Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-97xxw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-28T23:28:15.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choosing lobbying sides: the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2018

Ece Özlem Atikcan  and
Adam William Chalmers
Ece Özlem Atikcan*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, UK Department of European and International Studies, King’s College London, UK
Adam William Chalmers
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, UK Department of European and International Studies, King’s College London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: o.atikcan@warwick.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the impressive amount of empirical research on lobbying, a fundamental question remains overlooked. How do interest groups choose to lobby different sides of an issue? We argue that how groups choose sides is a function of firm-level economic activity. By studying a highly salient regulatory issue, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and using a novel data set of lobbying activities, we reveal that a group’s main economic sector matters most. Firms operating in finance and retail face unique costs and are incentivised to lobby against the GDPR. However, these groups are outgunned by a large, heterogeneous group of firms with superior lobbying firepower on the other side of the issue.

Keywords

data protectionEuropean Unionfinancial industry groupsinterest groupslobbying

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 543 - 564
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

The authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Cite this article: Atikcan EÖ, Chalmers AW. 2019. Choosing lobbying sides: the general data protection regulation of the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 39: 543–564,, doi:10.1017/S0143814X18000223

References

Anonymous (2013) Data Protection in Europe – Academics Are Taking a Position. Computer Law and Security Review 29(2): 180–184.Google Scholar
Atikcan, EO (2015) Framing the European Union: The Power of Political Arguments in Shaping European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baroni, L, Carroll, B, Chalmers, A, Muñoz Marquez, L Rasmussen, A, (2014) Defining and Classifying Interest Groups. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 141–159.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F, Berry, J, Hojnacki, M, Kimball, D Leech, B (eds.) (2009) Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benford, R Snow, D (2000) Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26(1): 611–639.Google Scholar
Berkhout, J, Carroll, B, Braun, C, Chalmers, A, Destrooper, T, Lowery, D, Otjes, S Rasmussen, A (2015) Interest Organizations Across Economic Sectors: Explaining Interest Group Density in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 462–480.Google Scholar
Berkhout, J Lowery, D (2008) Counting Organized Interests in the European Union: A Comparison of Data Sources. Journal of European Public Policy 15(4): 489–513.Google Scholar
Bessette, R Haufler, V (2001) Against All Odds: Why There is no International Information Regime. International Studies Perspectives 2, 69–92.Google Scholar
Beyers, J (2002) Gaining and Seeking Access: The European Adaptation of Domestic Interest Associations. European Journal of Political Research 41(5): 585–612.Google Scholar
Beyers, J (2004) Voice and Access: Political Practices of European Interest Associations. European Union Politics 5(2): 211–240.Google Scholar
Beyers, J, Chaqués Bonafont, L, Dür, A, Eising, R, Fink-Hafner, D, Lowery, D, Mahoney, C, Mahoney, W Naurin, D (2014) The Intereuro Project: Logic and Structure. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 126–140.Google Scholar
Boräng, F, Eising, R, Klüver, H, Mahoney, C, Naurin, D, Rasch, D Rozbicka, P (2014) Identifying Frames: A Comparison of Research Methods. Interest Groups & Advocacy 3(2): 188–1201.Google Scholar
Börzel, T Risse, T (2003) Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe. In Featherstone K and Radaelli C (eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. New York: Oxford University Press, 57–82.Google Scholar
Bouwen, P (2004) Exchanging Access Goods for Access: A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the European Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 43(3): 337–369.Google Scholar
Breach Level Index (2014) Year of Mega Breaches and Identity Theft. Findings from the 2014 Breach Level Index. Gemalto, Belcamp, https://breachlevelindex.com/data-breach-library (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Broscheid, A Coen, D (2007) Lobbying Activity and Fora Creation in the EU: Empirically Exploring the Nature of the Policy Good. Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 346–365.Google Scholar
Bunea, A (2015) Sharing Ties and Preferences: Stakeholders’ Position Alignments in the European Commission’s Open Consultations. European Union Politics 16(2): 281–299.Google Scholar
