professional

14

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 organisation of interest groups to be able to apply for these financial sources. In addition, EU funding often requires co-financing from other funds. Financing from EU projects and programmes may thus become inaccessible for small, nongovernmental interest groups.

Organisational Europeanization

Networking with European or international organisations is very present among Slovenian interest groups. More than 60% of Slovenian interest groups are members of at least one network or umbrella organisation from abroad. In average Slovenian interest groups are members of at least two such networks or umbrella organisations. In Belgium, 52% of interest groups are members of international networks. In average, these groups are also members of 2 umbrella organisations. While in Lithuania, 54.2% of groups are members of international networks and in average, they are members of 1.7 organisations. European and international organisations are beneficial for national organisation because they inform them about key European and international political developments (62.9%), they provide them with expertise and information (88.9%), they represent their interest at the EU and international institutions (67.8%), they connect them with like-minded interests from abroad (85.2%) and also help with providing specific facilities such as judicial advice and access to government agencies or consultancies (38.6%).

Participatory Europeanization

Since we do not have information on how often Slovenian interest groups participated in open consultations of the European Commission, in the paper we will be interested in how often in general Slovenian interest groups participate in opportunity structures. During the last year, less than 40% of interest groups participated at least one or twice in public consultations and less than 45% were included in an advisory commission or board. The inclusion in opportunity structures is lower when we compare it to the Belgium or Lithuania. In Belgium, 66% of interest groups participated at least once in open consultations and almost 88% in advisory boards. Level of participation is lower in Lithuania but still higher than in Slovenia. More than 52% participated at least once in open consultations and 69% in advisory commission or board. The lower inclusion in opportunity structures of Slovenian interest groups may be also a consequence of high percentage of understaffed interest groups (almost 70% of interest groups does not have any staff) or consequence of lack of information about these opportunities. Additionally, it is probably not very likely that each interest groups will have during a period

15

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 of one-year opportunity to participate in a consultation through the whole year. Although public policies are constantly made, policies in specific area of interest do not change all the time.

Figure 3: Frequency of participation in open consultations during the last year

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 We did not do this At least once At least once every At least once a At least once a week three months month

Slovenia Belgium Lithuania

Figure 4: Frequency of participation in advisory commissions or board during the last year

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 We did not do this At least once At least once every At least once a At least once a week three months month

Slovenia Belgium Lithuania

16

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Identity Europeanization

Identity Europeanization can influence the relationship between interest groups and their membership base. The inclusion of members in decision-making of interest groups is important for the political socialisation of members and for building their social capital. This indicator was analysed only on the interest groups that have members. In average member are somewhat influential when the organisation takes decisions on political strategies and when it forms position towards public policies. For 76.9% of organisations members are at least somewhat influential when the organisations take decisions on political strategies and for 72% of organisations members are at least somewhat influential when they form positions towards public policies. Members are significantly more important in Lithuania where for 90.4% of interest groups members are at least somewhat influential in taking decisions on political strategies and for 88.8% of interest groups members are at least somewhat influential at forming positions towards public policies. In Belgium, members are even less important than in Slovenia. For 75% of interest groups members are at least somewhat influential for taking decisions on political strategies and for 63.1% members are at least somewhat influential for forming positions towards public policies. The importance of members could be connected with level of professionalization. More professionalised groups usually rely less on their members (Maloney, 2007).

Figure 5: Influence of members in interest organisations on the positions of public policies

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Very influential Somewhat influential Not very influential Not at all influential

Slovenia Belgium Lithuania

17

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Figure 6: Influence of members in interest organisations on decisions on political strategies

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Very influential Somewhat influential Not very influential Not at all influential

Slovenia Belgium Lithuania

Correlations between different types of Europeanization

In the second stage of our analysis we looked into the correlation between different types of Europeanization of interest groups. We performed bivariate correlation analysis and used Pearson correlation coefficient. The analysis was performed only for the case of Slovenia. Most of Europeanization types are correlated which shows that interest groups get Europeanized in various ways. It is not that some organisations get Europeanized in one way and other organisations in other type, the same organisations are Europeanized in various ways.

