PARTIES/ASSOCIATIONS

Many non-economic interest organizations are active in Iceland, working in various fields. Although many have a reasonable level of prominence, only a few have the capacity and competence to exert significant effect on government policy. The biggest two to mention in this context are the Organization of Disabled in Iceland (Öryrkjabandalagið), with 34 member associations and a staff of 15, and the Consumers’ Association of Iceland (Neytendasamtökin), with a staff of seven. To mention one organization more prominent than big, the Nature and Wildlife Conservation Organization (NáttúruverndarsamtökÍslands) gets by with a staff of only one. Even so, this group has managed to feature prominently in public debate about power plants, both on issues of hydropower and geothermal power, and has expressed reservations about further construction of aluminum smelters around the country.

Various NGOs have considerable recognition in Luxembourg and provide a significant contribution to public debate.
The Ecological Movement (Movement écologique, MECO), which sees itself as a lobbyist for the environment and sustainable development, denounces low gasoline prices, among other things. Its internet site, Mecoskop, monitors the implementation of the government’s program commitments.
The “Cercle de cooperation,” an umbrella organization of development NGOs, caused a lot of turmoil with a study on the financial sector, accusing Luxembourg of siphoning off considerable amounts of money from developing countries through illegal or at least illegitimate means. The banking association (Association des Banques et Banquiers Luxembourgeois, ABBL) refuted the conclusions and showed numerous factual errors.
The Catholic Church, which could once be considered the opinion leader in a conservative and rural country, has greatly lost its influence, even if it still owns the major newspaper. In contrast, Caritas, the Catholic charity organization, recently attracted attention with its socially progressive views and its commitment to asylum seekers. The Caritas Yearbook has been published since 2007 to foster “the dialogue between political leaders, civil society and business.”

The government and the opposition parties listen carefully to the opinions expressed by business, farmers and union leaders. Intellectuals and academics also receive attention. Environmental groups have a substantial influence on environmental policy. The large organizations are professional in communicating their messages to politicians and to the public, and are sometimes able to set the political agenda.
In addition, there are numerous formal arenas for routine consultation between governments and various kinds of interest organizations. In many areas, such consultations are formalized and have become a routine mode of policy formulation.

Sweden has a large number and wide variety of interest associations that are small and big, old and new, single issue and comprehensive. The quality of their policy proposals is reflective of that heterogeneity and the large number of associations. Some associations have the staff and expertise to produce reasonable and appropriate policy proposals, others do not. Overall, interest associations in a post-corporatist society probably understand that there are opportunities to influence policy, provided that the proposals put forward are reasonable and not just reflective of the interests of the associations’ members.

A number of social interest groups, environmental groups and religious groups take responsible and well-considered positions and are therefore taken very seriously by government, although there are also groups that take extreme positions. The extent to which the proposals are well thought-out and feasible correspondingly varies considerably. In general, the proposals from mainstream interest groups are of high quality in part because of the reasons given under Association Competence, but in part also because many elected representatives are drawn from these groups, or have had considerable contact with them prior to their election. The proposals also tend to be high quality because of the expertise of the groups themselves, and their narrow (often single-issue) interest which means the groups can focus exclusively on a single problem and the ways in which it can be resolved.

Given Austria’s social partnership tradition, non-economic interest associations such as the Catholic Church’s Caritas, WWF or the Protestant Church (to name only a few) have generally been well-embedded in political discourse. As the chambers for labor, business and agriculture have suffered an erosion of political relevance in recent years, the voice of non-economic interest associations has generally become more important.

