To what extent has the increased influence on policy-making of transnationally constituted actors actually enhanced the quality of democracy in the EU

Looking at Europe today you can see “a cultural complex entity” (Heard-Laureote, 2005, p.50). The European Union “starches from the Atlantic to the Baltic and from the Arctic Ocean to the Mediterranean and is characterized by linguistic and religious density with twenty official languages and five significant religious currents” (Heard-Laureote, 2005, p.51). Moreover, non-governmental organisations, business associations, political parties, multinational companies, media, private interests, informal groups of people, compete to influence policy-making in the European Union (Kaiser & Starie, 2005, p.1). Some of them claim to be more representative, while other claim to be more expert in certain issues. In addition, you can see “hundreds, perhaps even thousands of scholars, commentators, lawyers and politicians who have analyzed European Unions problem” of democratic deficit (Moravscik, 2002, p.604). Though, according to Warleigh “a regime can be defined as democratic if the people, as a collectivity, have the formal power and a number of sufficiently means, through which to authorize the basic process of legislation” (2003, p.81). Or, as Chrysochoou (2001), cited by Warleigh, wrote, a major problem that EU has to face, is how to encourage its citizens to participate actively in the integration process and in the construction of a political defined demos based on civic society (2003, p.16).
An effort to approach and analyze the issues mentioned above would inevitably bring up the issues of transnationalism and transnational actors. Kaiser and Starie (2005, p.1) characteristically wrote that “transnational actors can play a leading role in agenda setting at all levels of domestic, transgovernmental and European politics and policy-making”. Even state actors “rely on them for the - vision thing - because transnational non-state actors” are “detached from the demands of day-today politics, do not depend on electoral support, are not under constant media scrutiny and can often invest more resources into thinking about future” (Heard-Laureote, 2005, p.11). Moreover the European Commission according to Greenwood benefited from the participation of transnational actors in various aspects, such as: “they are a source of support of its role in drafting legislation; they are a means of ‘testing out’ proposals among stakeholders, and the ways these are likely to be received in different national settings ahead of the Council of Ministers; they seek out points of view about them; and for the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties, they collate information about the implementation of measures and their impact” (2003, p.5).
‘Transnationalism’, indicates the numerous connections and cooperation between people or institutions across the borders of nations (Vertovec, 2005, p.iii). Transnational actors are developing since the European Coal and Steel Community was established and they are constituted by Business Associations, Professional Interests Associations, Labour Associations, Public Interests Associations and Territorial Interest Associations (Greenwood, 2003, p.v-vi). According to the Secretariat-General of the European Commission (March 2000) there are 900 EU-level Interests groups (Eising, 2003, p.198), while Greenwood cites a number of 1450 formal Interest groups addressed to EU (Greenwood, 2003, p.9).
There are around 950 Business actors in the European Union and constitute the two-thirds of all EU groups (Greenwood, 2003, p.75); five significant Business associations are: the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM-EU), the European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT), the EUROCHAMBERS and the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) (Greenwood, 2003, pp.74-122). Furthermore, there are 132 Professional Interest associations (Greenwood, p.124). According to Greenwood, “the professions are the most weakly organised actors at the EU level” (2003, p.124). Moreover, the Trade Union associations represent the three per cent of the formal EU interests groups while the public sector constitute only one per cent of it (Greenwood, 2003, p.19). At last, the Territorial Interests associations represent “both sub-national, regional and local interest representation at the European level” (Greenwood, 2003, p.230).
“The provision of the Single European Act and the Treaty on European Union” played principal role in the participation of various groups in the EU arena, “especially those active in Single Market or Environmental policy” (Wessels, 1997, p.20). Lowi’s (1964) axiom “policy makes politics” perfectly describes NGOs evolvement in the European Union (cited by Wallace and Young, 1997, p.238); Wallace and Young wrote that “different actors mobilize in different ways in response to different policy initiatives or predicaments” and this contributes in making clear the existing differences between people’s participation (1997, p.238).
