Interest Groups and Political Representation in Portugal and Beyond (Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series) 3031325842, 9783031325847

Citation preview

INTEREST GROUPS, ADVOCACY AND DEMOCRACY SERIES SERIES EDITOR: DARREN HALPIN

Interest Groups and Political Representation in Portugal and Beyond Edited by Marco Lisi

Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series Series Editor

Darren Halpin Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University Canberra, ACT, Australia

The study of interest groups and their role in political life has undergone somewhat of a renaissance in recent years. Long standing scholarly themes such as interest groups influence mobilization, formation, and ‘bias’, are being addressed using new and novel data sets and methods. There are also new and exciting themes, such as digital activism, the role of ICTs in enabling collective action and the growth of global advocacy networks, are being added. Contemporary debates about the role of commercial lobbyists and professionalized interest representation are also highly salient. Together, they draw an ever larger and broader constituency to the study of interest groups and advocacy. This series seeks to capture both new generation studies addressing long standing themes in new ways and innovate scholarship posing new and challenging questions that emerge in a rapidly changing world. The series encourages contributions from political science (but also abutting disciplines such as public policy and governance, economics, law, history, international relations and sociology) that speak to these themes. It welcomes work undertaken at the level of sub-national, national and supra-national political systems, and particularly encourages comparative or longitudinal studies. The series is open to diverse methodologies and theoretical approaches. The book series will sit alongside and complement the Interest Groups & Advocacy journal.

Marco Lisi Editor

Interest Groups and Political Representation in Portugal and Beyond

Editor Marco Lisi Department of Political Studies and IPRI-NOVA Nova University of Lisbon Lisbon, Portugal

Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series ISBN 978-3-031-32584-7    ISBN 978-3-031-32585-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32585-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: imaginima\getty images This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

When we think about representative democracy, it is essential to consider the intermediation developed by those players whose primary function is to link citizens and political actors or institutions. Traditionally, political parties play a key role in articulating citizens’ preferences and mobilizing civil society. However, the action of interest groups in ensuring that individuals and societal actors interact with policymakers, representatives and public officials is no less important. It is common for people to receive emails to support a petition, to sign an open letter or to donate money for a cause. Protest actions by trade unions or civic associations, for instance, defending various types of claims or legislative changes also appear frequently on the news. In addition to media mobilization, the action of interest organizations involves a less visible, but equally important, interaction with policymakers. This may encompass formal or informal contacts with the aim of shaping policies, as well as the transmission of relevant information for decision-making. The information can be of a technical nature or related to the political or societal implications of a specific policy. Moreover, interest organizations can play an important role in communicating legal information. Regardless of the type of exchange involved, these groups are clearly relevant due to the contacts they establish with elected representatives, government officials at national and local levels and their cooperation with the main institutions responsible for the elaboration of public policies. These considerations serve to introduce the main research questions addressed in this volume. To what extent do citizens participate and get v

vi 

PREFACE

involved in interest groups? How much trust do individuals place in different types of associations? And how do people evaluate the contribution of interest groups to democracy? What kind of actions do organized interests perform and what is their interaction with institutions and policymakers? Which groups have the greatest visibility and are most active in the political sphere? What type of instruments and strategies do they use? This study tries to answer these complex and multifaceted questions by focusing on the Portuguese case. Despite the increasing theoretical and methodological sophistication and the fast-growing expansion of comparative empirical research, we believe that in-depth case studies may still provide a wealth of knowledge for three main reasons. The first is that a case study allows researchers to perform an in-depth analysis that has the advantage of potentially generating new hypotheses. By providing empirically rich and holistic accounts of specific phenomena, single case analyses can offer a better interpretation of the object of study, identify new explanatory elements and the (relative) importance of context-specific factors. The second reason is that case studies may contribute to theory-testing when the analysis is based on ‘most-likely’ or ‘least-likely’ cases. From this standpoint, a case-study approach provides the opportunity for scholars and professionals in the field to re-examine the main theories and research problems related to interest groups in representative democracies. Hence, this study is useful because it permits a discussion on the state of the literature and allows existing theories and hypotheses on a recent democracy to be tested. Finally, case studies offer the possibility to gain in-depth knowledge on complex and multidimensional phenomena such as the role of groups as actors of intermediation. In other words, the analysis of single cases has the advantage of collecting different types of data, and using a range of methods and techniques that improve the interpretation of group politics. The original data provided by this research can also be extremely valuable for developing new avenues of research and for stimulating more comparative analyses based on fresh data. The main objective of this volume is to offer an empirical, systematic and coherent analysis on interest groups in Portugal. Certainly, many of the arguments presented herein can be found elsewhere in the many excellent studies on group politics. But most of these studies were conducted over more limited periods of time or deal only with particular aspects of interest organizations. An holistic approach presents another benefit as it examines the longitudinal change of the system of interest representation

 PREFACE 

vii

throughout the democratic regime. Most studies dealing with group politics provide only a snapshot on specific aspects or dimensions of organized interests. The few studies that, directly or indirectly, considered the role of these collective actors in Portuguese democracy showed the important role played by the main organizations emerging from the democratic transition, especially at the institutional level. These works also highlighted the ability of some organizations to gain support from the state, sometimes through strategic alliances with certain parties. But to what extent does this image apply to the system of interest representation in the twenty-first century? More specifically, it is relevant to pose the following questions: to what extent did the social, cultural, economic and political transformations that characterized the Portuguese political system influence the visibility of groups in public opinion? How did the composition of interest groups change in the different arenas analyzed throughout the democratic period? And to what extent did these changes affect the strategy and instruments used in order to intervene in the policymaking process? This study provides a systematic analysis on the characteristics and evolution of interest groups in Portugal. This topic has been overlooked in Portuguese political science, where research has mainly focused on political parties and the main representative institutions (namely the parliament), largely neglecting collective societal actors that represent the myriad of specialized (or unconventional) preferences in an increasingly differentiated civil society. The existing literature on the Portuguese case has remained anchored to studies on corporatism, considering the structural role of specific groups in the constitutional and legal framework, essentially from a historical perspective. A small number of studies were conducted during the first decade of democracy, but none of these attempted to examine the action of interest groups through the contributions of political science. Within civil society, unions have attracted greater attention from social scientists but not from the realm of political science. This situation is regrettable especially in light of the advances in this scientific area at the international level. By relying on original data based on different sources (interest group survey, parliamentary activities, media coverage, public opinion data, interviews, etc.), this work examines the strategy of interest groups, their interaction with key decision-makers and the main features of the interest

viii 

PREFACE

group population.1 The volume starts by introducing and (critically) discussing the main concepts and analytic tools used for the study of interest groups (Chap. 1). This is followed by a brief description of the evolution of interest groups in Portugal during the authoritarian regime and democratic transition and consolidation (Chap. 2). The subsequent chapters consider specific dimensions and use various types of data to examine interest group politics in detail. Chapter 3 examines how citizens are involved in different types of interest organizations, investigating both longitudinal trends and cross-country data. Chapter 4 analyzes what Portuguese citizens think of interest groups, focusing on several aspects such as political representation, participation and policymaking. Chapter 5 focuses on the goals and activities developed by interest groups, while Chap. 6 deals with the action of interest groups in the parliamentary arena, looking at committee activities and the formal/informal interaction with MPs. Chapter 7 provides insights on the media visibility of interest groups, and Chap. 8 analyzes the role and action of interest groups in the European Union through various sources. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the findings and discusses the implications for political representation and the functioning of democratic political systems. Lisbon, Portugal

Marco Lisi

1  Chapters 2, 3, 6 and 7 are based on a previous work promoted by the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation (see Lisi, M. ed., Os Grupos de Interesse no Sistema Político Português, Lisbon: FFMS, 2022).