A large fraction of non-economic interest associations receive at least some public financial support. Among those receiving such support, many have close ties with political parties and governmental actors. This state of affairs can be attributed to the fact that Belgium is largely built on “pillars.” This means that social groups, associations and (to some extent) publicly funded schools often have long-standing ties to a political group. It implies that there is a strong incentive for those non-economic interest associations to propose policies, and to be reasonably documented, as there is a high probability to see those proposals debated in parliament. Such links to pillars are less strong in recently established fields in which interest associations have developed, such as consumer rights, ecology and so on.
Interestingly, religious communities are largely funded by the state and there is cooperation between religious and public authorities. One of the major evolutions in this domain is the attempt to organize and structure the very diverse Muslim communities in Belgium as an integrated group.
An example of fruitful cooperation and continuous dialogue with non-economic associations is the so-called ethical laws (e.g., gay marriage and adoption, or euthanasia) that were voted for in Belgium in recent years with a relatively large consensus.
Obviously, a negative aspect of this structure is the dependence on public funding, and therefore the possible lack of independence, which is sometimes criticized by more radical cadres and activists in some associations.

Many social interest groups, environmental groups and religious communities develop policy proposals that identify problems’ causes, make use of scholarly research to support their analysis, propose technically feasible measures to attain policy objectives, take account of long-term interests, and anticipate policy effects. However, as these groups have fewer resources than economic interest groups, they generally do a somewhat less competent job in proposing reasonable policies. Some of the most competent social and environmental groups are the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute.

There is a long corporatist tradition in Denmark. The major interest organizations are often members of committees and commissions preparing legislation. They provide information for the government and legitimacy for the policies adopted, thereby facilitating implementation.
In recent years, during the years of the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen government, the relationship between the government and interest organizations changed somewhat. Some laws were passed without having been prepared through corporatist committees. Instead, interest organizations had to lobby more – by making direct contact with civil servants and politicians – so as to influence policies. Larger companies, such as A. P. Møller Mærsk, Novo-Nordisk, and so on, have also pursued such actions.
The fact remains that the administration needs input from outside when legislation is prepared. So there is a common interest in continuous dialogue.

Policy-relevant positions of most associations are based on advanced know-how and feasibility analyses in the respective fields and thus contribute to the quality of decision-making. Exaggeration and one-sided arguments are in the nature of interest organizations and of the negotiation process, but in corporatist-style policy-making, various interests gain access to policy-making. No doubt the contribution of interest associations in terms of know-how in decision-making is a valuable asset which enhances the quality of policy-making. Also, interest associations have a high profile in the public discourse and often shape public opinion. The fact remains, though, that the function of interest associations is to promote certain interests to the disadvantage of others.

The official government list cites 2,088 registered associations, of which one-third could be considered to be non-economic interest associations. As stated above, German interest organizations do have considerable impact on policy formulation within the ministerial administration and the legislative process, as well as on the agenda in general. Within the process of policy formulation, the expertise of interest groups plays a key role in providing ministerial officials with the in-depth information necessary to make decisions. But because the recommendations represent particular interests, it is vital that every involved interest group is heard. That is sometimes not the case, and the proposals of the most powerful interest groups (employers’ associations and unions) generally weigh heavier than those of less potent lobby groups (such as environmental, social interest and some religious groups). But citizen groups, social movements and grassroots lobbying organizations are becoming increasingly influential, particularly on the local levels. Although the policy proposals of non-economic interest groups can be described as reasonable, they tend to be focused on a single issue, and often ignore economic constraints in such a way as to make their suggestions less realistic. Although they often put painful subjects on the policy agenda, they are thus limited in their efficacy due to the absence of political weight.

Policy-making in the Netherlands has a strong neo-corporatist tradition that systematically involves interest associations in the early stages of the policy-making process. Owing to their well-established positions, employers associations, trade unions and the consumer association can influence policy-making through the existing consensus-seeking structures. Trade-offs are actively negotiated with ministries, other involved governments, stakeholder organizations and even NGOs. Furthermore, non-economic interest organizations react to policy proposals by ministries and have a role in amending and changing the proposals in the early stages of the policy-making process. They may also become involved later on with the implementation of policies.
In turn, it may be stated that policies proposed by ministries are also influenced by non-economic interest groups (although to a lesser extent than economic interest groups). In the Dutch neo-corporatist society, they participate in discussions with ministries and politicians in policy-making processes.

