The impact of the EU on NGOs
the cases of Malta and Ireland
Discover University 2014
A joint event by the Institute of Public Administration and Management and the
Department of Publicf Policy
Dr Mario Thomas Vassallo
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The selection of cases
Research scope and context
Assessing EU impact on NGOs
Data collection toolbox
A hint of the findings
Research conclusions
Limitations of the research
Discover University 2014
2
Why Malta & Ireland?
Discover University 2014
3
Research context
• Growing importance: disillusion with traditional forms of
representation and rise of ‘citizen governance’ (Lowndes, 2008)
• Representation plays an important role in participatory and
associative democracy
• Democracy involves non-electoral as well as electoral forms of
representations
• National governments are facing more complex decision
making and interdependent policy domains
• Proliferation of public/private interest representations that
are all zealous to obtain ‘room to move’ in shaping domestic
and European governance.
• ‘Non-electoral representation can potentially give us some
of what electoral representation cannot!’
(Saward, 2006)
Discover University 2014
4
Non Governmental Organisations
NGOs can be differentiated on a number of
aspects due to:
(1) Their functional basis (religious, political,
Human Rights, environment, workers,
employers, sports)
(2) Their platform of operations (local, regional,
national, European, international)
(3) Their relationship with the Gov (insiders or
outsiders)
Discover University 2014
5
Mario Vassallo, 2009
Discover University 2014
6
Discover University 2014
7
Discover University 2014
Photo by Mario Vassallo, 2010
©
8
Research Scope
• To assess if Maltese and Irish NGOs have
experienced any degree of Europeanisation
between 2004 and 2012;
• If yes, to determine whether the degree of
Europeanisation has been marginal or
significant;
Discover University 2014
9
What is Europeanisation?
Definition
‘The reorientation or reshaping of politics in
the domestic arena in ways that reflect
policies, practices or preferences advanced
through EU system of governance’
(Bache & Jordan 2006)
Discover University 2014
10
organisational set-up
Change in internal structure
access to resources
Europeanisation of NGOS
working practices
Increased domestic
responsiveness
participation in coordinating
agencies
formation of group alliances
participation in public/private
partnerships
Points of contact in the EU
Greater European
involvement
Lobbying in the EU
teaming with Euro groups
Affiliation to European federations
norms
Transformation of
normativeness
values
culture
identity
Discover University 2014
11
Data Collection Toolkit
• Document analysis (Malta, Ireland, EU)
– Legal/statutory texts
– Strategy/policy documents
– Media output
• Direct observation (Malta, Ireland)
– Observer status on MEUSAC sectoral committees
• Questionnaires (Malta, Ireland)
– structured self completion surveys
• Elite Interviewing (Malta, Ireland, Brussels)
– To probe further questionnaire results
• Visual Evidence (Malta, Ireland)
– Adopting a ‘being there’ approach vis-a-vis key events
Discover University 2014
12
Photo by Mario Vassallo, 2010 ©
Discover University 2014
13
Discover University 2014
Photo by Mario Vassallo, 2010 ©
14
Participating NGOs
Discover University 2014
15
European dimension
included in the
vision/mission statement
Training in EU affairs
%
70
%
80
60
70
60
50
50
40
Malta
Ireland
30
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Yes
Yes
No
Discover University 2014
No
16
Responsibility of EU affairs
within groups’ committee
formations
%
60
Rate of Participation
in EU related activies
%
40
35
50
30
40
25
Malta
Ireland
30
20
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
Yes
Up
No
Discover University 2014
Stable
Down
N/A
17
Discover University 2014
18
Types of contacts established with the EU
35
%
30
25
20
Malta
Ireland
15
10
5
0
Brussels Euro Member online
office group visits
Discover University 2014
other
means
No
contact
19
Mario Vassallo, 2010
Discover University 2014
20
Attempts to access EU funds
Lobbying EU institutions
%
70
%
60
60
50
50
40
40
Malta
Ireland
30
M
I
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Yes
No
Yes
Discover University 2014
No
21
Discover University 2014
22
Which EU institutions
are targeted for lobbying
%
40
35
30
25
20
Malta
ireland
15
10
5
0
EC
EP
EESC
Home
Com.
Council
Presidency
Discover University 2014
Other
means
23
Reasons for NOT lobbying
%
40
35
30
25
20
Malta
ireland
15
10
5
0
Domestic
High cost
lobby National
ministers
EU not
relevant
No
knowledge
Discover University 2014
Lack of
capacity
24
Affiliation to European
Federations
Reasons for NOT affiliating
to European Federation
%
%
60
50
40
Malta
Ireland
30
20
10
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No
need
0
Yes
No
Discover University 2014
Cost
Dom Statute
Focus
25
Cooperation with European
partner organisations
Regional origins of European
partner organisations
%
%
60
35
30
50
25
40
20
Malta
Ireland
30
15
10
20
5
10
0
South & Centre
Med
0
Yes
No
Discover University 2014
North
East
26
Discover University 2014
27
Internal changes attributed to
new ideas brought about by
European partners
%
EU pattern of Multi-Level
Governance impacts
domestic strategies
%
45
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
35
30
25
Malta
Ireland
20
15
10
5
0
Yes
No
Yes
Don't
know
Discover University 2014
No
Don't
know
28
EU sources of stimuli that instigate
change in interest groups’ tactics
%
4
3.5
3
2.5
%
2
Malta
Ireland
1.5
1
0.5
0
EU funds
Consensus EU partners
value
Training
Positive
attitude opportunities
Discover University 2014
29
The Irish narrative
• The EU isn’t really that
important in terms of
change in our sector. Our
country used to be focused
on Britain and America, now
we need to become EU
focused as well because it
increases the opportunities
for engagement (ISHG13).
• We are an open culture.
With regards to the EU,
there is a perception
problem. What is it all
about? What is it trying to
do? Ireland has not spent so
much energy to get the
European message across
(IEG21).
• Quite definitely, lor a long
time, funding was first
priority. No socialisation at
all (ISHG9).
• The degree of
Europeanisation on Irish
NGOs has been strong,
mainly for two reasons: EU
law and funding (IEG19).
Discover University 2014
30
The Maltese narrative
• The fact that government
collaborated with NGOs
during the negotiations for
EU accession secured a
greater sense of ownership
and legitimisation among
interest groups (MPO20).
• We have brought European
leaders to address our
members who challenged
our frame of mind and
taught us how to look
beyond ourselves
(MSHG14).
• We started creating
partnerships and exchange
ideas beyond our shores
(MEG19).
• For us, the EU is a source to
speed up change in
[domestic] legislation
through a fast track change
in public mentality
(MSHG10).
Discover University 2014
31
Research Conclusions
• Significant Europeanisation
• Impact largely due to
downloading and
crossloading (top-down +
lateral)
• Need for Europe to reaffirm
interest groups’ identity
• Marginal Europeanisation
• Impact largely due to
downloading (top-down)
• Groups’ identity is more
attached to the English
speaking world than to the
European Union.
Discover University 2014
32
Research limitations
• Very different EU accession periods of Malta
and Ireland
• Aggregation of NGOs
for quantitative analysis
• Response rate of Irish groups
remained low when compared
to that of Maltese groups
• Conducted during a time of deep economic
recession
• The lobbying profession is often secretive
Discover University 2014
33
Thank you
Mario Thomas Vassallo
Department of Public Policy
University of Malta
mario.t.vassallo@um.edu.mt