Acknowledgments

We have had a great deal of help in organizing a project of this scope and have incurred many debts of gratitude. First and foremost, we would like to thank the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (grant PTDC/IVC-CPO/1864/2014) and the Francisco Manuel dos Santos Foundation, who supported our data gathering and workshop meetings. We are particularly grateful to Carlos Jalali and João Tiago Gaspar, who followed every step of the project with professionalism and enthusiasm. In addition to this invaluable support, the project has benefitted from the collaboration and guidance of various colleagues who participated in meetings and scientific events, notably those who offered pertinent comments on several papers that became chapters in this book. Many individuals provided helpful information pertaining to organized interests in Portugal. Our thanks go especially to our interviewees (MPs and lobbyists) who patiently answered our questions. But the overall effort of data collection would not have been possible without the collaboration of hundreds of interest organizations that agreed to participate in our survey. We also wish to express our gratitude to two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable feedback for improving the final manuscript. Finally, we also thank the editorial staff who provided assistance throughout the publication process.

ix

Contents

1 The  Study of Interest Groups  1 Marco Lisi 2 The  System of Interest Representation in Portugal 23 Marco Lisi 3 Associational  Involvement and Political Participation in Portugal: Insights from a Longitudinal and Comparative Study 47 Sofia Serra-Silva and Rui Oliveira 4 Interest  Groups, Political Representation and Citizen Preferences 89 Marco Lisi and Rui Oliveira 5 Seeking  Access to Policymakers: Interest Group Strategies117 Marco Lisi and João Loureiro 6 Interest  Groups in the Parliamentary Arena139 Marco Lisi and Rui Oliveira

xi

xii 

Contents

7 Interest  Groups in the Media173 João Loureiro and João Gaio e Silva 8 Portuguese  Interest Groups and the European Union197 Marco Lisi and João Gaio e Silva 9 Conclusions223 Marco Lisi Index241

Notes on Contributors

Marco  Lisi is an associate professor in the Department of Political Studies, Nova University of Lisbon and researcher at IPRI-NOVA. His research interests focus on political parties, interest groups, electoral behavior, democratic theory, political representation and election campaigns. He published several articles in national and international journals. One of his latest publications includes the edited book Party System Change, the European Crisis and the State of Democracy (2019). João  Loureiro  is a PhD candidate in Political Economy at Iscte-IUL, ISEG-UL and FEUC, a researcher at CIES-Iscte and a teaching assistant in the Department of Political Economy at Iscte-IUL. His research focuses on employer associations, social concertation and labor market institutions. Previous work has been published on Business and Politics, Interest Groups and Advocacy and Politics. Rui Oliveira  is a teaching assistant in the Department of Political Studies at Nova University of Lisbon. He is also a PhD candidate in Political Science at NOVA-FCSH and a researcher at IPRI-NOVA.  His research focuses on political parties, interest groups, political representation, and political professionalization. Previous work has been published in national and international journals such as Sociologia, Análise Social, European Review, and Politics.

xiii

xiv 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Sofia Serra-Silva  PhD in Comparative Politics from ICS-ULisboa, is a research fellow at the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (Portugal) and she is also the FLAD Visiting Professor at Georgetown University (Washington, DC) for the 2023 Spring semester. Dr. SerraSilva’s scholarly contributions have been featured in various highly regarded journals within her field such as Policy & Internet, Party Politics, and the Journal of Legislative Studies among others. Her research interests are parliaments and public engagement, digital politics, political parties, and research methodologies. João  Gaio  e  Silva  is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at NOVAFCSH and a researcher at IPRI-NOVA.  His research interests include populism, political representation, and political parties.

Abbreviations

AAC ACP ACA-M AFL AHP AMCB ANAFRE ANF ANMP ANS AOFA Apifarma APM AR ASJP ASPP BE CAP CCP CDS-PP CEP CIG CIG(S) CTP CGTP CIP CNE

Coimbra Academic Association Automobile Club of Portugal Association of Self-Mobilized Citizens Lisbon Football Association Parliamentary Historical Archive Association of Municipalities of Cova da Beira National Parish Association National Pharmacy Association National Association of Portuguese Municipalities National Association of Sergeants Association of Officers of the Armed Forces Portuguese Pharmaceutical Industry Association Association of Mathematics Teachers Assembly of the Republic (Portuguese Parliament) Union Association of Portuguese Judges Association of Police Professionals Left Bloc Confederation of Portuguese Farmers Confederation of Commerce and Services of Portugal Popular Party Portuguese Episcopal Conference Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality Comparative Interest Group (survey) Confederation of Tourism of Portugal General Confederation of Portuguese Workers Portuguese Business Confederation National Scouts Group xv

xvi 

ABBREVIATIONS

CNJ CONFAP CRUP DECO EC ECB ESF EU FAP FENPROF FPC FPCUB FTDC FPF GJM IMF LBP MCP OA OF OM PAN PCP PEV PS PSD SCM SIM SMMP SJ SURFaddict TSD TSS UGT UMP UMAR WSF

National Youth Council National Confederation of Parent Associations Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities Consumer Defense Association European Commission European Central Bank European Social Forum European Union Porto Academic Federation National Federation of Teachers Portuguese Cycling Federation Portuguese Cycling Federation Christian Democratic Workers’ Federation Portuguese Football Federation Global Justice Movement International Monetary Fund League of Portuguese Firefighters Marathon Club of Portugal Order of Lawyers Order of Pharmacists Medical Order People Animals and Nature Party Portuguese Communist Party The Greens Socialist Party Social Democratic Party Holy House of Mercy Independent Union of Doctors Trade Union of Public Prosecutors Union of Journalists Portuguese Adapted Surf Association Social Democratic Workers Socialist Trade Union General Union of Workers Union of Portuguese Mercies Alternative and Response Women’s Union World Social Forum

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3

Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2

Fig. 4.3

Analytical scheme. (Source: Own elaboration) Associational involvement in Portugal: scope, type and intensity. (Source: Lisi et al. (2021)) Evolution of political participation in Portugal by modality: differences between 2002 and 2020. (Sources: Data referring to 2002 are from ESS. Data for 2020 come from the GRIP opinion survey (Lisi et al., 2021)) Trust in different types of organized interests. (Source: Lisi et al. 2021). Notes: (1) Question wording: ‘In general, do you think that most civil society organizations can be trusted or, on the contrary, do you think that all care is little?’ (2) 1: All care is little; 5: Most organizations can be trusted) Perceptions of the role of interest groups in the political system. (Source: Lisi et al. 2021). Notes: (1) Figure 4.2a, question wording: ‘Some say that civil society organizations in Portugal are very necessary for the proper functioning of our political system. Other people think that these organizations are not at all necessary for the proper functioning of the political system. Using a scale between 1 (organizations are not necessary at all) to 5 (organizations are very necessary), where would you position yourself?’ (2) Figure 4.2b, question wording: ‘In your opinion, do you consider the general contribution of interest groups to democracy to be positive or negative?’; Scale: from 1 (negative) to 5 (positive)) Citizens’ perceptions of distinct dimensions of representative democracies (mean values). (Source: Lisi et al. 2021). Notes: (1) Question wording: ‘Thinking now about the role that these

50 55

65

97

98

xvii

xviii 

List of Figures

Fig. 4.4

Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2

Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6

organizations can play, in general, in the political system, what is your opinion regarding the following statements?’ (2) scale: 1 (negative opinions); 5: (positive opinions) 99 Portuguese citizens’ views on the use of different terms for Interest Group. (Source: Lisi et al. 2021). Note: The questionnaire (question A1) stated: ‘There are several terms for civil society organizations such as trade unions, professional associations, public interest organizations, etc. Regardless of whether you have heard of it or not, please indicate whether you associate a positive or negative image with each of the following terms: interest group; pressure group; organized interests; civil society organizations; organization of interest; Social Partners; organized civil society’) 113 Indirect strategies: frequency of interest groups’ activities (mean values). Source: Comparative Interest Group Survey (Lisi & Loureiro, 2020). Notes: (1) question wording: ‘During the past 12 months, how often has your organization been involved in the following activities to influence public policy?’ (2) Scale: 1 = never, 2 = at least once, 3 = at least once every three months, 4 = at least once a month, 5 = at least once a week 125 Frequency of contacts with national institutions (mean values). Source: Comparative Interest Group Survey (Lisi & Loureiro, 2020). Notes: (1) Question wording: ‘During the last 12 months, how often has your organization actively sought access to the following national level institutions and agencies in order to influence public policies?’ (2) Scale: 1 = never, 2 = at least once, 3 = at least once every three months, 4 = at least once a month, 5 = at least once a week 131 Appearances by type of group (percentage per year). (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration) 179 The five most frequent topics (percentage of articles per year). (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration) 180 Appearances of group types, by policy area (percentage per year). (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration) 181 Interest groups’ appearances in electoral and non-electoral periods, per type of election (absolute values). (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration) 186 Interest groups’ appearances in news articles on ‘Elections’, by type of election. (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration)187 Mentions of type of mobilization, by type of group. (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration) 189