Chalmers, AW (2015) Financial Industry Mobilisation and Securities Markets Regulation in Europe. European Journal of Political Research 54(3): 482–501.Google Scholar
Chong, D Druckman, J (2007a) Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review 101(4): 637–655.Google Scholar
Chong, D Druckman, J (2007b) Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103–126.Google Scholar
Clark, L (2013) MEPs Copied US Lobbyists’ Data Protection Regulation Amendments Verbatim. Wired, https://www.laquadrature.net/en/wired-meps-copied-us-lobbyistss-data-protection-regulation-amendments-verbatim (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Coen, D, Grant, W Wilson, GK (2010) Political Science: Perspectives on Business and Government. In Coen D , Grant W and Wilson GK (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Hert, P Papakonstantinou, V (2012) The Proposed Data Protection Regulation Replacing Directive 95/46/EC: A Sound System for the Protection of Individuals. Computer Law and Security Review 28, 130–142.Google Scholar
Drezner, DW (2007) All Politics is Global. Explaining International Regulatory Regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, JE (2015) Banks Will be the First to Face Massive EU Data Protection Regulation Fines, Say Professionals. Computer World, http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/security/banks-will-be-first-face-massive-eu-data-protection-regulation-fines-say-professionals-3611127/ (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Dür, A Bièvre, DD (2007) Inclusion Without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 27(1): 79–101.Google Scholar
Dür, A Mateo, G (2016) Insiders Versus Outsiders. Interest Group Politics in Multilevel Europe. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eising, R (2007) The Access of Business Interests to EU Institutions: Towards Elite Pluralism. Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 384–406.Google Scholar
Entman, R (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
European Commission (2002a) The Application of Commission Decision 520/2000/EC of 26 July 2000 Pursuant to Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Adequate Protection of Personal Data Provided by the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles and Related Frequently Asked Questions Issued by the US Department of Commerce. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2002b) Communication from the Commission: Consultation Document: Towards a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue – Proposal for General Principle and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission. COM (2002) 277 Final.Google Scholar
European Commission (2004) The Implementation of Commission Decision 520/2000/EC on the Adequate Protection of Personal Data Provided by the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles and Related Frequently Asked Questions Issued by the US Department of Commerce. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Data Protection Supervisor (2014) Guidelines on Data Protection in EU Financial Services Regulation, 1–30, Brussels, https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publications/guidelines/guidelines-data-protection-eu-financial-services_en (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Goffman, E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Gray, V Lowery, D (1997) Reconceptualizing PAC Formation: It’s Not a Collective Action Problem and May be an Arms Race. Americal Political Quarterly 25(3): 319–346.Google Scholar
Green, A (2015) More Work to be Done in Preparation for the New EU Data Protection Regulation (survey], http://blog.varonis.com/Are-you-prepared-for-the-EU-DP-Regulation/ (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Greenwood, J (2011) Interest Representation in the European Union, 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gyves, MA (2015) How Safe? – The Future of the US-EU Safe Habor, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/how-safe-future-us-eu-safe-harbor-1 (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Hix, S Høyland, B (2011) The Political System of the European Union (3rd ed). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klüver, H (2013) Lobbying in the European Union: Interest Groups, Lobbying Coalitions, and Policy Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klüver, H, Braun, C Beyers, J (2015) Legislative Lobbying in Context: Towards a Conceptual Framework of Interest Group Lobbying in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 22(4): 447–461.Google Scholar
Klüver, H Mahoney, C (2015) Measuring Interest Group Framing Strategies in Public Policy Debates. Journal of Public Policy 35(2): 223–244.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, B (1997) Organized Interests in European Integration: The Evolution of a New Type of Governance? In Wallace H and Young AR (eds.), Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 42–68.Google Scholar