This essay will argue that the quality of democracy within the European Union is enhanced by transnational actors such as Public Interests associations, or Non-governmental organisations as they are broadly described. Though, this essay argues that further improvement of their internal structure and governance would contribute in the greater enhancement of EU’s democracy. Greenwood, Warleigh, Wallace, Youth and Cini among others have extensively analyzed this issue and spread light in a very important subject. Warleigh wrote (2001, p.6190 that “as a strategy for tackling the ’democratic deficit’, attention is increasingly shifting towards the ’Europeanization’ of civil society”. De Tocqueville (1981[1845]), cited by Warleigh (2001, p.620), wrote that “civil society’s return to the center of political discourse has been viewed by liberal political theorist as the means to elaborate a legitimate state structure by limiting its scope and by encouraging or facilitating political engagement by, and mutual solidarity between, otherwise alienated individuals”. Moreover, there are “traditional neo-functionalist explanations, which place the relationship between supranational institutions and organized interests at the center of the European Union” (Greenwood, 2003, p.254). It is the neofunctionalists that have strongly supported that the “involvement of such actors would be a key catalyst in deepening and expanding the Union’s powers”; moreover, they argued that interest groups “could affect public policy and thereby gain a stake in the preservation of both the outputs and system of the Union” (Warleigh, 2006, p.122)
At the first part of this essay an effort will be made to define Public Interests associations and their contribution to the enhancement of the quality of democracy within the EU, as soon as key problems and weaknesses of this process. At the end of the first part the essay will signify some of the factors that could push this process forward and improve EU’s democracy. Furthermore, in the second part of this essay the analysis will focus on the Environmental actors and their role in this process. At last, the conclusion of this essay will summarize the aforementioned issues and point out key subjects that could play an important role in a future development.
The Public interest associations represent the twenty per cent of EU’s formal interest groups (Greenwood, 2003, p.19), while “no systematic consultation” between them and the EU took place until the 1980’s (Cullen cited by Greenwood, 2003, p.180). Public interest associations are “the second largest category of EU interest actors”, at the same time as the European Commission spends one billion euros to support their actions and projects (Greenwood, 2003, p.179); the forty per cent of their activities involve humanitarian aid, human rights, democratisation, external relations etc. (Greenwood, 2003, p.179). “Civil society acts as a mediator between the citizen and the state” (Warleigh, 2001, p.620) and along with what Greenwood has written, the European Union even before the problem of democratic deficit came over, favored to “address this issue” through: encouraging citizen participation, ensuring equality of access and accountability, together with transparency and standards of policy-making (2003, p.6).An excellent example is the “Citizens First!” campaign in 1993, which renamed as “Dialogue with citizens” in 1998, where the Commission’s primary target was to approach EU citizens and public actors with a different perspective and give them the opportunity to feel closer to Europe (Greenwood, 2003, p.176).
Public interest associations are not all concerned with the same issues and problems. There are Environmental groups concerned with environmental issues; Consumer interest actors related with Consumer Policies and Social interest associations, that according to Greenwood, share a closer relation with the European Commission (2003, p.209). An important question that requires an answer early in the analysis of this essay, is why the European Union needs these associations and how these could foster EU democracy? According to Greenwood (2003, p.177), the Public interest actors “foster participatory democracy, and contribute to policy-making” while they “provide valuable information, in both preparing and implementing policy” (Kirchner & Schwaiger, 1981, p.10); they help EU to communicate with its grassroots and they “act as a filter for various national interests in certain sectors” (Kirchner & Schwaiger, 1981, p.10). Even more, along with the European Commission (2000a), Public interest associations contribute to project management, policy programme implementation and even in European integration (Greenwood, 2003, p.177). Non-governmental organisations operate as “guardians of public interests”; they “monitor and assess the performance of political and economic players and respond to their action or inaction” (Global Policy Forum, 2001).