  List of Figures 

Fig. 7.7

Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4 Fig. 8.5 Fig. 8.6

xix

News articles with mention of strikes vs. the number of officially registered strikes (annual average, per legislature). (Sources: Público and Expresso. Own elaboration (news articles) and Quadros de Pessoal (strikes and workers involved). Note: Quadros de Pessoal are official governmental documents that account for the strikes taking place in mainland Portugal in all economic sectors except for public administration. Values are not available for the years of 2008 and 2009, for which the XI legislature (2009–2011) is not included. The remaining legislatures are assigned the annual average figures with respect to: VI (1992–1995), VII (1996–1999), VIII (2000–2001), IX (2002–2004), X (2005–2007), XII (2012–2015), XIII (2016–2019))190 Number of interest groups registered in the EU Transparency Register (2022). (Source: EU Transparency Register) 205 Categories of organized interests, by country (%). (Source: EU Transparency Register) 206 Weight of group categories per type of activity (% categories). (Source: EU Transparency Register) 209 Weight of fields of interest (top 10 most ranked) per country. (Source: EU Transparency Register (accessed October 12, 2022)) 210 Evolution of interest groups registered at the EU Transparency Register, by type. (Source: EU Transparency Register) 212 Time spent in national or supranational activities (%). Source: Comparative Interest Group Survey (Lisi & Loureiro, 2020) 214

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5

Comparison of interest group population across countries 38 Staff and year of establishment of Portuguese interest groups (sample), by type 39 Percentage of individuals reporting political participation in the last 12 months, by modality 60 Types of association: evolution in Portugal, 2001–2020 (%) 62 Scope of participation: evolution in Portugal, 2001–2020 (%) 63 Political participation: evolution in Portugal, by modality 1999–2020 (%) 64 Types of association: by modality and country (%) 67 Political participation by modality and country (%) 70 Dependent and independent variables used in the logistic regressions76 Results of logistic regressions for the dependent variables ‘Membership’ and ‘Intensity of Participation’ 77 Descriptives statistics of survey sample 82 Predicting citizens’ institutional support toward interest groups105 Predicting citizen attitudes toward the role of interest groups for democratic governance (OLS regression) 106 Involvement in policymaking activities (%) 120 Types of information provided by interest groups (%) 122 Correlation between group resources, age and group activities 127 Contacts of interest groups with political parties 130 Determinants of direct strategies of policy involvement (OLS regression)134

xxi

xxii 

List of Tables

Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 7.1 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5

Hearings by request and by call, by group type (1985–2019) Hearings by request and hearings by call according to issue domain (1985–2019) Issues in hearings by request, by group type (1985–2019) Issues in hearings by call, by group type (1985–2019) Evolution of distinct types of groups in parliamentary hearings (by request) Evolution of distinct types of groups in parliamentary hearings (by call) Candidate membership of interest groups (%), legislative elections (2009–2015) The population of interest groups referred to in the press, by the type of group and by decade Levels of interest of organized interests, by country (%) Activity within European institutions, by country Importance of European policies by group type (%) Frequency of contacts with European actors and institutions (%) Determinants of contacts with EU actors (OLS regression)

148 150 151 152 154 156 159 178 207 208 215 217 218

CHAPTER 1

The Study of Interest Groups Marco Lisi

1.1   Introduction Interest groups are social actors who mobilize to foster the political participation and representation of different sectors of society, such as the world of work, services, social institutions, cultural or philanthropic activities, minorities or public institutions. The proliferation of groups helps to neutralize conflicts through the segmentation of claims and contributes to strengthening the cohesion and identity of social sectors, serving as an instrument of control over the actions and decisions of political authorities. In addition, interest groups have knowledge and skills that are important for governments and the formulation of (good) public policies. Last but not least, collaboration between groups favors political integration and the adoption of more consensual decisions. However, the action of groups can also give rise to negative aspects. For example, the excessive multiplication of groups can increase the instability of the political system, creating excessive pressures on policymakers, as Huntington (1968) evidenced through the notion of ‘overloading’ the

M. Lisi (*) Department of Political Studies and IPRI-NOVA, Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Lisi (ed.), Interest Groups and Political Representation in Portugal and Beyond, Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32585-4_1

1

2 

M. LISI

system. Another problem is the oligarchic tendency that can affect many interest groups, especially organizations with a greater degree of complexity (Skocpol, 2003). This brief overview of the role interest groups may play within the political system highlights the relevance of these actors for the functioning of contemporary democracies. This chapter serves primarily to clarify key concepts used throughout the study and to examine some of the central themes in group politics. For the sake of brevity, the content of this chapter is deliberately condensed. It is not possible to address all the main topics related to interest organizations, or to refer to all theoretical or empirical contributions produced in this area. Therefore, this brief literature review will be limited to presenting the ‘toolbox’ that social scientists need to study interest organizations and their role in the political system. The chapter is structured in six sections. The next section takes stock of research on group politics, looking at different theoretical perspectives developed in this area. Section 1.3 offers a definition of interest groups and examines the typologies that allow us to identify the main variations in these organizations. It also discusses the most important methodological approaches and recent trends of empirical research. The fourth section considers the place of interest groups in the institutional arena, while the subsequent section deals with some current challenges facing interest groups. The last section concludes with an overall evaluation of this research field.

1.2  Theoretical Approaches The scholarly literature has mainly used two very distinct approaches to the analysis of group politics and the system of interest representation: pluralism and neo-corporatism. More recently, the ‘neo-pluralist’ approach has emerged as a third theoretical paradigm in the attempt to overcome the limitations of the two ‘classical’ models and, at the same time, to provide a greater ability to account for important changes in the role that organized interests play in representative democracies. This section presents the main arguments underlying the different paradigms. This preliminary step will serve to better frame the Portuguese case and to guide the empirical analysis developed in the chapters included in this volume. According to the pluralist approach, groups are necessary to ensure the freedom of individuals and vitality of society. Group theory argues that individuals tend to spontaneously associate and participate in different

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

3

types of organization, giving rise to multiple affiliations and heterogeneous membership (Bentley, 1908; Truman, 1951). The consequences of this process are twofold. First, as civic organizations do not reflect specific interests, demands are moderated, which, in turn, contributes to neutralizing ideological conflicts. Second, the action of groups tends to be more pragmatic and to promote dialogue and consensus. According to this approach, organized interests play a very positive role, not only because they foster the stability of the political system, but also because this is strictly linked to fundamental democratic values, such as accountability, participation and pluralism. Another important principle of the pluralist approach relates to the dispersion of power among groups and the reciprocal control that groups exercise to avoid any kind of abuse of power. The fundamental mechanism for preventing imbalances or asymmetries of power is largely based on the idea of ‘potential (or latent) groups’ (Truman, 1951). This means that there are few constraints to the creation of new groups, and that new organizations can emerge when their interests are threatened. More powerful groups will tend to avoid excessive claims due to the mechanism of ‘anticipated consequences’, fearing the reaction and mobilization of new actors. Ultimately, the pluralist view rejects the existence of a ‘general interest’, recognizing only specific interests that contribute equally to the interest of the entire community. Pluralist theory quickly became the prevalent approach in political science for the study of interest groups, in large part due to the seminal contribution of Dahl (1989). In the 1970s, it became evident, especially in the European and Latin American context, that pluralist theory was unable to correctly describe the functions and role that interest organizations played in the respective political systems. From the influential work of Schmitter (1974), several scholars began to question the existence of free competition between groups. According to the corporatist perspective, the state should not only guarantee freedom of association but also try to ensure that conflictual interests—namely, those opposing workers to entrepreneurs’ organizations—are represented in the policymaking process. Historically, the participation of unions and employers in the elaboration of social pacts was deemed necessary to maintain full employment and to implement social policies for the protection of workers while simultaneously controlling wages and neutralizing social conflicts. The balance between these interests was considered fundamental to ensure social justice and improve economic performance. The institutionalization of the main economic groups

