20. März 2001 European Voice

Introduction – A World of Change
Lobbying in both the EU and the US takes place before the background of changes to the international political and economic environment. The decade after the end of the Cold War has brought with it a restructuration of the world economy often described by referring to “multipolarisation”, “triadisation” as well as “regionalisation”. In dealing with these developments, the transatlantic relations have been characterised by misperceptions and misunderstandings on both sides. While policy makers and public in the EU were concerned about the possibility of American isolationism and unilateralism, the US warned against the creation of a ‘fortress Europe’ on the one hand, and held strong reservations with regard to the EU’s potentially autonomous CFSP and the future of the NATO on the other.

The Institutionalisation of Transatlantic Co-operation in the 1990s
Still, EU and US upheld their traditionally close ties by signing the Transatlantic Declaration in 1990. This was followed up by the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) in 1995 and the initiation of the Transatlantic Economic Partnership in 1998. These agreements stressed the partners’ common interests in both security and economic matters, featuring among other things the elaboration of the multilateral trade system and the creation of a Transatlantic Market Place as common goals. In addition, various dialogues, like the Transatlantic Business Dialogue for instance, help to solve potential conflicts before they arise.

EU and US as Economic Partners
Co-operation between the two “trading blocs” is hardly surprising if one takes into account their close economic ties. Trade and Investment flows of a total of 2 trillion Dollars exceed figures for relations between the USA and Asian countries by 50 per cent. Furthermore, the EU and the US represent the biggest investors in the respective partner’s home market: close to 60 per cent of foreign direct investment in the US stems from the EU; conversely, 50 per cent of foreign direct investment in the EU is of US origin. Consequently, 3 million European employees work for American companies while every 12th American worker is employed in a European company.

EU and US as Economic Rivals
But commercial relations between the EU and the US are also marked by competition and regionalisation. While the US have been expanding trade relations to countries from the APEC and the Latin-American region, the EU has intensified relations with the Mercosur countries and Mediterranean countries. Such ‘bloc building’ is accompanied by highly politicised trade disputes with a number of issues pending before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. These such notorious conflicts as those over bananas, beef hormones and commercial measures taken by the US against Cuba, as well as the more recent dispute over Foreign Sales Companies. The inability to reach agreement cumulated in the failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle in November/December 1999.

The Future of the Transatlantic Relations - Timeline
A new attempt to launch a New Round is scheduled for the end of 2001, when WTO members will meet in Qatar – provided negotiators can reach a preliminary agreement by summer. The larger time frame includes:

• the legislative term of the EP as well as the Commission’s mandate lasting until 2004,
• the EU Enlargement to be decided upon by 2005,
• George Bush Jr.’s presidential term and
• the Initiative to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.

These background conditions should be borne in mind when talking about lobbyist on both sides of the Atlantic.

EU and US - Lobbying Compared
Institutional Framework
Member State influence in the EU is high and based on a complex and dynamic division of power. Contrary to the US, EU day-to-day decision-making frequently raises question of desired level of integration. The US system includes strong federal competencies. The EP’s competencies are not as strong as compared to Congress but it can use claims of a “democratic deficit” to increase its influence.
The high number of points of access to decision-making and of veto positions and higher administrative stability in the EU favour more long-term contacts as well as more intrinsic and less confrontational approaches to lobbying. EU institutions can use interest groups to demonstrate the need for supranational action while giving greater legitimacy to the groups’ claims in return (especially the EP).

Relations between Lobbyists and Decision Makers
EU: Administrative initiatives to draw interest groups to Brussels and many interest groups receive funding from EU sources while pushing for the formation of associational forms of representation in order to deal with a unified position (“Dialogue with Civil Society”, IT Sector, …).

The US features a more fragmented representation of interests and thus more direct lobbying. Financial contributions flow from interest groups to decision-makers who seek political and financial support. Members of Congress depend on the support of and primarily represent their constituencies whereas in the EU, electoral importance of European politics is comparatively low. Thus, grass roots lobbying is much more common in the US.

Political support, provision of information are crucial in both the US and the EU, but play a relatively more important role in Brussels. Lobbying in the EU is more centralised and while EU institutions actively encourage lobbying in “new” policy sectors, “overcrowding” has also led to political regulation of lobbying.

Political Culture
Due to the complexity of the decision-making process between 15 member states, politics in the EU takes on the style "conflict avoidance"

By contrast, the US follows a tradition of "managed conflict" which frequently sees the Administration and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, confronting each other, respectively.

The language and approach used to pursue same issue have to be very different across the Atlantic. Formal coalitions are less common in Brussels and more emphasis is put on associations (though changing, especially in the IT sector). Tolerance to confrontational approaches tends to be low.

Mobility of Decision Makers.
The Mobility of decision makers in Brussels is relatively low, especially for the Commission, whereas in the US, approximately 4000 political appointees populate the top three layers of most departments. Consequently, lobbyists in Brussels take care not to burn their bridges as they stay burnt a long time. This reinforces the tendency for conflict avoidance language.

Flow of Influence
The flow of influence in the EU has a traditional bias towards "bottom up". Lobbyists need good intelligence as to which unit/bureaucrat is drafting proposals and to supply views and information to assist. Influence then seeps upwards.
In the US, influence traditionally moves more top down - in DC, the use of ex politicians and ex administration officials is common. Large firms try to maintain links to both political parties.
The EU has an intrinsic rather than extrinsic approach to lobbying. Therefore, different attitudes exist towards transparency and access. This is changing with issues becoming less technical and more political (extrinsic).

Conclusion
Lobbying is strongly influenced by institutional and cultural factors. While political and economic developments point to even closer transatlantic ties (despite sometimes overly harsh dispute rhetoric), differences in the political systems will remain. In order to be successful, lobbying will have to deal with these different approaches.