If we look at the direction of correlation, we can see that interest groups that are more interested in EU policymaking also contact more frequently EU institutions, are financed in bigger share from EU programs and projects, and are more likely to be a member of EU or international organisations. With increased importance of EU policies for interest groups increases also the participation of interest groups in open consultations and in advisory commissions and boards. For interest groups that recognise importance of EU policymaking also members are more influential in decisions about political strategies and in forming positions on public policies.

Although Slovenian interest groups have rare contacts with EU institutions, interest groups that receive EU funds also contact EU institutions more often and participate more in different opportunity structures. For the same organisations, organisations that contact EU institutions

18

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01 and participate in opportunity structures, members are influential in making decisions within the institution.

Table 1: Correlation among Europeanization types

Regulatory Discursive Financial Organisati Participati Identity Europeaniz Europeaniz Europeaniz onal on Europeaniz ation ation ation Europeaniz Europeaniz ation ation ation Regulatory Pearson 1 -0,353 0,246 0,062 0,474 -0,122 Europeaniz Correlation ation Sig. (2- 0,000 0,000 0,240 0,00 0,058 tailed) N 367 366 330 365 359 0,242 Discursive Pearson -0,353 1 -0,196 -0,141 -0,389 0,200 Europeaniz Correlation ation Sig. (2- 0,000 0,000 0,006 0,000 0,001 tailed) N 366 383 343 380 370 252 Financial Pearson 0,246 -0,196 1 0,035 0,194 -0,079 Europeaniz Correlation ation Sig. (2- 0,000 0,000 0,505 0,000 0,225 tailed) N 330 343 376 373 337 239 Organisati Pearson 0,062 -0,141 0,035 1 0,115 0,032 onal Correlation Europeaniz ation Sig. (2- 0,240 0,006 0,505 0,027 0,601 tailed) N 365 380 373 428 374 264 Participati Pearson 0,474 -0,389 0,194 0,115 1 -0,162 on Correlation Europeaniz ation Sig. (2- 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,027 0,011 tailed)

19

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

N 359 370 337 374 376 248 Identity Pearson -0,122 0,200 -0,079 0,032 -0,162 1 Europeaniz Correlation ation Sig. (2- 0,058 0,001 0,225 0,601 0,011 tailed) N 242 252 239 264 248 265

Conclusion

The focus of our paper was how Europeanized are Slovenian interest groups? The case of Slovenia is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, Slovenia is a new member state. It has joined the EU in 2004 after a decade of accession period. During accession period Slovenian interest groups had to quickly adapt to the new situation where EU level policymaking became part of domestic affairs. If interest groups have to influence policy affairs they now have to monitor and get involved also in EU policymaking. Unlike in founding Member States the changes of Europeanization processes have been much more intense in new(er) Member States. While founding Member States gradually adapted to the common policymaking, the new(er) ones entered the EU that have competences in many policy areas, whereas in areas that are not under the competences of the EU, the European Commission still may propose common goals.

Secondly, Slovenia is also a new democracy. Slovenia is an independent state since 1991. Before that, it was a socialist state and part of Yugoslavia. The interest groups were state regulated and started to develop more during the 1980s. Interest groups had developed quickly after the independence but this means that besides the process of Europeanization in the beginning of 1990s were affected also by the change of process of democratisation.

Our analysis shows that Slovenian interest groups are Europeanized in variety of ways. By this we mean that the same organisations have been Europeanized in different ways. However, for some interest groups it appears that Europeanization process has not affected them in any way. For these organisations we can say that they remain active at national level, do not network with other European or international organisations, receive national sources of funding, and EU policies are of little or no importance for them. At the same time, we can also point out that organisational Europeanization has the widest effect on interest groups in Slovenia. More than 60% of interest groups are included in such networks and benefit predominantly from expertise and information that they receive.

20

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

To estimate the level of each type of Europeanization we compared data for Slovenia also with data for Belgium and Lithuania, as most similar and different cases. Slovenia is indeed compared to the other two countries the most Europeanised when it comes to organisational Europeanization. On the other hand, Slovenia has the highest share of interest groups that find EU policies as not important at all. Interest groups from Lithuania are more Europeanised when it comes to identity Europeanisation and financial Europeanisation with the highest share of groups funded by EU projects and programmes. Belgian interest groups contact more often EU institutions although the differences are not big and participate in higher share in consultations and advisory boards. Europeanisation level is different for different types in different countries, which shows us that indeed we need to take into account different types of Europeanisation and not just one.