4 

M. LISI

presupposes that the state plays a fundamental role in both the selection of relevant interests and attributing responsibility to groups in the elaboration and implementation of public policies (e.g. Lehmbruch, 1984, 2001). The analysis of public policies shows how the role of groups varies in different sectors of policies. The growing sectoralization and segmentation of the decision-making process, as well as the expansion of areas of governance and the need for institutional actors to legitimize themselves by sharing some responsibility with representatives of civil society, contributed to making previous models of interest intermediation obsolete. The neo-pluralist approach seeks to better interpret and frame this dynamism, using the notion of ‘policy network’. Networks consist of more or less regular interaction between a plurality of different actors that gives rise to nonhierarchical relationships based on interests that can be conflicting, thus leading to an exchange process (of information, resources, expertise, etc.) with varying degrees of institutionalization. Within the neo-pluralist approach, several models of how networks work can be distinguished. For example, the ‘iron triangles’ consist of closed structures made up of organized interests, parliamentary committees and government bureaucracies that exercise significant control over the decision-making process (e.g. Gais et al., 1984). These actors establish stable relationships to obtain mutual benefits, building barriers or obstacles to the participation of external entities. On the other hand, thematic networks (issue networks) are based on the ties, more or less solid, that various actors—groups, specialists, public officials, etc.—establish around the same area (Heclo, 1978). These networks have no closed frontiers and the power is dispersed, as the different actors are mutually dependent and can exchange various types of resources (information, legitimacy, access to politicians or institutions, etc.). Finally, policy communities are characterized by stable networks among a limited number of actors who often share the same values and principles (Rhodes & Marsh, 1992). Accordingly, they establish frequent contacts and easily reach decisions by consensus. Although there is an internal dispersion of power and resource exchange, policy communities present a hierarchical configuration in which leadership plays a fundamental role, especially in overcoming potential conflicts. To summarize, the different traditions of theoretical approaches to the study of interest groups differ in terms of the number of actors that interact with policymakers, the variety of interests represented, the level of institutionalization (formal or informal) of interactions between organizations and the resources (in terms of information, number of registrants, etc.) available to stakeholders.

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

5

1.3  Empirical Research on Interest Groups 1.3.1   Definition of Interest Groups The first important step that guides empirical research is to define the object of study. The term ‘interest group’ is not easy to define and there is still great ambiguity in both public opinion and the scientific literature (e.g. Beyers et  al., 2008; Baroni et  al., 2014). In general, two distinct approaches can be used to characterize interest groups. On the one hand, an interest group can be considered a membership organization that ‘appeals’ to the government without participating in the electoral process (Wilson, 1990). On the other hand, the ‘behavioral’ approach defines interest groups through their action, that is, through the representation of different types of interest (e.g. Almond, 1958). According to this perspective, the actors that can carry out this function may vary substantially, and are difficult to define a priori. Ultimately, the object of study is an empirical matter that depends on the historical, political and socioeconomic context of a given political system. Drawing on recent scholarship, this study defines interest groups as ‘formal organizations, usually based on voluntary membership, which seek to influence public policies without assuming government responsibility’ (Mattina, 2011, pp.  1219–1220). The three-dimensional nature of this definition allows the main characteristics of interest groups to be identified while systematically distinguishing these actors from other relevant players of political systems, particularly political parties or social movements (see also Jordan et al., 2004; Binderkrantz et al., 2015). The first aspect that defines a group is the fact that it is made up of organizations, thus excluding individuals, companies, social movements and public opinion. Hence, the definition implies the existence of a formal organization composed of an identifiable membership and leadership, with its own resources that guarantee the regular functioning of its structures. This normally involves becoming a member, discussing strategy and objectives and, eventually, leaving the organization. However, there are also exceptions to this rule, for example in the case of institutional groups, where membership is mandatory. This component implies excluding citizen groups that do not have an organization (for instance, professional elites or movements) from this concept. The second characteristic entails the attempt to influence public policies. This means that groups become ‘political’ when they seek to intervene in the policymaking process. There are many entities and associations

6 

M. LISI

that operate only in a private or pre-political sphere, that is, when the conflicts or demands of society are not channeled to the political sphere. These organizations remain outside the scope of our analysis. Finally, the third feature is based on the fact that groups are distinct from other organizations, such as political parties, that run for office or directly assume government responsibilities (see Schattschneider, 1948). Furthermore, influencing decisions takes place without any ambition to participate in government or in the parliamentary sphere, as groups refrain from presenting lists during the electoral competition. More than trying to convince voters, groups seek to influence elected officials, but always defending specific interests. It is necessary to highlight the semantic differences between the term ‘interest group’ and the notion of ‘pressure group’. Generally speaking, the latter expression has a negative connotation as it entails blackmail or the use of sanctions against decision-makers to defend their interests. In fact, this strategy proves to be secondary in the action of organized interests, which often favor collaboration with political elites (see Key, 1964). Furthermore, this concept erroneously implies that groups are actors that are outside of the decision-making process; in fact, they are often key players in this process. On the other hand, the concept of interest groups has been equated simply with the term ‘lobby’. While groups always imply the existence of an organization, lobbying identifies the tactics and strategies an organization adopts to try to influence policy and defend its interests. Therefore, these are two analytically distinct concepts that should remain separate. 1.3.2   Types of Interest Groups The universe of interest groups consists of a myriad of organizations that can fit into the aforementioned definition. The conceptual ambiguity discussed above has further complicated the classification of interest groups. Several attempts have been made to organize and simplify the huge diversity of interests through the creation of typologies and classifications based on alternative criteria. Several proposals are based on the type of interest these organizations represent. From this standpoint, scholars distinguish between sectoral and cause groups (Salisbury, 1975), or between protection and promotional groups (Watts, 2007). The first category encompasses the most important economic groups—which usually include the ‘big interests’ of

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

7

society—and is based on the shared interests of individuals in the same occupation (workers, doctors, teachers, etc.). They may also represent a particular category of producers or services. Trade unions, business organizations or professional associations are examples of this category. By contrast, there can be cause groups that represent interests not associated with the profession. Cultural, consumer, recreational or scientific associations are some examples of this type of group.1 Within the universe of cause groups, it is possible to distinguish a specific category based on public interest groups. The key feature of these organizations is that they seek to achieve some public good or resource, the benefits of which reach all citizens regardless of whether they are members of the organization or not (Berry, 1977). Examples of this type of group include human rights associations, environment and peace organizations. There is also another specific category that is based on institutional groups, public or private. The first category includes, for example, local (or regional) governments and public administration agencies that may compete with each other or with private actors with the aim of seeking resources, redefining their functions or defending the organization against potential threats. Private institutional groups are social institutions (such as churches, universities, hospitals, among others) that seek to influence public decisions to better develop their activities or overcome difficult situations. These groups are generally characterized as having a hierarchical organization and not needing to stimulate participation or recruitment, two important aspects in the dynamics and functioning of these organizations. Most studies consider the type of interest as the basic criterion for differentiating between groups. Schlozman and Tierney (1986), for example, adopt a comprehensive classification based on ten categories: business associations, trade associations, unions, farmers, professional associations, voluntary groups, civic rights and welfare state organizations, companies, lawyers and the intergovernmental lobby. Recent contributions have adapted this list, adding ad hoc categories: coalitions, think tanks, and government associations; as well as leisure groups, occupational associations and religious groups. However, this approach not only lacks 1  It is worth mentioning an aspect of this topic that has been neglected, that is, the normative dimensions implicit in these typologies. The distinction between economic and cause groups has often been used to approve the role of the latter and criticize the action of the former.

8 

M. LISI

theoretical justification, but efforts to create an exhaustive list have led to further conceptual (and empirical) confusion. The approach adopted in this study seeks to overcome the limitations and problems of the typologies mentioned above. At the same time, it aims to find a compromise between the parsimony of typologies and the need to specify very distinct categories of interest organizations. From this point of view, a good compromise is provided by Binderkrantz’s (2012) classification based on five categories: business groups, unions, institutional groups, public interest groups and professional associations (or specific productive sectors). As explained in the empirical chapters that follow, this study adapts this classification to differentiate the variety of interest groups in Portugal. Obviously, there are organizations that are extremely difficult to classify, especially in the recent period characterized by a growing process of hybridization and the increasing use of new communication technologies (see Sect. 1.5). 1.3.3   Tactics and Strategies of Interest Groups Interest groups can use several tactics to influence policymakers. Choosing the type of tactic depends on a number of factors, such as time, available resources, the complexity of decisions or the type of stakeholder involved in a particular policy area (e.g. Schlozman & Tierney, 1986; Nownes, 2006; Bitonti & Harris, 2017). Direct contact with policymakers is one of the most common means of interest group action. This instrument has the advantage of being effective in communicating the claims to be defended, limiting media exposure and adversarial interactions with other groups. The frequency of these contacts may vary, depending on the complexity of the policy and the scope of the organization’s interests. For example, a complex issue that involves multiple actors may imply frequent contact. In addition, a group with multiple interests will have a greater need to establish frequent contacts with policymakers. In these types of relationships, legislators often benefit not only from information, but also from services or assistance. The most important aspect is the construction of a relationship of trust between the players, thus facilitating the creation of direct channels and immediate interactions. This situation is more common when there is an ideological convergence between groups and legislators. A recurring practice associated with direct contacts is that of the ‘revolving door’, which happens when an organization recruits politicians or

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

9

bureaucrats who have important contacts and in-depth knowledge of the legislative process (and vice versa, see LaPira & Thomas, 2017). The American experience indicates that this practice is mainly used by economic groups, but in the case of European countries, empirical evidence is still scant. This phenomenon obviously raises ethical issues, as public representatives or elected officials use the information or positions acquired through the state to carry out actions that benefit the private sector. It is for this reason that the press often criticizes this type of collusion, which results in a negative reputation for organized interests and lobbyists, calling for the need to regulate this activity and access to the institutional arena. Another frequently used tactic is participation in parliamentary hearings, which are usually promoted by legislators to deepen their knowledge on an issue, especially when preparing a new legislative proposal. Hearings provide the opportunity for lobbyists to contact lawmakers directly, to advance arguments in defense of their cause, to broaden support for a cause (and, eventually, create a coalition) or to influence public opinion. Group representatives often play a dual role: as experts on a given subject but also as advocates for a cause. However, hearings can also be piloted by MPs to give greater legitimacy to a decision. This happens when parties request the participation of groups already aligned with their positions with the aim of justifying a policy already decided on by the authorities (see Chaqués-Bonafont & Muñoz Márquez, 2016). Coalition formation is another recurring tactic. A coalition is an alliance between interest groups from the same policy area and/or from different sectors, with the objective of increasing the actors’ persuasive potential through common actions (e.g. Hojnacki, 1998; Hula, 1999). Coalitions serve to promote a cause or block legislation. Although coalitions can have a certain degree of formalization, they are most commonly based on informal agreements. This type of arrangement has several advantages, such as a lower probability of internal conflicts, greater freedom for each group to prioritize its objective and greater ease in ending the collaboration. Coalitions can vary with respect to the degree of internal homogeneity and duration. On the one hand, collaboration can involve groups from the same policy area, or organizations that develop their activity in different sectors (inter-sectoral coalitions). On the other hand, coalitions may vary in terms of their stability, depending on the nature of the policies they promote, as well as the ideological affinity between the groups and the antagonism with opposing coalitions.

10 

M. LISI

Grassroot lobbying is the tactic that groups adopt to exert public pressure on policymakers by mobilizing specific sectors of the population that share the same concerns. This instrument can also aim to increase citizens’ mobilization with a view to facilitating direct contacts with public officials or political representatives (e.g. Kollman, 1998; Goldstein, 1999). Generally, the costs of this tactic are high and its effectiveness is uncertain (see Smith, 1995). Some institutional incentives seem to stimulate this practice, particularly when there are single-member constituencies that encourage more regular contacts between voters and elected representatives. In fact, in the case of the United States, the greater responsiveness of MPs to their voters and their greater independence from parties makes this a particularly used tactic (Goldstein, 1999). However, it is also quite common in the case of trade unions and promotion groups (and, more generally, public interest groups), especially through letter-writing campaigns (‘letter marathons’) or e-mails. Financial or organizational support for candidates or parties during an election campaign can be used as a lobbying tool or to gain access to the institutional arena (e.g. Brunell, 2005; Hogan, 2005). Supporting a candidate or a political party does not imply that these actors, if elected, will implement policies that directly benefit specific groups. More often than not, this strategy just aims at gaining privileged access to the institutional arena. Sometimes electoral or financial support is based not on pragmatic reasons, but on ideological orientations or affinities. However, the correlation between electoral funding and legislative outcomes does not demonstrate a systematic influence of groups, at least in the case of the United States (see Baumgartner & Leech, 1998). Therefore, groups with greater financial resources prefer to adopt a multidimensional strategy that combines this instrument with other forms of mobilization. It is also worth mentioning that electoral support not only implies providing organizational means, but can consist of multiple actions, such as the elaboration of electoral programs or candidate recruitment. One of the main trends in group politics is the increasing attention organized interests give to the public sphere. Schattschneider (1960) already emphasized this aspect, stressing that the outcomes of political conflicts depend on the ability to mobilize (or exclude) the public. One fundamental goal is to influence the political agenda (agenda-setting). However, as a higher level of visibility of an issue does not necessarily mean a higher level of support, actors may also try to shape how media frame a theme. To be more effective, this strategy may imply the use of ads

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

11

in the media, as well as the dissemination of press releases or pamphlets (Kollman, 1998; Binderkrantz, 2005). Despite the greater ease in establishing direct contacts with decision-makers, economic groups may decide to defend their ideas in public, especially when they aim to shape values or long-term orientations. From this standpoint, lobbying can be intended as an ongoing activity based on regular interaction between stakeholders and public opinion. The type of interest group largely determines the degree of mobilization in the media arena. Conventional wisdom suggests that public interest groups are more likely to be active in the public sphere for three main reasons. The first is because their focus is always related to the public interest, which involves the entire population. The second is that these groups often defend long-term changes, that is, they are usually considered ‘outsiders’ from an ideological point of view. Finally, these groups need to achieve higher levels of visibility to attract more members and to have a greater chance of influencing the policymaking process. A study based on the Danish case confirms this difference as economic groups primarily target the Parliament and the bureaucracy, while public interest groups tend to privilege mobilization in the media arena (Binderkrantz et al., 2015). Organized interests can adopt different types of strategies. This term means a combination of tactics that groups can use simultaneously. The most common distinction in the literature is between direct and indirect strategies. The first type is based on direct contacts between groups and governments, established mainly through lobbyists (internal to the organization or hired through external agencies). Groups prefer these strategies because they are usually considered to be more effective. In addition, these actions are more likely to generate information and trust, two important resources to achieve organizations’ goals. However, this strategy is not available to all groups and may even be difficult to adopt for groups with some proximity to political power. Institutional constraints or ideological conflicts may constitute significant barriers for direct access of organized interests to key policymakers. These obstacles can lead groups to embrace indirect strategies, that is, actions that aim to draw public attention to certain issues, in an attempt to make governments take certain measures. The scholarly literature has tried to identify the factors that influence the choice of adopting a direct or indirect strategy. A first factor is the position of the group in the decision-making process, namely whether it is an insider or an outsider. If the group is an insider, it is easier to establish

12 

M. LISI

direct contacts. Insiders usually do not need to implement expensive strategies, such as mobilizing members or publicly advocating unpopular causes. By contrast, outsiders often adopt protest forms of mobilization. Conventional wisdom suggests that insiders are more effective at influencing the policymaking process, but there are also many examples of outsider groups that are just as influential. In fact, most groups seem to adopt a combination of direct and indirect strategies. A second factor that shapes group strategies is the type of group. From this point of view, the literature indicates that economic and professional groups are more prone to opt for direct strategies, while public interest groups or unions will use more indirect (outsider) strategies (e.g. Dür & Mateo, 2016). This is because it is often assumed that protection groups are more familiar with the corridors of power and are considered as legitimate players, leading the government to consult these actors regularly for policymaking. Another important factor that can influence the adoption of a specific strategy is the type of policy, particularly its salience. When a policy has a high visibility in public opinion, groups are more likely to rely on indirect strategies, and vice versa. In addition, the complexity of policies is crucial: the more complex the policy (especially in the United States, a federal system with multiple decision-making centers, and in the EU), the more important it is to combine a direct and indirect strategy. Last but not least, resources are also key, as groups with more material or symbolic assets are more likely to use direct strategies (e.g. Dür & Mateo, 2016). 1.3.4   Research Methods: The Importance of Case Studies The expansion of interest group research has not only broadened the topics and subjects of the scholarly literature, but it has also diversified the methodological approaches used to study group politics. One of the main shortcomings of the early scholarship was the limited capacity to generalize findings, as most contributions relied on case studies (Beyers et  al., 2008). Indeed, the literature in this area of political science typically focuses on single countries or specific associations/policy areas, thus limiting the cumulation of knowledge and the impact of empirical research. As several authors have noted (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998; Beyers et al., 2008), comparative studies and large projects were very rare in the initial phase of this research area. In addition, there was also a prevalence of qualitative approaches vis-à-vis quantitative studies.