The legitimacy and political accountability of the European Union cannot solely be “limited in increasing the power of the European Parliament” (Kohler-Koch, p.54). Other actors such as regional and environmental, in cooperation with the European Union, enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of EU’s Policies and Programs (Kohler-Koch, p.54). Moreover, as Warleigh wrote (2001, p.622), NGO’s “contribution to the legitimacy of the Union has thus largely been through helping to produce more broadly acceptable policy outcomes”. The broad support that Public interests groups have gained from the people, can become the necessary vehicle for improving EU’s democratic quality. As Eising (2003, p.193) wrote, these interests groups can be seen as “schools for democracy, that socialize citizens as political beings, and contribute to the formation of a general will, out of the specific concerns of groups”. As Covey (1996) wrote “NGOs often claim to work in alternative ways which socialize and empowers those they serve” (cited by Warleigh, 2006, p.123). Social actors offer the necessary prerequisites for lessening the “gap between the governing and the governed” by increasing people’s knowledge regarding the “purpose, policies and actions of the European Union (Global Policy Forum, 2001). It is because of NGO’s presence in EU policy-making “that a wider range of political activists is aware of EU issues and is attempting to raise broader societal concerns at the EU level than in the past” (Warleigh, 2006, p.122). The latter together with NGO’s “extensive membership”, bring Europe closer to its citizens (Warleigh, 2006, p.122).
The “Brussels Archipelago”, as Wessels (1997, p.19) characterize the “horizontal and vertical channels of actors interaction”, improve the transparency and legitimacy of the European Union’s political system. He wrote (1997, p.20) that:
These actors both promote the integration process and are pulled by an in-built dynamic, based on competition for access and influence in the making of public policies. Thus, endogenous and exogenous dynamics lead to a new kind of European political system: this is characterized by the fusion between instruments, procedures, and networks from several levels of public policies.

An important step towards greater inclusiveness was made in the 1996/7 IGC process; there the Committee of Experts “promoted the idea of a ’civil dialogue’, in parallel with the ‘social dialogue’ which was at that time beginning to produce its first tangible results” (Greenwood, 2003, p.185).
Additionally, an important role that public interest actors play in their effort to enhance the quality of democracy within the EU is the “Europeanization of civil society” (Warleigh, 2001, pp. 635-636); Europeanization is necessary as “a part of the solution to the notorious democratic deficit” (Warleigh, 2001, p.620). This will give EU citizens the necessary social and cognitive background to support the democratisation and generally the integration process of the European Union. The common market, the common money, the development of the periphery and the cohesion funds are important elements of European Union, though the Europeanization of people and the creation of a European awareness is necessary for them to work (Theologou, p.2005, p.7). The process for deeper Europeanization is a process of deep evolution and innovations; NGO’s play an active role in this process. EU membership and participation demands the evolution of basic values of the Societies (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003, p.7). These values can be inspired and inculcated by active and efficient public organisations. Moreover, Keone (1988) cited by Warleigh (2001, p.620) “has seen the civil society as both the defeat of big government and a means of bringing the citizens back” in the European Union. As long as political parties remain less active in this process, the main responsibility to “bring citizens back” (Keane cited by Warleigh, 2001, p.620) remains to Public interests actors. Aspinwall (1998) cited by Warleigh wrote that “the weakness of political parties at EU level has created an advocacy void that NGOs are well situated to fill (Warleigh, 2006, p.123). Though, Kohler-Kohl (1997, p.54) wrote that “their influence depends on how well they succeed in making a privileged framework for discussion and a center for networking”. Furthermore, Public interest actors take advantage of the “good reputation” they share with the public, and that “makes them credible advocates of engagement with the European Union” (Warleigh, 2006, p.123).
There are a number of European Union’s political actors that encounter Public interest associations as valuable “channels to popular opinion and/or concern which they prioritize more highly than representation from industry” (Warleigh, 2000, p.231). For example, the Parliament and its Members are “the natural ally of social actors, not necessarily because they favour their demands, but because their interests match” (Kohler-Koch, 1997, p.55). MEP’s want to gain as much public interest they can, because in this way they will improve their political influence. As Kohler-Koch wrote “MEP’s and interest groups share an interest in building up their strength and therefore in giving each other support, as numerous case studies about consumer protection, environmental policies and animal protection illustrate” (Kohler-Kocj.1997,p.55). MEP’s interest for Public interests groups gives the latter the opportunity to influence policies and enhance democracy by being in constant contact with the European Parliament.
