Quality not quantity: Lobbying institutions and the influence of asylum rights groups

Abstract

With participation in electoral politics limited, asylum seekers rely on lobbying to influence policy, but the factors which facilitate or constrain this process remain unclear. I interview asylum rights lobbyists in Germany and the United Kingdom to study the effects of lobbying institutions, using process tracing to identify influence mechanisms. Contrary to previous research, I find that successful lobbying stems from the quality not the quantity of institutions. I show how Germany’s corporatist institutions provide stable lobbying structures, building trustful working relationships. This enables collaborative policymaking and increases opportunities for influence. Informal, inconsistent structures in the United Kingdom’s pluralist system impair trust, reducing collaborative policymaking and influence. UK institutions are more policy responsive, however, enabling groups to capitalise on favourable public opinion, whereas the German system remains stable. The results demonstrate the effects of institutional arrangements and identify mechanisms which can improve policy outcomes for asylum seekers and other disadvantaged groups.

Keywords

asylum interest groups lobbying institutions policy influence representation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Ezrow

(2009) Who do European parties represent? How Western European parties represent the policy preferences of opinion leaders. The Journal of Politics 71(1): 206–223.

Allen

(2016) A decade of immigration in the British Press. Migration Observatory Report, COMPAS, University of Oxford, UK, November.

Baumgartner

Jones

(1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baumgartner

Leech

(1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Baumgartner

Berry

Hojnacki

, et al (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bekaj

Antara

(2018) Political Participation of Refugees: Bridging the Gaps [Online]. Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/political-participation-of-refugees-bridging-the-gaps.pdf (accessed 9 June 2022).

Bernauer

Giger

Rosset

(2015) Mind the gap: Do proportional electoral systems foster a more equal representation of women and men, poor and rich? International Political Science Review 36(1): 78–98.

Beyers

(2004) Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.

Beyers

Kerremans

(2012) Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multilevel venue shopping in four EU member states. Governance 25(2): 263–290.

10.

Beyers

Eising

Maloney

(2008) Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics 31(6): 1103–1128.

11.

Binderkrantz

(2005) Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies 53(4): 694–715.

12.

Binderkrantz

Krøyer

(2012) Customizing strategy: Policy goals and interest group strategies. Interest Groups & Advocacy 1(1): 115–138.

13.

BMI (2022) Bundesaufnahmeprogramm für Afghanistan [Online]. Available at: https://www-bundesaufnahmeprogrammafghanistan-de.translate.goog/bundesaufnahme-de/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp (accessed 1 February 2023).

14.

Boswell

(2009) The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Boswell

Badenhoop

(2021) ‘What isn’t in the files, isn’t in the world’: Understanding state ignorance of irregular migration in Germany and the United Kingdom. Governance 34(2): 335–352.

16.

Bouwen

(2002) Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy 9(3): 365–390.

17.

Burstein

(2003) The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56(1): 29–40.

18.

Casal Bertoa

(2023) Database on WHO GOVERNS in Europe and Beyond, PSGo [Online]. Available at: https://whogoverns.eu/party-systems/effective-number-of-parties/ (accessed 1 February 2023).

19.

Consterdine

(2020) Parties matter but institutions live on: Labour’s legacy on conservative immigration policy and the neoliberal consensus. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22(2): 182–201.

20.

Culpepper

(2010) Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Dietz

Ostrom

Stern

(2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652): 1907–1912.

22.

Dommett

Hindmoor

Wood

(2017) Who meets whom: Access and lobbying during the coalition years. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(2): 389–407.

23.

Dowse

Hughes

(1977) Sporadic interventionists. Political Studies 25(1): 84–92.

24.

Dür

(2008) Measuring Interest Group Influence in the EU: A Note on Methodology. European. Union Politics 9: 559–576.

25.

Dür

Mateo

(2014) Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy 21(8): 1199–1217.

26.

Dwidar

(2022) Coalitional lobbying and intersectional representation in American rulemaking. American Political Science Review 116(1): 301–321.

27.

Emeriau

(2023) Learning to be unbiased: Evidence from the French Asylum Office. American Journal of Political Science 67: 1117–1133.

28.

ESS (2022) European immigration preferences [Online]. Available at: https://ess-search.nsd.no/en/study/172ac431-2a06-41df-9dab-c1fd8f3877e7 (accessed 13 January 2022).

29.

Eurobarometer (2020) (Our country) should help refugees [Online]. Available at: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2253 (accessed 31 January 2023).

30.

Eurostat (2020) Asylum and first time asylum applicants by citizenship, age and sex monthly data (rounded) [Online]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/view/migr_asyappctzm?category=migr.migr_asy.migr_asyapp (accessed 4 June 2020).

31.

Eurostat (2022) Population on 1 January by age group, sex and citizenship [Online] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/migr_pop1ctz/default/table?lang=en (accessed 1 December 2022).

32.

Eurostat (2023) First instance decisions on applications by citizenship, age and sex quarterly data (rounded) Afghanistan applicants in Germany [Online]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/MIGR_ASYDCFSTQ__custom_5002877/default/table?lang=en (accessed 1 February 2023).