Kuner, C (2012) The European Commission’s Proposed Data Protection Regulation: A Copernican Revolution in European Data Protection Law. Privacy and Security Law Report 11(6): 1–15.Google Scholar
Ladrech, R (2010) Europeanization and National Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Long, W (2014) Significant Impact of New EU Data Protection Regulation on Financial Services. Global Banking and Finance Review, https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/significant-impact-of-new-eu-data-protection-regulation-on-financial-services/ (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Lowery, D, Baumgartner, F, Berkhout, J, Berry, J, Halpin, D, Hojnacki, M, Klüver, H, Kohler-Koch, B, Richardson, J Schlozman, K (2015) Images of an Unbiased Interest System. Journal of European Public Policy 22(8): 1212–1231.Google Scholar
Mahoney, C (ed.) (2008) Brussels vs. the Beltway: Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mazey, S Richardson, J (1997) Policy Framing: Interest Groups in the Lead up to the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference. West European Politics 20(3): 111–133.Google Scholar
McAdam, D, McCarthy, J Zald, M (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Messer, A, Berkhout, J Lowery, D (2010) The Density of the EU Interest System: A Test of the ESA Model. British Journal of Political Science 41, 161–190.Google Scholar
Mooney, D (2013) EU’s General Data Regulation Could be Costly for Businesses. Euractiv, http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-data-protection/eus-general-data-regulation-cost-analysis-516668 (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Newman, AL (2008) Building Transnational Civil Liberties: Transgovernmental Entrepreneurs and the European Data Privacy Directive. International Organization 62(1): 103–130.Google Scholar
Newman, AL (2010) What You Want Depends on What You Know: Firm Preferences in an Information Age. Comparative Political Studies 43(10): 1286–1312.Google Scholar
Persson, T (2007) Democratizing European Chemicals Policy: Do Consultations Favour Civil Society Participation? Journal of Civil Society 3(3): 223–238.Google Scholar
Polletta, F Ho, MK (2006) Frames and their Consequences. In Goodin R and Tilly C (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 187–209.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, A Carroll, BJ (2014) Determinants of Upper-Class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Online Consultations. British Journal of Political Science 44(2): 445–459.Google Scholar
Risse, T, Cowles, M Caporaso, J (2001) Europeanization and Domestic Change: Introduction. In Green Cowles M , Caporaso J and Risse T (eds.), Transfroming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1–20.Google Scholar
Rogers, J Carman, T (2015) Cyber Security in the Financial Services Sector. Global Data Hub, http://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/article_cyber_crime_finance.html (accessed 19 June 2018).Google Scholar
Rossi, A (2014) Internet Privacy: Who Sets the Global Standard. The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs 49(1): 65–80.Google Scholar
Simmons, BA (2001) The International Politics of Harmonization: The Case of Capital Market Regulation. International Organization 55(3): 589–620.Google Scholar
Soroka, S (2006) Good News and Bad News: Asymmetric Responses to Economic Information. Journal of Politics 68(2): 372–385.Google Scholar
Streeck, W Schmitter, PC (1991) From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism: Organized Interests in the Single European Market. Politics & Society 19(2): 133–164.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, D (2012) The Politics of Precaution: Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Voss, WG (2014) Looking at European Union Data Protection Law Reform Through a Different Prism: The Proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation Two Year Later. Journal of International Law 17(9): 11–25.Google Scholar
Walker, JL (1991) Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wonka, A, Berkhout, J, Baumgartner, FR Mahoney, C (2010) Measuring the Size and Scope of the EU Interest Group Population. European Union Politics 11(3): 436–476.Google Scholar
Yackee, JW Yackee, SW (2006) A Bias Toward Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence in the U.S. Bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68(1): 128–139.Google Scholar
Young, KL Pagliari, S (2017) Capital United? Business Unity in Regulatory Politics and the Special Place of Finance. Regulation & Governance 11(1): 3–23.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Atikcan and Chalmers Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HKRSBN
Link
Supplementary material: File

Atikcan and Chalmers supplementary material

Atikcan and Chalmers supplementary material 1

Download Atikcan and Chalmers supplementary material(File)
File 75.6 KB