Though, despite of the important contribution that Public interests groups offer to the enhancement of EU’s democracy, there are various scholars such as Warleigh (2000, 2001, 2006) and Greenwood (2003) who notice some weaknesses in this process. There are internal problems in the administration and governance of those actors that prevent them of being in constant interaction with the Europeans and promote their Europeanization. Public interest associations must overcome their internal democratic weaknesses if they aim in promoting people’s further Europeanization; NGO’s must be keen and competent to “act as agents of political socialisation, with particular reference to EU decision making and policy” (Warleigh, 2001, p.635). At the present time, there is high distance between the people that lead the Public interests associations and their supporters; this does not give them the opportunity to participate in neither policy and action planning nor agenda setting. Moreover, NGOs “must be substantively rather than formally democratic: that is, they must not only have structures which allow supporters to participate in their decision making but their supporters should actively play such a role” (Warleigh, 2006, p.126).
Even more, Eising (2003, p.203) mentioned that “some members of social policy interest groups fear that the support given by EU Institutions is little more than a convenient way for EU to give a human face to the Single Market”.
Cullen (1999), cited by Greenwood (2003, p.178), identified three models of groups-civil society analysis; the first, “sees an emerging civil society from the development of the EU public interest agenda”; the second, exams EU Public interest actors as “an elite, isolated segment whose self-contained dialogue with the Commission does little to enable it to reach out civil society, while the last “identifies element of both contestation and incorporation in the relationship between the Commission and NGO’s”. The role of Social actors might not be the ideal one, though an important work has been done and the process of improvement emerge. In this effort, Social actors need to overcome Europe’s diversity and ‘make’ Europeans believe in Europe and work united with the same hopes and aims. It is of significant importance, the Public interest associations to establish mechanisms that will give an opportunity to “their supporters to play a role in the formation of NGO policy on issues to be tackled in the EU level” (Warleigh, 2001, p.623); Furthermore, an emerging problem that many scholars intend to mention, is the increasing economic dependence of NGO’s from the European Commission and/or others. As Warleigh wrote, “NGOs must be able to call their own tune rather than answer to the priorities of their funders” (2006, p.126) because this might affect their independence and the agenda setting of their actions.
NGO’s have the opportunity to emerge in key factors in the progress of European Unions democratisation. This will happen as soon as NGO’s take over their important role to “educate their supporters about EU policy and structures” (Warleigh, 2001, p.623). Additionally, NGO’s must provide their supporters with the necessary prerequisites for active participation in EU’s policy formation. This will only occur if Social actors open their decision-making process to their supporters and let them participate actively in it; otherwise, “the socialization will be stillborn, with insufficient outlets for the newly raised levels of awareness” (Warleigh, 2001, p.623).
Warleigh (2001, p.635-636) identified a “twin strategy in which NGOs can reform and play a part”: first, the opportunity structures available to NGOs at EU level must be improved and at the same time, the role of civil society in all stages of the legislative chain must be enhanced”. It is significant that “the partnership principle must be exported in all areas of EU activity” (Schott cited by Warleigh, 2001, pp.635-636). Moreover, crucial element towards EU democratisation is “the broad attempt to engage the public and initiate further institutional reform based on sustained public dialogue” (Warleigh, 2001, pp.635-636). NGOs must enhance their “politicization” and their ability to draw on existing political socialization while overcoming their “service delivery” role (Warleigh, 2001, p.634); then they will be able to inspire their participants with the higher cause for which they are established.
In the first part of this essay, an effort has been made to analyze the increased influence on policy-making, of transnational constituted actors, to enhance the quality of democracy within the European Union. This occurs in various ways, such as: broad participation of NGOs in planning and implementation of EU policies, the open dialogue of NGOs with Institutions, etc. Though, the present structure of Social interests groups, face significant weaknesses that need to be revisoled, in an effort to make this process more effective and transparent. Furthermore, the second part of this essay will focus on the Environmental actors and their role in enhancing EU’s democracy.
