Serving one client only? Assessing the openness and inclusiveness of European Parliament's intergroups

References

• Ahrens, P., & Woodward, A. (2021). Adjusting venues and voices: Populist and right-wing parties, the European Parliament and civil society equality organizations 2014–2019. European Politics and Society, 22(4), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2020.1801181
   Google Scholar
• Bouwen, P. (2004). The logic of access to the European Parliament: Business lobbying in the committee on economic and monetary affairs. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(3), 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9886.2004.00515.x
   Google Scholar
• Bouza Gracia, L. (2015). Participatory democracy and civil society in the EU agenda-setting and institutionalisation. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bunea, A. (2014). Evaluating Pluralism: Diversity of Interest Groups’ Policy Demands and Preference Attainment in the European Commission’s Open Consultations. Evidence from the EU Environmental Policy. EUI Working Paper MWP 2014/03. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31263/MWP_WP_Bunea_2014_03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Coen, D., & Katsaitis, A. (2013). Chameleon pluralism in the EU: An empirical study of the European Commission interest group density and diversity across policy domains. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1104–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781785
   Google Scholar
• Coen, D., & Katsaitis, A. (2019). Between cheap talk and epistocracy: The logic of interest group access in the European Parliament’s committee hearings. Public Administration, 97(4), 754–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12406
   Google Scholar
• Corbett, R., Jacobs, F., & Neville, D. (2016). The European Parliament (9th edition). John Harper Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Crespy, A., & Parks, L. (2019). The European Parliament and civil society. In O. Costa (Ed.), The European Parliament in times of crisis dynamics and transformations (pp. 203–223). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• De Bruycker, I. (2016). Power and position: Which EU party groups do lobbyists prioritize and why? Party Politics, 22(4), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816642803
   Google Scholar
• Dionigi, M. K. (2017). Lobbying in the European Parliament. Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Eising, R. (2007). The access of business interests to EU institutions: Towards élite pluralism? Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701243772
   Google Scholar
• Eriksen, E. O., & Fossum, J. E. (2000). Democracy in the European Union integration through deliberation? Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Eurogroup for Animals. (2019). The Europe that cares for animals. Eurogroup for Animals.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2001). European Governance. A White Paper. COM (2001) 428 Final – Official Journal C 287, 12 October 2001. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Federation for Hunting and Conservation. (n.d.). Intergroup. Retrieved June 12 - July 16, 2019; October 14 - November 22, 2021, from https://www.face.eu/intergroup/
   Google Scholar
• European Federation for Hunting and Conservation. (2018a). Annual Report 2017. European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, FACE. https://face.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/ReportFACE21X24.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Federation for Hunting and Conservation. (2018b). Annual Report 2018. European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, FACE. https://www.face.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/03/annualreport_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Landowners' Organization. (n.d.-a). European Landowners' Organization – Cooperation with the EU institutions – Intergroup. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://europeanlandowners.org/cooperation-with-the-EU-institutions/intergroup
   Google Scholar
• European Landowners’ Organization. (n.d.-b). Intergroup ‘Biodiversity, Hunting, Countryside. Retrieved June 12, 2019, from https://www.europeanlandowners.org/files/Intergroup/leaflet_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (1999/2012). Rules Governing the Establishment of Intergroups Decision of the Conference of Presidents (PE422.583/BUR). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/files/organisation-and-rules/organisation/intergroups/rules-governing-the-establishment-of-integroupes-19991116.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2014–2019). Rules of Procedure: 8th parliamentary term July 2018. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RULES-8-2018-07-31_EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (n.d.). About Parliament: Organisation and Rules. Retrieved August 29, 2019, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/organisation-and-rules/organisation/intergroups
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament’s Intergroup Biodiversity, Hunting, Countryside. (n.d.). Parliament's Intergroup “Biodiversity, Hunting, Countryside”. Retrieved October 14, 2021 – February 05, 2022, from https://www.biodiversityhuntingcountryside.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Giegold, S. (2015, February 2). Relaunched: Social Economy Intergroup of Social Economy Enterprises, Social Entrepreneurship and Third Sector. Retrieved June 12, 2019, from https://sven-giegold.de/relaunched-social-economy-intergroup-of-social-economy-enterprises-social-entrepreneurship-and-third-sector/
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J. (2007a). Organized civil society and democratic legitimacy in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 333–357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123407000166
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J. (2007b). Organized civil society and input legitimacy in the EU. In J. DeBardeleben & A. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Democratic dilemmas of multilevel governance. Transformations of the state (pp. 177–194). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J. (2017). Interest representation in the European Union (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J., & Roederer-Rynning, C. (2020). Power at the expense of diffuse interests? The European Parliament as a legitimacy-seeking institution. European Politics and Society, 21(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2019.1613879
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and International policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442
   Google Scholar
• Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. (2019). Rules of Procedure. Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. Brussels, Belgium. https://www.animalwelfareintergroup.eu/sites/default/files/2019-09/Finalised-rules-of-procedure.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. (n.d.). Meetings. Retrieved January 6 – July 23, 2019; November 25, 2020, from https://www.animalwelfareintergroup.eu/meetings/
   Google Scholar
• Intergroup Seas, Rivers, Islands and Coastal Areas. (n.d.). 2015–2019. All events. Retrieved July 11 – 15, 2019, from http://searica.eu/2015-2019/all-events
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B. (2010). Civil society and EU democracy: ‘Astroturf’ representation? Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903464986
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B. (2013). Civil society and democracy in the EU. High expectations under empirical scrutiny. In B. Kohler-Koch & C. Quittkat (Eds.), De-mystification of participatory democracy EU-Governance and civil society (pp. 1–17). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B., & Finke, B. (2007). The institutional shaping of EU–society relations: A contribution to democracy via participation? Journal of Civil Society, 3(3), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448680701775630
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B., & Quittkat, C. (2009). What is civil society and who represents civil society in the EU?—Results of an online survey among civil society experts. Policy and Society, 28(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B., & Quittkat, C. (2013). De-mystification of participatory democracy EU-Governance and civil society. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kröger, S. (2019). How limited representativeness weakens throughput legitimacy in the EU: The example of interest groups. Public Administration, 97(4), 770–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12410
   Google Scholar
• Landorff, L. (2019a). Inside European Parliament Politics: Informality, Information and Intergroups. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Landorff, L. (2019b). Intergroups as alternative venues in the European Parliament: Lessons for civil society. In U. Liebert & A. Jenichen (Eds.), Europeanisation vs. renationalisation: Crisis lessons for European Political development (pp. 265–280). Barbara Budrich Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Liebert, U., & Trenz, H.-J. (2009). Civil society and the reconstitution of democracy in Europe: Introducing a new research field. Policy and Society, 28(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Liebert, U., & Trenz, H.-J. (2011). The new politics of European civil society. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, D. (2010). Who to lobby and when: Institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament committees. European Union Politics, 11(4), 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116510382462
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, D. (2015). Explaining interest group interactions with party group members in the European Parliament: Dominant party groups and coalition formation. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(2), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12163
   Google Scholar
• Mény, Y. (2009). Building Parliament. 50 years of European Parliament history 1958-2008. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Nedergaard, P., & Jensen, M. D. (2014). The anatomy of intergroups – network governance in the political engine room of the European Parliament. Policy Studies, 35(2), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.875146
   Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, M. K. (2015). The battle for influence: The politics of business lobbying in the European Parliament. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(2), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12156
   Google Scholar
• Ringe, N., Victor, J. N., & Carman, C. J. (2013). Bridging the information gap: Legislative member organizations as social networks in the United States and the European Union. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saint Martin, F., & Bosser, L. (2014). Progress report - Seas and Coastal areas Intergroup. Conférence des Régions Périphériques Maritimes d’Europe (CRPM). Retrieved August 30, 2019, from http://www.searica.eu/2009-2014-intergroup/final-report
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez Salgado, R. (2014). Rebalancing EU interest representation? Associative democracy and EU funding of civil society organizations. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12092
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A., & Wood, M. (2019). Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Administration, 97(4), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12615
   Google Scholar
• Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness?: Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176032000085333
   Google Scholar
• Smismans, S. (2003). European civil society: Shaped by discourses and institutional interests. European Law Journal, 9(4), 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00187
   Google Scholar
• Social Economy Europe. (2015). Rapport Annuel 2015. Social Economy Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Social Economy Europe. (2016). Annual Report 2016. Social Economy Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Social Economy Europe. (2017). Annual Report 2017. Social Economy Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Social Economy Europe. (2018). Annual Report 2018. Social Economy Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Social Economy Europe. (n.d.). Our work: Social economy intergroup. Retrieved October 7, 2021, from https://www.socialeconomy.eu.org/our-work/social-economy-intergroup/.
   Google Scholar
• Steffek, J., Kissling, C., & Nanz, P. (2008). Civil society participation in European and global governance A cure for the democratic deficit? Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• The Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU. (2015). Annual Report 2015. https://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/documents/english/annualreport2015_corr.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU. (2016). Annual Report 2016. https://www.face.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/annual_report_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• The Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU. (n.d.). #VOTE4HUNTING EU Support hunting at the next European elections! Retrieved June 1, 2019, from https://www.face.eu/european-elections/
   Google Scholar
• Warleigh, A. (2003). Informal governance: Improving EU democracy? In T. Christiansen & S. Piattoni (Eds.), Informal governance in the European Union (pp. 22–35). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar