Thanks to my good colleague Christian Thams in our Brussels office for mailing me a paper by Dr. Heike Kluever on “Lobbying and the issue context: a quantitative analysis of issue group influence in the European Union“.
The findings of Dr. Kluever’s paper are not in themselves surprising. In examining a town (Brussels) that is based on consensus, her paper concludes through a quantitative assessment of Commission consultations, interest group responses and Commission proposals that:
(a) interest groups with relatively broader coalitions are more likely to be more successful in achieving their objectives.
(b) coalitions of interest groups that are relatively smaller than their opponents will find it harder to win the more “public” the debate becomes. (saliency in Dr. Kluever’s language).
I can think of campaigns I have been involved with that support, even through anecdote, the findings of the paper. Issue context and within that relative size are, as I’ve argued elsewhere in this blog, important in public affairs.
The paper does have its limitations – many of which are recognised by the author. For example, it only focuses on policy formulation rather than the later stages of policymaking (Council and Parliament). It also does not prove that complexity of an issue or the level of conflict affect the influence of interest groups – two factors the author suggests merit attention. I think we can forgive the initial focus on the policy formulation stage given it is pretty standard counsel to suggest that the longer you go on in a policy process the harder it becomes to shape. I would also argue that the very reason that Brussels is such a hub of public affairs activity is due to the generally complex nature of the policy and legislation being discussed and the relatively small manpower/expertise of the institutions, which makes them reliant on outside viewpoints on most issues.
Whatever you think of the paper, it underlines the following more general points about Brussels public affairs. As a profession we need to start being more data driven. Experience and gut, however well informed, only gets us so far. Informing our public affairs strategies and the tactics we chose to implement them should require more from us. We need more data on audience and more data to measure success (on the former FH Brussels will be releasing its latest EP survey in the coming weeks – you can register here for further information).
Articles like this one can also only help but dispel some of the myths that surround public affairs in Brussels. It’s not rocket science, nor is it cloak and dagger. Rather its practice is common sense, its process is open, its results can be measured. It’s part of a healthy democratic process, of which in comparison with other jurisdictions we should be proud.
Contributions like Dr. Kluever’s are helpful to the development of what we do. It would be great to see Dr. Kluever and others take some of their work and bring it to those who practice public affairs. We need this kind of debate.
James