The European Union is a “world leader in environmental affairs” (Greenwood, 2003, p.189) while “views itself as the logical vehicle for bringing environmentally-proactive new ideas to the negotiations backed with considerable political clout” (Pedler, 2002, p.99). The European Environmental non-governmental organizations have succeeded in overcoming many of the NGO’s problems that this essay presented in the first part; this transformed them in a useful and active ally in EU’s effort for democratisation. Environmental actors succeeded in bringing environmental issues in the center of citizen’s interests; these issues are ‘highly politicized’ and the ‘Eurobarometer’ surveys have repeatedly shown the popularity of the European level to tackle environmental problems” (Greenwood, 2003, p.186). European Environmental NGO’s cooperate in their effort to integrate environment into as many EU Policy areas as possible. Moreover they combine their forces in “adding value to natural resources management, promoting partnership with Civil Society and evaluating progress towards the achievement of sustainable development objectives” (Environmental NGO’s common position, 2004).
EU’s active environmental engagement started in 1972 after a “landmark summit held in Stockholm” (Greenwood, 2003, p.186). Since then, five environmental action programs were implemented, while the sixth ends in 2010 (Greenwood, 2003, p.186). The Environmental NGOs have succeeded in pursuing politicians and citizens that the environmental issues have “no respect of boundaries” and countries (Greenwood, 2003, p.186). Common actions were necessary to face the various problems that EU countries started facing while industrialization was in progress. Moreover, the first important step was taken with the Single European Market that identified the importance of the environmental issues and was “extended by the TEU with the use of QMV and the addition of the precautionary principle” (Greenwood, 2003, p.186).
The European Environmental Bureau was the first active organisation and it “was founded in 1974 to promote the protection of the environment” (Eising, 2003, p.202). In thirty years, it succeeded in including 134 organisations from 25 countries (Greenwood, 2003, p.190). Furthermore, the last 20 years “some 13 environmental organisations and networks” are active at the European Union” (Hey & Brendle, 1994, cited by Eising, 2003, p.202).The eight largest environmental NGO’s are: the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), Greenpeace, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), Birdlife International, Climate Network Europe (CNE) and Friends of Nature International (INF). The Group of Eight (G8,) according to their data, have 20 million members which represent “at least 5 per cent of the European population” (Greenwood, 2003, p.189); their broad membership helps them to transform as significant and reliable factors for tackling EU’s democratic deficit.
The active participation and the increasing importance of environmental issues led EU to sign the Aarthus Convention “on citizens rights in environmental matters, guaranteeing rights of access to information, public participation in decision making and to justice in environmental matters” (G8 cited by Greenwood, 2003, p.187). The EU’s environmental laws rang between over 200 (WWF, 2002, cited Greenwood, 2003, p.187) to over 700 (Jones, 2002, cited by Greenwood, 2003, p.187).WWF for example, has given great priority in influencing EU environmental policy and legislation and have created a “European Policy Office” with 20 people staff, that aims to relate with the Directorate General for the Environment or the Parliaments Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs Committee, among others (Long, Salter & Singer , 2002, p.87). As Greenwood (2003, p.187) characteristically wrote, the environmental Public Interests actors are:
Ηighly capable of engaging policy-making at a scientific level, and their dedication to the cause can give them an advantage over Business associations struggling with a variety of issues in EU policy-making coming at them.
Long, Salter and Singer (2002, pp.89-95), for example, mentioned that in a case of energy source companies, the result was that Business associations like ERT and UNICE were disregarded, despite of the fact that the result had great impact on their interests. Additionally, in other cases, transnational Business actors “collaborate with ‘light green’ interests groups, if there is an agreement of interests” (Greenwood, p.188).