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

13

A recent systematic literature review of this research field based on academic journal articles published between 1998 and 2018 (Pritoni & Vicentini, 2022) allows us to map the main methodological features of this scholarship and to better assess research trends. The authors found that most research on interest groups is based on empirical studies, while only a minority (13% of the surveyed articles) has a theoretical focus. The findings also show that a vast majority of works are based on comparative approaches using statistical methods, while social network analysis is very rarely employed (65.6% and 2% of the sample, respectively). However, case studies still represent a significant proportion of this literature (10.8%), confirming the importance of this methodological strategy to provide important insights on interest group politics. The development of comparative research has been spurred by a growing use of observational data via large-scale (currently mostly web-based) surveys (Marchetti, 2015). One example of this kind of research strategy is the INTEREURO project, which aimed to map and analyze EU-level interest associations (Beyers et  al., 2014). More recently, a number of scholars have been engaged in the CIGS project (Comparative Interest Group Survey), which now includes nine different European countries (Beyers et al., 2020). This approach presents several advantages, particularly the capacity to provide consistent findings about mobilization strategies, lobbying tactics and the main activities of interest groups.2 However, there are alternative ways to collect data on interest groups. Initial research in this area relied extensively on observational data from official sources, such as registries, websites or publicly available evidence. This strategy allows researchers to map the population of interest groups and to characterize individual organizations. But these sources are hardly comparable and very often lack accuracy and systematic information. In order to overcome this problem, an alternative strategy for data collection is based on qualitative interviews with key informants, for example group leaders or staff. Face-to-face interviews provide a contextual knowledge of interest group action, internal functioning and the role of informal aspects in their involvement in policymaking processes. Yet this strategy also has its own drawbacks, in particular the fact that it is time-consuming and subject to information bias or socially acceptable responses.

2  The present study will also use these data to examine interest groups in Portugal (see Chaps. 5 and 8).

14 

M. LISI

Overall, methodological approaches in the interest group literature have been characterized by a high eclecticism and pluralism. However, as Baumgartner and Leech argue, ‘one of the strengths of the literature on groups has always been the artisanal structure of the field’ (1998, p. 6). Although the present study follows this tradition to a certain extent  by using a wide variety of data and adopting a multi-dimensional analysis, it also recognizes the importance of recent trends and developments and takes advantage of comparative research. On the one hand, the case study approach is the only strategy that can be pursued when there is a paucity of data and when the aim is to provide a systematic and encompassing overview of the system of interest intermediation. On the other hand, and from a comparative perspective, the analysis of the Portuguese case is required not only to map and to deepen our knowledge on this specific country, but it is also useful if we want to test existing theories and to deepen our knowledge of the potential impact of contextual and historical features on interest group politics.

1.4   Interest Groups and Their Institutional Role Interest group strategies seek mainly to gain institutional access by establishing contacts with key political actors and institutions. However, the institutional role of interest groups is also evident when we look at two different aspects. The first is the recognition of the role some interest groups play within the constitution, while the second relates to social dialogue. It is often overlooked that civil society organizations—such as other actors of intermediation (in primis political parties)—are a critical target of state regulation and the legal framework (Bolleyer, 2018). The main reason many countries have explicitly recognized the importance of interest groups in their constitutions is the role they can play in democratic political systems, especially for the representation of civil society, political participation and policymaking. While these provisions can indeed vary from one context to another, they usually involve three distinct dimensions. The first has to do with freedom of speech and participation. The second is related to policymaking, particularly by regulating the involvement of organized interests in specific policy areas (see below) or for their participation through instruments of direct democracy (e.g. referendums, legislative initiatives). For example, a recent contribution found that citizen groups are more likely to benefit compared to business organizations in

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

15

cases where the legal framework establishes that organized interests play an active role for the mobilization of civil society (see Eichenberger & Varone, 2020). Finally, a third dimension of constitutional provisions can be associated with public or private funding, especially for electoral campaigns (candidates or parties) or subsidies for specific group activities. Moving to the second important dimension of the institutional role of interest groups, it is important here to mention forms of social dialogue that allow organized interests to intervene in the political sphere and indirectly influence policymakers. Social dialogue is typically defined as the process by which representatives of organized interests and government exchange information and views, consult, negotiate and reach arguments on issues of concern to them. Traditionally, these interactions involve economic groups, that is, employers and workers’ associations. However, this practice has been expanded over the last decades and, in many countries, it now includes very different policy areas, such as education, environment, housing or even foreign relations. In some cases, the role of interest groups is incorporated in the decision-making process as a way of providing important information or legitimizing policies or authorities’ decisions. There are many examples in Western Europe of social partnerships that aim to structure dialogues between employers, trade unions and government officials. While this institutional arrangement is traditionally associated with neo-corporatist systems of intermediation, we can also find similar schemes in pluralist states, such as the United Kingdom. Indeed, the ‘revitalization literature’ (see Molina, 2008) emphasizes the positive effects of social pacts and tripartite negotiations for industrial relations. The institutionalization of social dialogue and concertation is certainly an important indicator of the extent to which organized interests are embedded in the political system and the policymaking process. Besides the (neo)corporatist literature, efforts to measure the extent of participation of interest associations have their roots in the public choice literature, according to which interest groups tend to be regarded as rent-­ seeking lobby organizations that attempt to influence public policy in favor of their constituency. The extent of participation is often associated with the scope of the player constellation, ranging from a closed constellation of actors with privileged access to a policy area, to a fully open constellation with many interest groups involved. Therefore, the participation of interest groups in the institutional arena can vary from no (formal) involvement to bilateral interactions that determine the genesis of laws in different policy areas.

16 

M. LISI

In addition to concertation between the state and peak associations and social partnerships, there has been a rise in stakeholder consultations within the European Union, as bureaucratic and legislative decision-­ makers have used this mechanism to promote the involvement of citizens and groups in the design, formulation and evaluation of public policies (Bunea, 2019). From this viewpoint, consultations are an important means of policy input and feedback. Yet empirical works have mainly focused on European Union institutions, and there is a lack of case studies, especially with regard to new democracies. The importance of organized interests in the institutional arena has created incentives for policymakers to elaborate legislation to regulate their access to key political actors and institutions. Indeed, international bodies such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe have issued recommendations and guidelines for the participation of outside interests in the policy process (e.g. Crepaz, 2017). While lobby registers have a long tradition in the United States and Canada, European countries have only started to introduce such tools in the twenty-first century. Germany is an exception to this pattern, as it adopted relevant laws on the matter in 1951. Most of these countries have followed the example of EU institutions, which launched the Transparency Register in 2011.3 Contrary to the legally binding regimes in the United States (and Canada), this scheme has a voluntary character and presents weak enforcement arrangements. Recent accounts indicate that there are currently 12 European Union member states that have some form of lobby registration (Nastase & Muurmans, 2020).4 Consequently, comparative research on lobbying regulation has started to emerge, investigating why such laws are adopted and how they influence accountability, transparency, perception of corruption and bias toward more powerful groups (e.g. Holman & Luneburg, 2012; Greenwood & Dreger, 2014; Nastase & Muurmans, 2020).

3  The lobby strategies of interest groups and the regulation at the European level will be developed in more detail in Chap. 8. 4  The Portuguese case is an example of the lack of publicly accessible registers for lobbyists. This case will be examined in Chap. 6.

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

17

1.5  Challenges for Interest Groups Research on interest groups has experienced a renewal of interest from political science scholarship in recent decades. This is clearly welcome not only because of the need to overcome the ‘elegant irrelevance’ highlighted by Baumgartner and Leech some years ago (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998, p. 17), but also in light of the deep societal changes experienced in recent decades. One of the transformations that influence group politics is the widespread use of new digital technologies. This is a major challenge for studying organized interests both theoretically and empirically because it has strengthened the process of hybridization of political organizations and blurs the distinction between interest groups, political parties and social movements. The politics of the everyday life of interest groups and their life cycle are now more complex and dynamic due to the strategic use of new ICT to pursue the groups’ main goals. First, digital tools can influence the way interest groups organize and mobilize their members. Second, digital communication has created new opportunities for interest groups to influence the political landscape, in particular to alter the political agenda and shape individual attitudes (for both citizens and politicians). Recent scholarly literature has focused on the way interest groups use social media, providing valuable insights into key factors that explain how and when groups use social media for  lobbying strategies (e.g. Chalmers & Shotton, 2016; van der Graaf et al., 2016). However, there are still important shortcomings, especially when we try to assess the effectiveness of social media strategies. Furthermore, the digitalization of our societies can shape the population of interest groups and the features of the system of interest representation  (polarization, more or less institutionalized relations with policymakers, etc.). Last but not least, lobbying activities through digital ICT are expected to alter mobilization strategies, for example, by contacting a social media influencer or managing digital media accounts. Another important challenge for interest groups is that of globalization and the increasing importance of multi-level politics. Although interest groups have long been active in international affairs, lobbying activities at the supranational level have become increasingly important given the need for a global approach to a growing number of policies, as well as the increasing role of international organizations (especially within the European Union). As Howard Tolley noted (cited in Thomas, 2022),

18 

M. LISI

‘without political parties and elections to voice concerns at the international level, nongovernmental pressure groups are even more vital in world politics than interest groups are at the domestic level’. This makes the study of the transnational activities of interest groups of the utmost importance, especially when dealing with specific policy areas such as the environment, trade or energy. Globalization affects interest group populations and the way many interest organizations (in particular, economic groups or public interest groups) form coalitions or alliances. This is an important dimension of advocacy strategies that scholars need to take into account when investigating group politics in the twenty-first century.

