EU Lobbying Through Everyday Practices: An ethnographic study on relational power in transnational in-house EU lobbying in Helsinki and Brussels 2017–2020

Although EU lobbying has been extensively studied, surprisingly little is known about its everyday practices and how lobbyists understand them. This dissertation is an effort to understand EU lobbying practices from the perspectives of Helsinki and Brussels based lobbyists working in non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, and professional associations (UAs), or in trade and business associations (TBs) when the European Green Deal was emerging (2017–2020).

The potential of the practice approach has been largely overlooked in International Relations (IR) research focusing on EU lobbying. Building on existing IR research, showing how not only interests and worldviews but also practices make world politics, this study argues that practices constitute the power to do transnational EU lobbying. By understanding EU lobbying through a Bourdieu-inspired practice approach, the study elaborates a theoretical approach to relational power in EU lobbying within IR research. The empirical observations herein, on how practices constitute the power to do EU lobbying, contribute to the existing literature on transnationality, lobbying style, and relational power in EU lobbying. Moreover, this research contributes to EU studies through multi-sited and transnational ethnographic research that enables to study practices across Member States and Brussels.

The research questions are: How do in-house lobbyists’ habitus and the transnationality of EU lobbying relate to the power to do EU lobbying? What material and symbolic resources give the power to do in-house EU lobbying? And lastly, what constitutes a “feel for EU lobbying” and exclusion in transnational EU lobbying? The ethnographic research data, gathered through shadowing, non-participant observation, and interviews, comprises the observation dataset from transnational fieldwork in Helsinki and Brussels, 59 recorded semi-structured interviews, and research diary notes.

The study shows how essential for the EU lobbyists’ habitus is the feeling of being in a disposition to do EU lobbying and to understand EU politics, without being very visibly engaged. Additionally, different dispositions in EU lobbying (in-house lobbyists, consultant lobbyists, decision-makers) are relational rather than separating, when previous experience of EU lobbying and changes in disposition are considered across a longer perspective.

This study moreover illustrates how EU lobbying is closely related to EU politics. Thus, EU lobbying needs to adapt to what is current in EU politics and to be organised transnationally across Member States and Brussels to be considered relevant. However, analysing timing and spaces in transnational EU lobbying demonstrates that EU lobbying practices cannot be understood solely as the basis of EU politics. Timing in EU lobbying relates to timing in EU politics, but lobbying occurs slightly in advance and entails constant, long- term engagement. Moreover, analysing the relational spaces in EU lobbying illustrates how the practices taking place among lobbyists relate to the practices of public and closed-door EU lobbying. Thus, focusing solely on practices visible to decision-makers reveals only part of EU lobbying.

By analysing relational resources, the study shows how the power to do in-house lobbying demands economic resources to be able to engage in EU lobbying transnationally. Moreover, previous transnational experience from different dispositions, relevant current positions in recognised organisations, and a suitable status in the hierarchy (cultural capital), as well as the ability to gain access to informal information through networks (social capital) is needed. Most importantly, gaining and maintaining trust (symbolic capital) is essential to competent EU lobbying, with trust constituting power relations within transnational in-house EU lobbying.

However, the understanding of competent EU lobbying is also exclusive; incompetence in practices leads to exclusion from EU lobbying, both by decision- makers and fellow lobbyists. As EU lobbying is an institutionalised way to be heard in EU decision-making, interests lacking competent EU lobbying may not enter the debates. Overall, the research outlines how practices in EU lobbying constitute the power to do it: not only does the content of the lobbying matter, but also how, when, and by whom EU lobbying is done. Thus, the feel for EU lobbying is not about winning or losing one game, but about being able to do transnational EU lobbying across the long-term.