Furthermore, most of the G8 NGOs have succeeded in creating close relations with DG Environment and this gave them the opportunity to "sit on the General Advisory Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development" (Greenwood, 2003, p. 192). Moreover, they come together with the Cabinet of DG Environment every “six to eight weeks” and “once a year” with the President of the Commission (Greenwood, 2003, p. 192). These gave them, apart from credibility towards their members, the opportunity to influence policy-making and bring EU closer to its grassroots. The “establishment of a structured dialogue between organised civil society and the different levels of government” is the necessary precondition for enhancement EU’s democracy. (“Democracy, Governance”, April 20th, 2006). For example, Greenpeace in a campaign over the drinking water directive “achieved an EP amendment about pesticide limits which the Commission accepted despite the opinions of its own scientific adviser (Warleigh, 2002, cited by Greenwood, 2003, p.194). Or, on the other hand, WWF took the initiative to actively influence issues such as “the clean development mechanism”, “reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels” etc. (Long, Salter, singer, pp.88-103).
Furthermore, the Environmental NGOs despite of some weaknesses such as intense EU funding - Greenpeace is the sole Environmental NGO that do not receive any funding from the European Commission - have succeeded in “engaging policy-making through formulation, implementation and monitoring” (Greenwood, 2003, p.196). They have also succeeded in motivating million of peoples to “care” about EU environment and “helped to shape not only the thinking of policy actors such as the Commission and producer groups, but also Member States preferences towards Environmental protection policies” (Greenwood, 2003, p.196). Environmental NGOs have succeeded a fundamental precondition for tackling EU’s democratic deficit: they transformed all environmental issues as subjects for common discussion between EU citizens while they gave them the opportunity to act.
The aim of this essay was to examine the extend that the increased influence on policy-making of transnationally constituted actors enhance the quality of democracy within the EU. It was argued, in the first part, that transnational constituted actors such as Public interest associations enhance the quality of democracy within the EU. Though, as it was argued, greater enhancement and effectiveness could be succeeded if NGOs improve their internal structure by succeeding: greater independence, improvement of the internal democratic structure, improvement of their perceptive influence on members and supporters, and as Warleigh wrote (2001, p.632) greater concentration on the Politicization of their supporters rather than Service Delivery. Moreover, the second part of this essay focused its analysis on Environmental transnational actors that is claimed by numerous scholars, such as Greenwood, to be the most active among Public interests associations. Environmental actors, their action in policy-making, legislation and effective representation were some of the issues that were analyzed in this part.
As Vivien Schmidt (2004, p.977) wrote, “democracy in the European Union should not only concern government by the people but also government of the people or government with the people through contact interaction with organized interests”. The White Paper in the European Governance, originated in 2001, was focused in the way that EU treats the powers that is given by its citizens. As the White Papers declares: “reform must be started now, so that people see changes before further modification of the EU Treaties” (p.3). The White Paper aims in promoting good governance by five steps: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence (p.10). The European Union need to give people an opportunity for greater involvement that will end up in greater responsibility and effectiveness of policy implementation. Even more, the White Paper promoted consultation and dialogue between EU and Interest associations; this will give civil society the opportunity to play an important role by “giving voice to the concerns of citizens and delivering services that meet people’s needs” (White Paper, 2001, p.30). Furthermore, it is significantly essential in lessening EU’s problem of democratic deficit, important decision to be taken (Global Policy Forum, 2001): European Union’s reform effort must, on the one hand, include “stronger structured civil dialogue” and on the other hand, should aim in “further improvement of non-governmental organisations” (Global Policy Forum, 2001).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bornschier, V. (2000). State Building in Europe - The Revitalization of Western European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cini, M. (2003). European Union Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cini, M. & Bourne, A. (2005). Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Eising, R. (2003). Interest groups and the European Union. In the M. Cini. European Union Politics, pp.192-207. New York: Oxford University Press.
Environmental NGO’s common position on European Regional Policy after 2006. (2004). Delivering Sustainable Development. Retrieved April 20th, 2006 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/deliveringsustainabledevelopmaentmay2004.pdf.
European Commission (2001). European Governance: A White. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from http://www.europe.eu.int/comm/governance/white_paper/index_en.htm .
Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C.M. (2003) (Eds.) The Politics of Europeanization Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Global Policy Forum. (2001). “Democracy, Governance and European NGO’s”. Retrieved April 20th, 2006 from www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/role/policymk/select/2001/0503engo.htm.
