The study of interest group politics—the organization, aggregation, articulation and intermediation of societal interests that seek to shape public policies (Beyers et al. 2008: 1104)—is a relatively small field within political science. When compared to studies of electoral systems, legislatives and party politics, the research on interest groups (organized groups which represent the interests of their members and supporters and are politically active) remains under-published due to a much smaller scholars’ community working on the topic. Nevertheless, during the last 20 years, interest in group politics has grown. This is evidenced by numerous empirical studies, both qualitative and quantitative, within the fields of European Union (EU) studies (see for example: the results of the INTEREURO Project1), European politics, and American politics (see, in particular, publications in the dedicated ‘Interest and Advocacy’ Journal2). In recent years, interest groups scholars have moved beyond the Olsonian collective action paradigm and there has been growth in the importance of large-scale empirical research projects (e.g. Advocacy and Public Policy Project3). In particular, the European scholarship on interest groups has become more empirical, systemic and has drawn increasingly on sophisticated methodological techniques and consistent theoretical approaches (Coen 2007). The majority of the scholarly research has analysed interest groups’ activities in one political system. Studies have chiefly focused on the EU, the UK, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France; with the later addition of Sweden (e.g. Naurin and Boräng 2012), England (e.g. Mohan 2012), and Denmark (e.g. Chiristiansen 2012).
This volume takes on board the vast accomplishments of the interest groups literature, explored theories, methodological and normative issues related to the study of political interests in the EU and elsewhere and applies them to a new area, the post-Communist democracies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The intellectual principle here is that understanding interest group systems remains crucial to understanding the functioning of advanced democracies, especially in areas which have undergone a democratization process only within the last 30 years. The pluralist argument that without groups there would be no democracy retains much plausibility and finds a resonance in social capital research (Putnam 2000; Beyers et al. 2008). Due to the transformation of the European national state and the declining importance of electoral and party politics in the Western democracies (Bartolini 2005; Mair 2006), more and more attention has been paid to the prominent position of interest groups within policy networks and policy negotiation. The neo-Tocquevillian approach emphasizes the importance of internal aspects of associational life for the proper functioning of democracy and democratization (Kaufman 1999). From that perspective, interest organizations are central democratic partners in the policy process enhancing its open, transparent and participatory character. The emergence of interest groups in the post-Communist countries should be treated as one of the prerequisites of successful democratization.
In post-Communist CEE countries, contrary to Western democracies, the emergence of modern civil society and the political system was not the effect of a century-long process, but rather rapid and unexpected regime change in the 1980s and 1990s. This regime change created opportunities for interest communities in several countries to emerge in similar, but somewhat idiosyncratic environments as there had been substantial variations in introducing democratic and economic reforms. The regime change allows scholars to study interest groups’ population in these countries—deriving from population ecology (i.e. Gray and Lowery 2000)—almost as a living organisms’ life cycle. The population ecology theory explains that density and diversity of interest groups in any given system is more dependent on political and organizational environments than on micro-level decisions among groups themselves. It could certainly be the case for CEE countries, where groups initially struggled not only with a lack of supportive social infrastructure, but also a scarcity of resources and chaotic political actors.
We explore in the book an essential question: which factors influence interest groups in the CEE countries, their populations and organizational behaviour? Following Crawford and Lijphart (1995), we argue that the collapse of Communism and transition to democracy introduced a set of internal and external factors, which have characteristics that influence the formation and maintenance of groups’ populations. Fink-Hafner (2011) contended that, in particular, an institutional choice in the transition to democracy (internal factor) was not only about the relations between the democratic opposition and the old regime, but also formed idiosyncratic opportunity structures which influenced the early processes of interest group formation (in particular, the socio-economic partnerships). In the case of external factors, the key aspect was the process of Europeanization (Berglund 2003; Maloney et al. 2018). The CEE countries, due to external pressure, implemented reforms to meet various economic and democratic criteria, including the Copenhagen Criteria to join the EU, as well as the liberalization process along the lines of the Washington Consensus, to have access to the World Bank and IMF credit lines (Bohle and Greskovits 2007). The implementation of these was viewed by observers as symptoms of emerging democracies and moves towards the creation of a functional and representative civil society. While the transition took place over 30 years ago, authors agree that changes within interest groups’ population ecology and organizational behaviour are slow and it takes major focus events to alter them (Gray and Lowery 2000). The type of events which alter these factors do not have to be of an explosive nature but rather, similar to the changes themselves, they can take place over an extended period.
The assessment of the quality of democracy through the study of organized interests in the post-Communist CEE remains vastly unexplored. This is an apt time for an in-depth analysis and reflection on the population of interest groups in the CEE region, especially in a comparative perspective to their West European counter parts. The aim of this volume is to lay down a sound basis and empirical data for such future research. Taking its theoretical, conceptual and methodological basis from existing Western democracies’ research, the volume avoids the risk of heroic empiricism. Moreover, the research on CEE countries in a comparative perspective is relatively fragmented and the integration and exchange among various strands of the research in this book will contribute to a more robust and consistent research agenda.
This introductory chapter outlines in detail interest representation and its importance for democracy, underlining the place of this discussion in a broader political science debate. In particular, we focus on an evolution from the pluralist and corporatist perspective to neo-pluralism. We consider different elements of the participatory, representative and associative democracy. And, further support the argument by reference to Tocqueville’s associanalism. We focus on our intellectual principle of interest representation as a necessary element of democracy and elaborate on a comparative yardstick of functional representation. We further explain the focus on the post-Communist CEE countries. As the empirical results presented in this volume are based on extensive qualitative and quantitative research in the methodology section we introduce the Comparative Interest Groups Survey Project (CIGs) and more in-depth information on the data collection in the countries selected for the analysis. In an overview of the volume’s structure, we conclude the introduction with a brief discussion of the key arguments and result.
1.1 Interest Representation and Its Importance for Democracy
Until the mid-twentieth century, research on interest groups participation in the decision-making process did not consider the question of the impact on democracy (Jordan and Maloney 2007). The initial wave of positive research on the topic was linked with the pluralist celebration of groups as a means of face-to-face interaction to enhance social integration and direct democracy itself. Since then, however, the debate on the democratic deficit and questions regarding the role citizens participation should play in the political process has given way to a more normative body of literature on the role of ‘organized civil society’ (Saurugger 2008). Following Tocqueville’s approach, the new approach has considered interest groups as crucial actors in truly democratic systems. The discussion below critically analyses the potential contribution that interest groups make to improvement of the democratic character of political system, potentially addressing the democratic deficit.
1.1.1 From Pluralism and Corporatism to Neo-Pluralism
No matter their differences with regard to group involvement in the political system, in their perception of the balance of power between groups, or whether or not such associations enhance or undermine governance solutions, both pluralism and corporatism cast interest groups in a significant role as a part of democratic life. To pluralists, interest groups are core legitimate actors in the policy-making process. They consider politics to be a competition between freely organized interest groups in society that compete for access to a government that is unbiased and willing to listen to different voices. In contrast to critical political economy approaches, pluralists assume that no single interest, elite or class is able to dominate society (Hosli et al. 2004: 46). Instead, policy-making is competitive and fragmented. The state is a mere arena for the struggle between different interest groups (...