1.6  Conclusion The analysis of interest group politics is a complex and daunting task. This chapter is devoted to mapping the field, providing the reader with the necessary tools to examine the place and role of organized interests in democratic political systems. We also develop several research directions based on the consequences of the transforming political and societal landscape. A fundamental issue that has been highlighted by previous work is that the fields of interest groups, public policy and political representation have developed original perspectives regarding the action of organized interests. But these fields do not talk to each other, leaving several potentially interesting research directions unexplored. The rise of new ICT has increased the urgency of better coordination between these competing research agendas. We conclude this preliminary chapter with three notes worthy of reflection. First and foremost, we have little knowledge about long-term trends of interest representation. Mapping the evolution of interest group politics in different national contexts allows us to better understand short-­ term and long-term dynamics. Despite some in-depth studies,5 these works can hardly be compared because they often use distinct theoretical approaches, methodologies and data. The longitudinal analysis of interest representation is fundamental not only to disentangle the impact of contextual factors on the role of organized interests, but also to increase 5  There are many studies on the American and British interest groups (e.g. Richardson, 1993; Coxall, 2001; Nownes, 2013). Longitudinal studies also exist for the French case (Courty, 2018) the and Italian case (Pritoni, 2018), among others.

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

19

our knowledge on the interaction between the economy and the political sphere, as well as the impact of the supranational arena on group politics. A second note is related to the way interest groups communicate their concerns and needs in the digital age. The hybrid media system is now multilayered, and a host of policy battles may be fought in parallel, with the emergence of several possibly contradictory logics at work. Has the changing media landscape affected the possibilities and strategies for insider and outsider groups in the same way? Has the rise of social and digital media influenced the internal functioning of interest organizations? How do ongoing changes shape interest groups’ coverage in the media and their image in public opinion? The growing importance of digital media and artificial intelligence is adding new questions and puzzles to the existing ones. Therefore, we need to better understand how interest groups communicate and the external and internal consequences of the use of social media. Finally, we need to know more about how interest groups interact with governments. When are policymaking processes more vulnerable to group influence? This comparatively old question requires new research and new theoretical perspectives. It would benefit from a strengthened dialogue between interest groups and public policy scholars. It would also gain from good case studies on important political battles. It is paramount that in-depth case studies continue to unearth the complex role of interest groups in democratic systems. The chapters that follow seek to contribute to responding to this dire need.

References Almond, G. A. (1958). A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process. American Political Science Review, 52(1), 270–282. Baroni, L., Carroll, B. J., William Chalmers, A., Marquez, L. M. M., & Rasmussen, A. (2014). Defining and Classifying Interest Groups. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 3(2), 141–159. Baumgartner, F.  R., & Leech, B.  L. (1998). Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton University Press. Bentley, A.  F. (1908). The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures. Principia Press. Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people. Princeton University Press. Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2008). Researching Interest Group Politics in Europe and Elsewhere: Much We Study, Little We Know? West European Politics, 31(6), 1103–1128.

20 

M. LISI

Beyers, J., Bonafont, L. C., Dür, A., Eising, R., Mahoney, W., & Naurin, D. (2014). The Intereuro Project: Logic and Structure. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 3(2), 126–140. Beyers, J., Fink-Hafner, D., Maloney, W.  A., Novak, M., & Heylen, F. (2020). The Comparative Interest Group-Survey Project: Design, Practical Lessons, and Data Sets. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 9, 272–289. Binderkrantz, A.  S. (2005). Interest Group Strategies: Navigating between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715. Binderkrantz, A. S. (2012). Interest Groups in the Media: Bias and Diversity over Time. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 117–139. Binderkrantz, A.  S., Christiansen, P.  M., & Pedersen, H.  H. (2015). Interest Group Access to the Bureaucracy, Parliament, and the Media. Governance, 28(1), 95–112. Bitonti, A., & Harris, P. (2017). Lobbying in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. Bolleyer, N. (2018). The State and Civil Society. Oxford University Press. Brunell, T.  L. (2005). The Relationship Between Political Parties and Interest Groups: Explaining Patterns of PAC Contributions to Candidates for Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 58(4), 681–688. Bunea, A. (2019). Stakeholder Consultations. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Interest Groups, Lobbying and Public Affairs (pp. 1–7). Springer International Publishing. Chalmers, A.  W., & Shotton, P.  A. (2016). Changing the Face of Advocacy? Explaining Interest Organizations’ Use of Social Media Strategies. Political Communication, 33(3), 374–391. Chaqués-Bonafont, L., & Muñoz Márquez, L. (2016). Explaining interest group access to parliamentary committees. West European Politics, 39(6), 1276–1298. Courty, G. (2018). Le Lobbying en France. Invention et normalisation d’une pratique politique. Peter Lang. Coxall, B. (2001). Pressure Groups in British Politics. Routledge. Crepaz, M. (2017). Why Do We Have Lobbying Rules? Investigating the Introduction of Lobbying Laws in EU and OECD Member States. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 6, 231–252. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. Yale University Press. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2016). Insiders versus Outsiders. In Interest Group Politics in Multilevel Europe. Oxford University Press. Eichenberger, S., & Varone, F. (2020). Interest Groups and Direct Democracy. In P. Harris, A. Bitonti, C. S. Fleisher, & A. Skorkjær Binderkrantz (Eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Interest Groups, Lobbying and Public Affairs (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. Gais, T.  L., Peterson, M.  A., & Walker, J.  L. (1984). Interest Groups, Iron Triangles and Representative Institutions in American National Government. British Journal of Political Science, 14(2), 161–185.

1  THE STUDY OF INTEREST GROUPS 

21

Goldstein. (1999). Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Participation in America. Cambridge University Press. Greenwood, J., & Dreger, J. (2014). The Transparency Register: A European Vanguard of Strong Lobby Regulation? Interest Groups & Advocacy, 2(2), 139–162. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The New American Political System (pp. 87–124). Washington (DC). Hogan, R.  E. (2005). State Campaign Finance Laws and Interest Group Electioneering Activities. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 887–906. Hojnacki, M. (1998). Organized Interests’ Advocacy Behavior in Alliances. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 437–459. Holman, C., & Luneburg, W. (2012). Lobbying and Transparency: A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Reform. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 1, 75–104. Hula, K.  W. (1999). Lobbying Together: Interest Group Coalitions in Legislative Politics. Georgetown University Press. Huntington, S.  P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. Yale University Press. Jordan, G., Halpin, D., & Maloney, W. (2004). Defining Interests: Disambiguation and the Need for New Distinctions? British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6(2), 195–212. Key, V. O. (1964). Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. Crowell. Kollman, K. (1998). Outside Lobbying. Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategy. Princeton University Press. LaPira, T., & Thomas, H. F., III. (2017). Revolving Door Lobbying Public Service, Private Influence, and the Unequal Representation of Interests. University Press of Kansas. Lehmbruch, G. (1984). Concertation and the Structure of Corporatist Networks. In J. H. Goldthorpe (Ed.), Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism. Oxford University Press. Lehmbruch, G. (2001). Corporativism. In International Encyclopedia of Social & behavioral Sciences (pp. 2812–2816). Pergamon. Marchetti, K. (2015). The Use of Surveys in Interest Group Research. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 4(3), 272–282. Mattina, L. (2011). Interest Groups. In B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser, & L. Morlino (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Political Science (pp. 1219–1230). Sage. Molina, O. (2008). Social Pacts, Collective Bargaining and Trade Union Articulation Strategies. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 14(3), 399–418. Nastase, A., & Muurmans, C. (2020). Regulating Lobbying Activities in the European Union: A Voluntary Club Perspective. Regulation & Governance, 14, 238–255. Nownes, A. J. (2006). Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and How They Try to Get It). Cambridge University Press.