33.

Freitag

Bauer

(2013) Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys: Dimensions of social trust across cultural contexts. Public Opinion Quarterly 77(S1): 24–44.

34.

Fyall

(2016) The power of nonprofits: Mechanisms for nonprofit policy influence. Public Administration Review 76(6): 938–948.

35.

George

Bennett

(2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

36.

Grant

(2004) Pressure politics: The changing world of pressure groups. Parliamentary Affairs 57(2): 408–419.

37.

Hanegraaff

van der Ploeg

(2020) Bringing the middleman back in: EU umbrella organizations and interest group access in the European Union. Comparative European Politics 18: 963–981.

38.

Hatton

(2021) Public opinion on immigration in Europe: Preference and salience. European Journal of Political Economy 66: 101969.

39.

Hood

(1995) The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20(2–3): 93–109.

40.

Huddleston

Solano

(2020) MIPEX [Online]. Available at: https://www.mipex.eu/ (accessed 5 December 2022).

41.

Ilgit

Klotz

(2018) Refugee rights or refugees as threats? Germany’s new Asylum policy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20(3): 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118778958

42.

Jahn

(2016) Changing of the guard: Trends in corporatist arrangements in 42 highly industrialized societies from 1960 to 2010. Socio-Economic Review 14(1): 47–71.

43.

Jennings

(2009) The public thermostat, political responsiveness and error-correction: Border control and asylum in Britain, 1994–2007. British Journal of Political Science 39(4): 847–870.

44.

Joosen

(2021) Persuading the independent: Understanding why interest groups engage with EU agencies. Interest Groups & Advocacy 10(1): 19–46.

45.

Kallio

Meier

Häkli

(2021) Radical hope in asylum seeking: Political agency beyond linear temporality. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47(17): 4006–4022.

46.

Kaunert

Léonard

Hoffmann

(2013) Venue-shopping and the role of non-governmental organisations in the development of the European Union asylum policy. Comparative Migration Studies 1(1): 179–200.

47.

King

Keohane

Verba

(1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press.

48.

Koopmans

(2004) Migrant mobilisation and political opportunities: Variation among German cities and a comparison with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30(3): 449–470.

49.

Leach

Sabatier

(2005) To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. American Political Science Review 99(4): 491–503.

50.

Lijphart

(2012) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (2nd edn). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

51.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Manhattan, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

52.

Lowery

(2007) Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity 39(1): 29–54.

53.

Mahoney

(2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

54.

Mansbridge

(1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–657.

55.

Marchetti

(2014) Crossing the intersection: The representation of disadvantaged identities in advocacy. Politics, Groups, and Identities 2(1): 104–119.

56.

Norris

(2006) The impact of electoral reform on women’s representation. Acta política 41: 197–213.

57.

OECD (2022) General government spending by destination [Online]. Available at: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending-by-destination.htm#indicator-chart (accessed 1 December 2022).

58.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In: Crothers

Lockhart

(eds) Culture and Politics. Berlin: Springer, pp.223–234.

59.

Ricks

Liu

(2018) Process-tracing research designs: A practical guide. PS: Political Science & Politics 51(4): 842–846.

60.

Rokkan

(1966) Norway: Numerical democracy & corporate democracy. In: Dahl

(ed.) Opposition in Western Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp.70–115.

61.

Ronit

Schneider

(1998) The strange case of regulating lobbying in Germany. Parliamentary Affairs 51(4): 559–567.

62.

Salamon

(1999) The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 10(1): 5–23.

63.

Schattschneider

(1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

64.

Schlozman

Verba

Brady

(2012) The Unheavenly Chorus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

65.

Soroka

Wlezien

(2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66.

Statham

Geddes

(2006) Elites and the ‘organised public’: Who drives British immigration politics and in which direction? West European Politics 29(2): 248–269.

67.

Stimson

MacKuen

Erikson

(1995) Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–565.

68.

Strolovitch

(2006) Do interest groups represent the disadvantaged? Advocacy at the intersections of race, class, and gender. The Journal of Politics 68(4): 894–910.

69.

Tsebelis

(2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

70.

Tuschhoff

(1999) The compounding effect: The impact of federalism on the concept of representation. West European Politics 22(2): 16–33.

71.

Verba

Schlozman

Brady

, et al (1993) Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science 23(4): 453–497.

72.

Vollmer

Karakayali

(2018) The volatility of the discourse on refugees in Germany. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16(1–2): 118–139.

73.

Weber

(1998) Successful collaboration: Negotiating effective regulations. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 40(9): 10–15.

74.

Weber

Carter

(1998) On constructing trust: Temporality, self-disclosure, and perspective-taking. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 18: 7–26.

75.

Wlezien

(1995) The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 981–1000.

76.

Wong

(2012) 287 (g) and the politics of interior immigration control in the United States: Explaining local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(5): 737–756.

77.

Zimmer

(1999) Corporatism revisited – The legacy of history and the German nonprofit sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 10(1): 37–49.