Greenwood, J. (2003). Interest Representation in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heard-Laurẻote, K. (2005). Transnational networks – Informal governance in the European political space. In W. Kaiser & P. Starie. Transnational European Union – Towards a common political space, pp.36-60. London: Routledge.
Kaiser, W. & Starie, P. (2005). Transnational European Union – Towards a common political space. London: Routledge.
Kirchner, E. & Schwaiger, K. (1981). Role of Interest Groups in the European Union. Aldershot: Gower.
Knill, C. (2001). Private governance across multiple arenas: European interest associations as interface actors. Journal of European Public Policy, 8 (2), 227-246.
Borragan N.P.S. (2004). Do organized interests Contribute to Participatory Democracy in the EU? Lessons from the EU’s Constitutional process. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from www.cevipof.msh-paris.fr/rencontres/ colloq/emiliano/textes/0409241630Perez.PDF .

Kohler-Koch, B. (1997). Organized Interests in European Integration: The Evolution of a New Type of Governance?. In the H. Wallace & A.R. Young. Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union,pp.42-68. New York: Oxford University Press.
Long, T., Salter, L. & Singer S. (2002). WWF: European and Global Climate Policy. In R.Pedler. European Union Lobbying, p. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 87-103

Lord, C. (2000). Legitimacy, Democracy and the EU: when abstract questions become practical policy problems. Retrieved 10 May, 2006 from www.one-europe.ac.uk/pdf/P3Lord.PDF .
Middlemas, K. (1995). Orchestrating Europe: the informal politics of the European Union - 1973-1995. London: Fontana Press.
Paraskevopoulos, C.J. (2002). EU enlargement and Multi-level governance in European public policy-making: actors, institutions and policy-making. Liuc Papers, n. 116, Serie Economia e Istituzioni 8. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from www.biblio.liuc.it/liucpap/pdf/116.pdf .
Pedler, R. (2002). European Union Lobbying. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Rhodes, C. & Mazey, S. (1995). The State of the European Union - Building a European Polity?. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.
Rittberger, B. (2006). Lobbying in the European Union: From sui generis to a comparative perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (3), 456-469.
Rittberger, B. (2006). Direct democracy and European Integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (1), 153-166.
Schmidt, V. A. (2004). The European Union: Democratic Legitimacy in a regional State?. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42 (5), 975-997.
Theologou, K. (2005). Poliths kai koinwnia sthn Eurwpaiki Enwsh. Athens: Ekdoseis Papazisis.
Vertovec, S. (2005). Transnationalism. In the W. Kaiser & P. Starie. Transnational European Union – Towards a common political space, p.vii-viii. London: Routledge.
Wallace, H. & Young, A.R. (1997). Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press.
Warleigh, A. (2000). The Hustle: Citizenship Practice, NGOs and ‘Policy Coalitions’ in the European Union - the cases of Auto Oil, Drinking Water and Unit Pricing. Journal of European Public Policy, 7 (2), 229-243
Warleigh, A. (2001). Europeanising civil Society: NGOs as Agents of Political Socialization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39 (4), 619-639.
Warleigh, A. (2006). Making Citizens from the Market? NGOs and The Representation of Interests. In the R. Bellamy, D. Castiglione and J. Shaw. Making European Citizens pp.118-132. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wessels, W. (1997). The Growth and Differentiation of Multi-Level Networks: A Corporatist Mega-Bureaucracy or an Open City?. In the H. Wallace & A.R. Young. Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union, pp.17-41. New York: Oxford University Press.

European Studies

This blogspot will be my companion through the whole process of my Research effort. I will start my PhD soon and this journey will last at least 3 years. I hope you will not be bored of my effort to shed light in interesting paths such as the European youth Plicy and European Youth Associations.
My PhD is a part of the broad issue of European Studies and specifically in Transnational Europe. I wish you a pleasant time and hope to check my blogspot often enough to be uptodated in several issues such as Europeanization adn Socialization. Thank you.