At the same time, for individual interest groups the levels of different types of Europeanisation are correlated which gives us an idea on the impact of Europeanisation process. Effects of Europeanization make national interest groups more active in EU policymaking. Interest groups that found EU policies more important for them are also more likely to contact EU institutions, network with EU or international organisations, and receive EU funds. Additionally, interest groups for whom EU policies are important also participate more in open consultations and advisory boards as well as include members in decisions taken within the organisation. This is important especially for the political socialisation of members. One of Warleigh’s (2001) critics was that interest groups could not become agents of Europeanization before they do not become internally democratic and include members in political activities of interest groups. At the same time, this is important also in the light of participatory democracy. Interest groups that find EU policies more important for them also participate more in policymaking and take advantage of offered opportunity structures. This analysis may also show that interest groups may be ready to become agents of Europeanization and are indeed taking advantage of participatory democracy. However, more research in this field is necessary.

21

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

References

Beyers, J. (2002) Gaining and Seeking Access: The European Adaptation of Domestic Interest Associations. European Journal of Political Research, 41(5), 585-612.

Beyers, J. & Kerremans, B. (2007). Critical Resource Dependencies and the Europeanization of Domestic Interest Groups. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 460-481.

Beyers, J., Bernhagen, P., Braun, C., Fink-Hafner, D., Heylen, F., Maloney, W., Naurin, D., & Pakull, D. (2016). Comparative Interest Group Survey Questionnaire. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.

Börzel, T. A. (1999). Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanization in German and . Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(4), 573-596.

Börzel, T. A. & Risse, T. (2003). Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe. In K. Featherstone, & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization (pp. 57-80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Črnak-Meglič, A., & Rakar, T. (2009). The Role of the Third Sector in the Slovenian Welfare System. Teorija in praksa, 46(3), 237-254.

Eising, R. (2004). Multilevel Governance and Business Interests in the European Union. Governance. An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 17(2), 211- 245.

Eising, R. (2008). Interest Groups in EU Policy-making. Living Reviews in European Governance, 3(4). Retrived from http://www.europeangovernance- livingreviews.org/Articles/lreg-2008-4/download/lreg-2008-4Color.pdf

Fink-Hafner, D. (1992). Nova družbena gibanja subjekti politične inovacije. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Fink-Hafner, D., Lajh, D., Hafner-Fink, M., Kustec–Lipicer, S., Krašovec, A., Deželan, T.,

Knep, M., & Novak, M. (2012). Formation of Policy Networks and Lobbying Slovenia, 2012

[data file]. Slovenia, Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede, Center za politološke raziskave [production], 2012. Slovenia, Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. Arhiv družboslovnih podatkov [distribution], 2016. ADP - IDNo: POLMR12.

22

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Fink-Hafner, D. (1998). Organized Interests in the Policy-making Process in Slovenia. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(2): 285-302.

Fink-Hafner, D. (2007). Lobiranje in njegova regulacija. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Fink-Hafner, Danica et al. (1996). Oblikovanje policy mrež in lobiranje. Univerza v Ljubljani: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Fink-Hafner, D., Hafner-Fink, M., & Novak, M. (2015a). Europeanisation as a Factor of National Interest Group Political-Cultural Change: The Case of Interest Groups in Slovenia. East European Politics and Societies, 29(1), 287-305.

Fink-Hafner, D., Hafner-Fink, M., & Novak, M. (2015b). Civil Society since the 1980s on the Territory of Slovenia, In D. Fink-Hafner (Ed.), The Development of Civil Society in the Countries on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since the 1980s (pp. 69-94). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences.

Fink-Hafner, D., Hafner-Fink, M., Novak, M., Kronegger, L., Lajh, D., & Železnik, A. (2016). Primerjalno raziskovanje organizacijskega razvoja nacionalnih interesnih skupin v Evropi. Univerza v Ljubljani: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Grabbe, H. (2003). Europeanization Goes East: Power and Uncertainty in the EU Accession Process. In K. Featherstone & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization (pp. 303- 327). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Hafner-Fink, M., Novak, M., Fink-Hafner, D., Eising, R., Rasch, D., & Rozbicka, P. (2016). Giants and Dwarfs: The Multilevel Lobbying Strategies of National Interest Organisations. Teorija in praksa, 53(3), 605–624.