There is a rich tradition of consulting societal groups. The amount of consultation of groups and individuals and the way their proposals have been dealt with is reported in regulatory impact statements. In several cases, recent regulatory impact statements claim that consultation has had a substantive impact. An ongoing initiative (since 2001) tries to establish a better relationship between the community sector and government agencies. The reference group to the office of the community and voluntary sector in the Ministry of Social Development has published a discussion paper (“More than talk”) in December 2008. Another document (“From talk to action”) was published in July 2009. Still, size and shortage of resources prevents some interest associations to develop specialist policy know-how that would have a lasting impact in consultations.

Slovakia has a vibrant third sector which was quite active in monitoring the Fico government and in organizing campaigns and protests against many controversial laws and activities, especially in the fields of civil rights, non-discrimination and environmental protection. Many interest associations demonstrate considerable policy knowledge, and there are several think tanks that involve various experts from the previous government in their work. Policy proposals developed by interest associations have featured prominently in the media.

Citizens’ or public-interest associations’ competence in proposing reasonable policy initiatives is unusually high in the United States. This is in part due to the high level of professional staff associations are able to attract as well as the PR and communication skills they have been able to develop. This holds true for groups such as Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Defense Fund or the Sierra Club. From the standpoint of developing “reasonable” policies, they have the advantage of focusing on broad interests rather than narrow ones as their central mission. They are subject, however, to ideological biases and membership demands that tend to favor extreme views.
Such groups have impressive ability to marshal legal instruments in order to use the courts to enlarge the scope of environmental legislation. A key example thereof is the 2007 Supreme Court case of Massachusetts vs. EPA, in which the Court decided in favor of the EPA’s definition of CO2 as a pollutant and thereby having the authority to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. Environmental interest groups have built on this decision during the Obama administration to push the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions.

Noneconomic interest associations are more diverse than their economic counterparts. The range of competence and reasonableness they display in their policy proposals is uneven.
A large variety of special interest groups operate in Ireland. In the medical area, for example, there are a large number of groups advocating for the interests of those suffering from particular illnesses and disabilities. Naturally, they make demands for additional resources, for best-practice care and facilities, and so on, without taking into account the implications for the national finances of the totality of the measures being advocated.
Regional pressure groups (such as “Save the West”) are a perennial feature of the Irish political scene, and have influenced policy in areas ranging from international transportation policy (such as mandatory Shannon airport stopovers by international flights) to the decentralization of government employment. Regional associations have also been prominent in trying to influence medical service delivery planning, generally opposing centralization of services in favor of keeping small and less specialized facilities open throughout the country. This type of pressure is particularly effective at election time, when outgoing ministers are called upon to show that they have implemented or will implement policies that favor their own electoral constituencies.
Many environmental lobby groups are active, but their role has been increasingly “mainstreamed” by the growth of the wider environmental debate, the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency (with an annual budget of €28 million) and other state-funded environmental agencies, and the presence of the Green Party as a member of the coalition government.

The United Kingdom has a tradition of close scrutiny of policy proposals. While a “loony fringe” of interest associations (and parties – see the Monster Raving Loony Party) and policy proposals certainly exists, it can generally be said that the quality and realism of policy proposals determines the degree to which any interest group is taken seriously in the country’s national political discourse.

However, the abundance of NGOs with often-narrow policy agendas does mean that these groups can overlook the wider ramifications of the pursuit of their issue. By the same token, the diversity of such bodies allows a wide range of proposals to obtain a hearing.

Religious, environmental and social organizations, as well as NGOs, academic groups and professional associations often present substantive policy reform proposals that contribute positively to policy discussions and government reforms.

Interest associations have mushroomed in the Czech Republic since 1990. Currently, there are more than 85,000 civil society organizations. However, the ability of interest associations to propose reasonable policies is limited. Most of them lack the resources for high-quality policy analysis. Moreover, interest associations have only gradually been included in the policy-making process. The increasing presence of representatives of some civil society associations on advisory committees within ministries has improved their access to information and their opportunity to take part in debates. The Roman Catholic Church, the most active religious organization, has a limited political agenda and has largely focused on issues of direct concern.

