With participation in electoral politics limited, asylum seekers rely on lobbying to influence policy, but the factors which facilitate or constrain this process remain unclear. I interview asylum rights lobbyists in Germany and the United Kingdom to study the effects of lobbying institutions, using process tracing to identify influence mechanisms. Contrary to previous research, I find that successful lobbying stems from the quality not the quantity of institutions. I show how Germany’s corporatist institutions provide stable lobbying structures, building trustful working relationships. This enables collaborative policymaking and increases opportunities for influence. Informal, inconsistent structures in the United Kingdom’s pluralist system impair trust, reducing collaborative policymaking and influence. UK institutions are more policy responsive, however, enabling groups to capitalise on favourable public opinion, whereas the German system remains stable. The results demonstrate the effects of institutional arrangements and identify mechanisms which can improve policy outcomes for asylum seekers and other disadvantaged groups.
AdamsJEzrowL (2009) Who do European parties represent? How Western European parties represent the policy preferences of opinion leaders. The Journal of Politics71(1): 206–223.
2.
AllenW (2016) A decade of immigration in the British Press. Migration Observatory Report, COMPAS, University of Oxford, UK, November.
3.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BaumgartnerFRLeechBL (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BaumgartnerFRBerryJMHojnackiM, et al (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
BernauerJGigerNRossetJ (2015) Mind the gap: Do proportional electoral systems foster a more equal representation of women and men, poor and rich?International Political Science Review36(1): 78–98.
8.
BeyersJ (2004) Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics5(2): 211–240.
9.
BeyersJKerremansB (2012) Domestic embeddedness and the dynamics of multilevel venue shopping in four EU member states. Governance25(2): 263–290.
10.
BeyersJEisingRMaloneyW (2008) Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know?West European Politics31(6): 1103–1128.
11.
BinderkrantzAS (2005) Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies53(4): 694–715.
12.
BinderkrantzASKrøyerS (2012) Customizing strategy: Policy goals and interest group strategies. Interest Groups & Advocacy1(1): 115–138.
BoswellC (2009) The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BoswellCBadenhoopE (2021) ‘What isn’t in the files, isn’t in the world’: Understanding state ignorance of irregular migration in Germany and the United Kingdom. Governance34(2): 335–352.
16.
BouwenP (2002) Corporate lobbying in the European Union: The logic of access. Journal of European Public Policy9(3): 365–390.
17.
BursteinP (2003) The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly56(1): 29–40.
ConsterdineE (2020) Parties matter but institutions live on: Labour’s legacy on conservative immigration policy and the neoliberal consensus. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations22(2): 182–201.
20.
CulpepperPD (2010) Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
DietzTOstromESternPC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science302(5652): 1907–1912.
22.
DommettKHindmoorAWoodM (2017) Who meets whom: Access and lobbying during the coalition years. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations19(2): 389–407.
23.
DowseREHughesJA (1977) Sporadic interventionists. Political Studies25(1): 84–92.
24.
DürA (2008) Measuring Interest Group Influence in the EU: A Note on Methodology. European. Union Politics9: 559–576.
25.
DürAMateoG (2014) Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy21(8): 1199–1217.
26.
DwidarMA (2022) Coalitional lobbying and intersectional representation in American rulemaking. American Political Science Review116(1): 301–321.
27.
EmeriauM (2023) Learning to be unbiased: Evidence from the French Asylum Office. American Journal of Political Science67: 1117–1133.
FreitagMBauerPC (2013) Testing for measurement equivalence in surveys: Dimensions of social trust across cultural contexts. Public Opinion Quarterly77(S1): 24–44.
34.
FyallR (2016) The power of nonprofits: Mechanisms for nonprofit policy influence. Public Administration Review76(6): 938–948.
35.
GeorgeALBennettA (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
GrantW (2004) Pressure politics: The changing world of pressure groups. Parliamentary Affairs57(2): 408–419.
37.
HanegraaffMvan der PloegJ (2020) Bringing the middleman back in: EU umbrella organizations and interest group access in the European Union. Comparative European Politics18: 963–981.
38.
HattonTJ (2021) Public opinion on immigration in Europe: Preference and salience. European Journal of Political Economy66: 101969.
39.
