Subnational Collective Action: The Varied Patterns of Mobilisation of Local Government Associations

Abstract

This article assesses differences in the way local government associations organise to influence EU legislation in different countries. EU policy outcomes have an increasing financial and administrative impact on local government. This has been increasingly recognised by both EU institutions and many national governments, and recent reforms have sought to ensure greater involvement of local authorities in the preparation of EU proposals and domestic pre-negotiations, with an emphasis on the aggregation of local government interests via European and national local government associations. Research suggests that representative organisations need to be well resourced to be able to mobilise at both European and national level to influence EU proposals. This article empirically assesses these claims by examining attempts by local government associations in England, Denmark and Ireland to influence EU environmental directives. The findings suggest that financial, staffing, and informational resources, as well as structural issues, are important factors influencing how local government representative bodies respond to EU legislative proposals.

Key Words:

• local government associations
• multi-level governance
• intergovernmental relations
• European Union
• environment
• Britain
• Denmark
• Ireland

Notes

Capacity for the purposes of this article is related to, but does not simply correlate with levels of financial or human resources. Importantly, it also relates to the ability to influence, to become a reliable source of expertise and technical information, and to offer other levels of government attractive options that will work in practice.

By mobilisation, we mean that local government associations respond to EU proposals by becoming more proactive ‘investing time’ in lobbying and seeking to influence these developments, both vis-à-vis the EU institutions and national actors. As Jeffery (2000) points out, mobilisation and influence are not necessarily synonymous – therefore the article does not equate mobilisation with influence, although it is reasonable to assume that mobilisation takes place in the hope of exercising influence.

One could of course make the case that the UK, given devolution reforms in certain regions (in particular Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), is evolving into a quasi-federation, at least on an asymmetric basis. In the case of the UK, the focus of the research was on local government in England, where a strong meso-level tier of government does not exist. Therefore we keep with the traditional view of England as a unitary state.

In 2007, the LGIB was fully subsumed into the LGA.