Johansson, H., & Jacobsson, K. (2016). Towards an Analytical Framework for the Study of Civil Society and Europeanization: Types, Mechanisms and Subject Positions. Paper presented at ACCESS Workshop: Civil Society Beyond Brussels, , , 7-8 April. Retrived from https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/52520ca5-2718-42cf-9562- 60a087bc98e8.

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.

23

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (1999). How Europe Matters. Different Mechanisms of Europeanization. European Integration Online Papers, 3(7).

Kolarič, Z., Črnak-Meglič, A., & Vojnovič, M. (2002). Zasebne neprofitno-volonterske organizacije v mednarodni perspektivi. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Ladrech, R. (1994). Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of . Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(1), 69-88.

Lajh, D., & Novak, M. (2015). Organizirana civilna družba v procesih odločanja na ravni Evropske unije. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Lundberg, E., & Sedelius, T. (2014). National Linkages and Ambiguous EU Approaches among European Civil Society Organisations. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 10(3): 322-336.

Mahoney, C.,& Beckstrand, M. J. (2011). Following the Money: European Union Funding of Civil Society Organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(6), 1339-1361.

Maloney, W. (2007). The Professionalization of Representation: Biasing Participation. In B. Kohler-Koch, D. de Bièvre, & W. Maloney (Eds.), Opening EU Governance to Civil Society. Gains and Challenges (pp. 69-85). Mannheim: CONNEX.

Maloney, W., Hafner-Fink, M., & Fink-Hafner, D. (2018). The impact of the EU Accession Process and EU Funding on the Professionalization of National Interest Groups: the Slovenian Case. Interest Groups and Advocacy. Retrived from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-018-0032-6

Maurer, A., Mittag, J., & Wessels, W. (2003). National Systems’ Adaptation to the EU System: Trends, Offers, and Constraints. In B. Kohler-Koch (Ed.), Linking EU and National Governance (pp. 53-81). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Novak, M.; & Lajh, D. (2018). Participation of Slovenian Civil Society Organisations in EU Policymaking: Explaining their Different Routes. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 14(2), 105-122.

Novak, M., & Fink-Hafner, D. (2019). Slovenia. Interest Group Development in a Post- Socialist Liberal Democracy. Journal of Public Affairs, 19 (2).

24

DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2019/01

Olsen, J. P. (2003). Europeanization. In M. Cini (Ed.), European Union Politics (pp. 333-348). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Pritoni, A. (2017). The Europeanisation of Italian Interest Groups. Paper presented at ECPR General Conference, Oslo, , 6-9 September 2017.

Radaelli, M. C. (2000). Whither Europeanization: Concept Stretching and Substantive Change. European Integration Online Papers, 4(8).

Radaelli, M. C. (2003). The Europeanization of Public Policy. In K. Featherstone, & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization (pp. 27-56). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Risse, T., Cowles, M. G., & Caporaso, J. (2001). Europeanization and Domestic Change: Introduction. In M. G. Cowles, J. Caporoso; & T. Risse (Eds.), Transforming Europe. Europeanization and Domestic Change (pp. 1-20). Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.

Sanchez-Salgado, R., & Demidov, A. (2018). Editorial: Beyond the Brussels Bubble? National Civil Society Organisations in the European Union. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 14(2).

Sanchez-Salgado, R. (2014). Rebalancing EU Interest Representations? Associative Democracy and EU Funding of Civil Society Organizations. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 337-353.

Stakeholder meeting (2018). Obrazi civilne družbe v Evropski uniji. Ljubljana, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 16. May 2018.

Transparency Register (2018). Retrived from http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do?redir=false&locale=en

Warleigh, A. (2001). “Europeanizing” Civil Society: NGOs as Agents of Political Socialization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(4), 619-639.

Woll, C.; & Jacquot, S. (2010). Using Europe: Strategic action in multi-level politics. Comparative European Politics, 8(1), 110-126.

25