The number of, and membership in, non-business associations has been increasing in the past decades. If the phenomenon of factual dependency on financial support of public authorities exists, especially at the local level, there are non-economic associations combining pluralistic approaches, long-term perspectives and a public perspective. This can be seen in fields such as urban policy (where national programs and local public actors rely on the expertise and the commitment of associations dealing with local social difficulties), environmental policy or social policy (aid to people with different social problems or handicaps). This being said, not all associations are able to exert a real influence on policy-making except by providing new ideas and concepts which are taken up from time to time by politicians. Since 2007, President Sarkozy has nominated representatives of civil society associations into government or high public responsibilities but this practice has been driven far more by tactical motives than by a real will to integrate associational expertise in governmental policy.

Social interest associations and environmental groups are weak and largely lack the capacity to develop full-blown policy proposals. The religious communities are dependent on their respective denominational hierarchy and have narrow-mindedly focused on stabilizing, and expanding, the role of their churches in a basically secular society. Attempts by the government at strengthening the civil sector, most notably through the National Civil Fund (Nemzeti Civil Alapprogram, NCA), have shown only modest effects.

The landscape of interest organizations is very diversified. However, it can be said that not many are able to provide well articulated or scholarly grounded analyses of significant breadth. Among the most professional associations, some religious (such as Caritas, with regard to immigration policies) and environmental groups (such as Legambiente) deserve special mention.
In addition, numerous foundations associated with banks, political parties or individuals are at work in Italy, delivering ever more policy proposals. But strategic thinking is still quite new in Italian politics, and think tanks or interest associations outside of politics are ultimately seen as rivals, as politicians themselves claim to represent a broad diversity of interests, and to have to power to work on their behalf. Lobbying functions in a personal, clandestine way, performed by the politicians themselves rather than activity flowing through a more transparent, institutionalized system.

Poland has several interest associations other than business associations and trade unions. Compared to other countries, relatively few environmental groups exist. There are only a few interest associations that focus on, and are capable of, developing full-blown policy proposals. The Catholic Church, still the most influential interest group in Poland, pursues relatively narrow interests and is largely preoccupied with stabilizing its influence in an increasingly secular society.

Associations’ proposals often receive government attention, largely through established communication networks between associations and governments. Relatively recently created civil society movements aimed at generating governance and public policy proposals also receive government attention, in part because of their proposals’ potential for media coverage.

The rise of civil society organizations has been one of the most important political trends in Korea during the last decade. Some of the largest NGOs, such as the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM), the Citizen Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ) and the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), have build up considerable competences in specialized fields such as environmental policies, election reform and human rights. They provide reasonable policy proposals and are supported by a large group of academics and professionals. The majority of smaller NGOs remain focused on service provision and do not develop policy proposals. However, as previously mentioned, civil society and NGOs – especially those on the left of the center – have found it difficult under the Lee administration to have any influence on the political decision-making process.

The competence of social interest groups, environmental groups and religious communities is somewhat limited in Spain. Despite some characterization of Spain as a corporatist regime with a complex civil society, the truth is that interest associations (economic and noneconomic) are relatively weak, and are not generally able to overcome the majoritarian style of governance or the autonomy of state actors in establishing policy priorities and controlling decision-making processes.
Apart from the unions and the business interests’ associations (see Association Competence), not many social groups have the will or the capacity to invest resources in producing “reasonable” policy proposals. For example, women’s associations are remarkably weak; the organizations representing immigrant workers or the minority religious communities are still very young; and even more surprisingly, the supposedly powerful Catholic Church has no research unit or think tank capable of technically supporting its discourse in policy areas such as education, family or moral issues.
Representing exceptions to this rule are the leading environmental groups (e.g., Ecologistas en Acción, Greenpeace España, WWF/Adena, etc.) and some NGOs devoted to human rights or international development (Amnistía Internacional, Intermón-Oxfam, etc.), which rely increasingly on academic expertise. As is evident, many are in fact local divisions of international associations. These groups tend to influence policy-making through publicity and political pressure, but their policy recommendations are often based on research undertaken by their own expert staff. They also organize technical seminars and issue publications aimed at shaping the public opinion. Their policy suggestions are sometimes taken into consideration by the government, although many of their proposals are not politically feasible because of their understandable impracticality.
Finally, the promotion during the last years of government consultative committees in policy sectors such as education, international development, environment, migration and more, in which broad social interests have to be represented, is fostering the creation and strengthening of nonprofit associations focused on specific policy areas, with a national perspective that may generate substantive policy know-how in the future. In some cases, trade unions are the societal groups that perform this task.

