REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS MATRIX

Representation of Interests Matrix

Representation of Interests Matrix

Different Types of Europeanisation of policy areas

Voluntary

Coercive

Direct

Intended impact of an EU initiative unopposed by dominant Member State actors

Intended impact of an EU initiative opposed by

dominant Member State Actors

Indirect

Unintended or inadvertent impact of an EU initiative on the Member State unopposed by dominant

Member State actors

Spillover consequences of coercive-direct

Europeanisation in one area to another.

Voluntary

Coercive

Direct

Producers/suppliers and UK government - positive towards market liberalisation.

Large consumers of liberalised services supported market liberalisation

Government and firms in other member states e.g. France

Countervailing groups - Trade Unions in the UK

Indirect

None identified by the study

None identified by the study

Voluntary

Coercive

Direct

Environmental groups - gained leverage against the actors coerced by EU legislation

UK government obliged to comply with EU Wild Birds and Habitats Directives

UK businesses (e.g. farmers? forestry? port authorities? other land owners) obliged to comply with EU Wild Birds and Habitats Directives

Countervailing groups e.g. hounding and shooting clubs grateful to fulfill with EU Wild Birds and habitat commands

Indirect

Affected other policy areas

e.g. greening of regional policy

1) How well do the identified groups or organizations represent your interests?

Accordingly? theory tended to treat the EU as something 'above' the member states? an entity forged from 'bottom up' processes flowing from the objectives and actions of national actors? such as national governments and interest groups. Academics were interested in the relationships between national (and sub-national) actors and EU bodies? and how they participate in building the EU's political system. For many years deliberations revolved around a pivotal question that asked which actor was (or actors were) the most dominant in EU policy making. This debate had? however? reached something of a stalemate by the mid-1980s. As a consequence? alternative perspectives and approaches were sought. In other words? studies began to examine the 'Europeanisation'(Buller? 2002) processes at work. This research advanced despite the lack of a commonly agreed definition about the notion of 'Europeanisation'. Somewhat problematically? the term has been used to refer to at least five types of political process in the EU. It has been used in the sense referred to above? to convey the idea of a 'top-down' process. (Buller? 2002) It has also been employed to signify the creation of new governance powers and structures at the EU level or to convey the idea of the EU as the point of reference for national practices and policies. It can also mean the horizontal transfer of ideas? practices and norms? or? lastly? may mean a two-way interaction between the EU and the national. (Cawson? 1978)

The first of the definitions referred to above is the starting point for an examination of interest representation of two sets of actors? namely business and environmental groups based in the UK. That is? 'Europeanisation' is defined as a top-down mechanism that brings about changes in politics in the domestic arena to the extent that policies? practices and preferences are altered in response to EU initiatives and legislation. In other words? this paper treats the EU as a catalyst for the modification of objectives and strategies on ...