HoodC (1995) The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society20(2–3): 93–109.
40.
HuddlestonTSolanoG (2020) MIPEX [Online]. Available at: https://www.mipex.eu/ (accessed 5 December 2022).
41.
IlgitAKlotzA (2018) Refugee rights or refugees as threats? Germany’s new Asylum policy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations20(3): 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118778958
42.
JahnD (2016) Changing of the guard: Trends in corporatist arrangements in 42 highly industrialized societies from 1960 to 2010. Socio-Economic Review14(1): 47–71.
43.
JenningsW (2009) The public thermostat, political responsiveness and error-correction: Border control and asylum in Britain, 1994–2007. British Journal of Political Science39(4): 847–870.
44.
JoosenR (2021) Persuading the independent: Understanding why interest groups engage with EU agencies. Interest Groups & Advocacy10(1): 19–46.
45.
KallioKPMeierIHäkliJ (2021) Radical hope in asylum seeking: Political agency beyond linear temporality. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies47(17): 4006–4022.
46.
KaunertCLéonardSHoffmannU (2013) Venue-shopping and the role of non-governmental organisations in the development of the European Union asylum policy. Comparative Migration Studies1(1): 179–200.
47.
KingGKeohaneROVerbaS (1994) Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press.
48.
KoopmansR (2004) Migrant mobilisation and political opportunities: Variation among German cities and a comparison with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies30(3): 449–470.
49.
LeachWDSabatierPA (2005) To trust an adversary: Integrating rational and psychological models of collaborative policymaking. American Political Science Review99(4): 491–503.
50.
LijphartA (2012) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (2nd edn). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
LipskyM (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Manhattan, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
52.
LoweryD (2007) Why do organized interests lobby? A multi-goal, multi-context theory of lobbying. Polity39(1): 29–54.
53.
MahoneyC (2008) Brussels Versus the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
54.
MansbridgeJ (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics61(3): 628–657.
55.
MarchettiK (2014) Crossing the intersection: The representation of disadvantaged identities in advocacy. Politics, Groups, and Identities2(1): 104–119.
56.
NorrisP (2006) The impact of electoral reform on women’s representation. Acta política41: 197–213.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In: CrothersLLockhartC (eds) Culture and Politics. Berlin: Springer, pp.223–234.
59.
RicksJILiuAH (2018) Process-tracing research designs: A practical guide. PS: Political Science & Politics51(4): 842–846.
60.
RokkanS (1966) Norway: Numerical democracy & corporate democracy. In: DahlRA (ed.) Opposition in Western Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp.70–115.
61.
RonitKSchneiderV (1998) The strange case of regulating lobbying in Germany. Parliamentary Affairs51(4): 559–567.
62.
SalamonLM (1999) The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations10(1): 5–23.
63.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
64.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyHE (2012) The Unheavenly Chorus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
SorokaSWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66.
StathamPGeddesA (2006) Elites and the ‘organised public’: Who drives British immigration politics and in which direction?West European Politics29(2): 248–269.
67.
StimsonJAMacKuenMBEriksonRS (1995) Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review89(3): 543–565.
68.
StrolovitchDZ (2006) Do interest groups represent the disadvantaged? Advocacy at the intersections of race, class, and gender. The Journal of Politics68(4): 894–910.
69.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
TuschhoffC (1999) The compounding effect: The impact of federalism on the concept of representation. West European Politics22(2): 16–33.
71.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyH, et al (1993) Race, ethnicity and political resources: Participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science23(4): 453–497.
72.
VollmerBKarakayaliS (2018) The volatility of the discourse on refugees in Germany. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies16(1–2): 118–139.
73.
WeberEP (1998) Successful collaboration: Negotiating effective regulations. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development40(9): 10–15.
74.
WeberLRCarterA (1998) On constructing trust: Temporality, self-disclosure, and perspective-taking. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy18: 7–26.
75.
WlezienC (1995) The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science39(4): 981–1000.
76.
WongTK (2012) 287 (g) and the politics of interior immigration control in the United States: Explaining local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies38(5): 737–756.
77.
ZimmerA (1999) Corporatism revisited – The legacy of history and the German nonprofit sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations10(1): 37–49.