Non-economic interest groups are very heterogeneous in Switzerland. While some offer reasonable suggestions, others promote policies that are rather irresponsible.

Mexican civil society is in the process of strengthening, under the influence of democracy and greater pluralism. As a result, public debate is in the process of becoming better informed and more sophisticated. However, there is still a degree of unevenness. Religious groups in Mexico tend to be rather conservative, but their arguments are not lacking in knowledge or sophistication.

Interest associations may communicate with the government through various channels, but have little effect on the final outcome of governmental work. There are several initiatives aimed at enhancing the capacity of civil society in Turkey, yet due to financial and human resources constraints, only a few leading, semi-professional associations provide feasible policy proposals on social issues. Recently, several civil initiatives have been established with the aim of promoting further democratization. However, these seem to be primarily advocacy groups, and their long-term competence and consistency has yet to be demonstrated.
Environmentalist groups oppose large irrigation projects at the Black Sea coast, in the East Anatolian region of Tunceli and around the ancient town Hasankeyf in southeastern Anatolia. In the case of Hasankeyf, the resistance is motivated additionally by nationalist Kurdish attitudes, but by and large, environmentalist groups base their policy on sound data and propose reasonable alternatives.
Other issues questioned by environmentalists include nuclear power plant projects and urban development plans. In these cases too, environmentalist groups adopt comprehensive approaches.
Among religious interest groups, the Muslim Alevi minority appears to be the most outspoken opposition movement. The Alevi bring forward justified complaints, citing issues such as discrimination in the fields of religious education, clergy training and public funding. Policy proposals made by some of the most powerful Alevi groups, however, simply demand exceptional rules and privileges for their own community. These groups do not take into account the limitations that authoritarian secularism poses on the religious freedom of the Sunni Muslim majority, and thus do not really contribute to the establishment of liberal secularism.

Civil society organizations do not have a long tradition in Japan. Until 1998, it was very difficult to found such an organization and ensure a steady flow of membership contributions. The Non-Profit Organization (NPO) Law of 1998 improved the situation considerably. Nevertheless, the depth and breadth of such organizations in Japan is still limited. This has to some extent been overcome in selected policy fields such as international development issues or environmental concerns, and in regional or local policy arenas.

Social interest groups, environmental groups and religious groups have an even weaker capacity than business associations and trade unions to produce concrete policy proposals. They cannot count on organized structures of policy analysis (e.g., think tanks) but rely on individual expertise mostly offered on a voluntary basis. This is less true for the Greek Christian Orthodox Church, which is a large organization funded by the state budget, than for associations active in social welfare, environmental protection, culture, education or migration issues. The Orthodox Church has a pool of lawyers and managers tasked with managing its substantial property and personnel (all Orthodox priests’ salaries are paid by the state).
However, the church’s interventions in public debates remain either at a general abstract level of policy guidelines or are limited to arguing for the preservation of the most traditional forms and values of schooling, social welfare and family life. On the other hand, small social interest associations, such as associations promoting human rights, environmental protection or higher education reform, formulate and disseminate concrete, substantive and reasonable policy proposals, with the help of academics and experts sympathetic to the associations’ causes. Still, such proposals, even if they succeed in catching the attention of the mass media, rarely influence top decision-making structures, which normally consist of a minister and his or her small circle of political appointees (governing-party cadres and technocrats).