22 

M. LISI

Nownes, A. J. (2013). Interest Groups in American Politics. Routledge. Pritoni, A. (2018). Lobby d’Italia. Il sistema degli interessi tra Prima e Seconda Repubblica. Carocci. Pritoni, A., & Vicentini, G. (2022). Something New on the Western Front: Twenty Years of Interest Group Research (1999–2018). Political Studies Review, 20(1), 36–46. Rhodes, R. A. W., & Marsh, D. (1992). New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 181–205. Richardson, J. J. (Ed.). (1993). Pressure Groups. Oxford University Press. Salisbury, R.  H. (1975). Interest Groups. In F.  I. Greenstein & N.  W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of Political Science. Nongovernmental Politics (pp. 171–228). Addison-Wesley. Schattschneider, E. E. (1948). Pressure Groups Versus Political Parties. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 259(1), 17–23. Schattschneider, E.  E. (1960). The Semisoveraign People: A Realist View of Democracy. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Schlozman, K.  L., & Tierney, J.  T. (1986). Organized Interests and American Democracy. Harper and Row. Schmitter, P.  C. (1974). Still the Century of Corporatism? Review of Politics, 36(1), 85–131. Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished Democracy: from membership to management in American civi life. University of Oklahoma Press. Smith, R. A. (1995). Interest Group Influence in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(1), 89–139. Thomas, C.  S. 2022. Interest Group. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1 August 2021. https://www.britannica.com/topic/interest-­group Truman, D.  B. (1951). The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. Alfred A. Knopf. van der Graaf, A., Otjes, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2016). Weapon of the Weak? The Social Media Landscape of Interest Groups. European Journal of Communication, 31(2), 120–135. Watts, D. (2007). Pressure Groups. Edinburgh University Press. Wilson, G. (1990). Interest Groups. Blackwell.

CHAPTER 2

The System of Interest Representation in Portugal Marco Lisi

2.1   Interest Groups in the Authoritarian New State The legacy of the authoritarian regime played a significant role in the overall features of the system of interest intermediation. As several authors have emphasized (e.g. Schmitter, 1999; Pinto & Martinho, 2008), the corporatist system implemented after the approval of a new constitution in 1933 was one of the pillars of the Estado Novo (New State) led by Salazar. As in other authoritarian regimes, Portuguese corporatism presented a vertical structure that included trade unions, employers’ organizations (‘guilds’, grémios), as well as fishermen’s associations (Casa de Pescadores) and people’s associations (Casas do Povo). The regime created these organizations in various sectors, notably commerce, industry, banking,

M. Lisi (*) Department of Political Studies and IPRI-NOVA, Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Lisi (ed.), Interest Groups and Political Representation in Portugal and Beyond, Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32585-4_2

23

24 

M. LISI

transport, farming, and for rural laborers and fishermen. Special organizations (ordens) also existed for professional groups. The main goals of the corporativist system were twofold. First, it fulfilled a political objective as it was considered an essential tool for the stability of the authoritarian regime because it created institutional frameworks for state control in many different areas, particularly the labor sector (wages, working hours, etc.) and price regulation for primary goods. From this viewpoint, the corporatist system aimed to neutralize potential political conflicts, to better control opposition forces and ensure social peace. Second, the dictatorship used corporatism to increase the efficiency of economic markets, protecting the country from international economic turbulence and helping maintain Portugal’s relative isolation (and autonomy) from other countries. It was also seen as a means of better subordinating economic forces to the priorities of the New State and exerting control over the main economic actors in order to drive public policies. As in other fascist dictatorships, corporatist institutions had a combination of economic and professional functions (e.g. Ferreira, 2007). Some entities intervened directly in the production, distribution and price regulation of agricultural and industrial goods, but in the labor sector, their function was to establish collective labor agreements and create social welfare institutions. The corporatist architecture displayed a pyramidal configuration: At the top we can find corporations, with the next layers consisting of federations and unions (grémios, unions and people’s associations) and, at the bottom, grassroots associations. This partition followed a geographic territorial distinction, as the grassroots associations worked at the local level and were then represented and coordinated at the regional level. The New State progressively expanded the corporatist network throughout the authoritarian regime, thus allowing the dictatorship to strengthen its control over civil society. This was particularly true in the labor sector. Indeed, the free trade unions that existed before the emergence of the New State were banned, and the regime created its own national unions in the industrial and trade areas. Labor movements and organizations were repressed, especially after the strike called in 1934, and were clearly subordinate to political power (Lucena, 1976). Union membership was free, which led the authoritarian regime to adopt mechanisms for obligatory affiliation due to the low levels of unionization. During the New State, opposition forces tried to create clandestine unions, but this strategy soon failed and was replaced by an ‘entry’ strategy, that is, the attempt of the opposition (mostly communist sympathizers) to acquire

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

25

top positions within the unions in order to change their orientation (from supporters of the employers to defenders of working class interests); this strategy was adopted during the liberalization period in particular (late 1960s). One of the main features of Portuguese corporatism was the state’s direct control over corporatist institutions. Indeed, corporate groups were subordinate to the Instituto Nacional do Trabalho e da Previdência, which was under the control of the Council of Presidency and, after 1950, under the Ministry of Corporations. This was to facilitate coordination between the labor and capital forces, on the one hand, and the public services and the center of political decision-making, on the other hand. A second characteristic of the Portuguese corporatist system is its partial implementation. The 1933 Constitution established a Corporativist Assembly, but this had only consultative functions and was clearly subordinate to the main political decision-making powers, including in terms of agenda-setting. It was a weak institution and, more importantly, was not directly connected to corporatist bodies. Indeed, it did not coordinate the activities of the corporatist entities and it was not representative of the sectors organized through the corporatist system (Ferreira, 2007). In fact, it was composed of delegates  of local power, as well as representatives of moral, cultural and economic sectors. Nevertheless, its activities revealed a clear bias toward employers and a marginalization of trade union representatives (Ferreira, 2007, pp. 194–195). Finally, the functioning of this body was highly centralized in its president (selected by the government) and had no periodic activity (on average there was only one plenary session a year). A third feature that crucially shaped the system of interest intermediation is related to the economic policy. The New State made deep interventions in the economy by shaping competition and regulating important sectors. Through industrial conditioning, the policies of the authoritarian regime limited the entry of firms into various industrial markets and also favored the creation of oligopolistic or monopolistic markets. Some economic actors therefore vastly benefited from the state intervention in the Portuguese economy, which was on a large scale and reached an international dimension especially in the two decades preceding the demise of the Estado Novo. Overall, the mixed economy that characterized the authoritarian regime not only led to state support for specific sectors—in particular those linked to industry and agriculture—but also to the predominance of a few (privileged) business companies within civil society. As Baklanoff

26 

M. LISI

points out (1979, p. 800), ‘leading financiers and industrialists accepted extensive bureaucratic controls in return for assurances of minimal public ownership of economic enterprises and certain monopolistic (or restricted-­ competition) privileges’. This feature was very important for interest group strategies as the new environment generated by the Estado Novo facilitated direct contacts between business group leaders and public decision-makers, resulting more often than not in direct negotiation and agreements with the state. In addition, there was little intergroup cooperation and dynamics of collaboration were limited in both number and scope, which weakened the role of peak associations within the political system. Diversity in size, strategies and proximity to the centers of political power made the business sector extremely atomized and inward-oriented. As for agriculture, very large estates in the south-central region coexisted with peasant farming in small, fragmented plots in the north. Very often industrial dynasties were allied with the large, traditional landowning families of the nobility, who held most large estates in the southern part of the country (e.g. Ferreira da Silva et al., 2016). The corporatist system played a key role in the first phase of the authoritarian regime, especially between 1933 and 1943. Although the structure was basically maintained and expanded after WWII, this institutional framework did not accompany societal and economic changes. Indeed, between 1950 and 1970 Portugal experienced rapid economic growth, but this was driven mainly by the private business sector, particularly a few companies that succeeded in competing in international markets and benefited from the lack of internal competition (e.g. Lains, 2011). Despite the regime’s emphasis on the need to achieve a harmonious society through corporativism, this system of interest intermediation was never fully implemented. In the 1960s, after Marcelo Caetano replaced Salazar, a liberalization process unfolded that had some important consequences for interest groups. First, there was growing integration into European markets, which facilitated increasing dynamism in the business sector as well as autonomy vis-à-vis the political power. Second, some political consequences followed the period of liberalization, namely, the softening of political repression toward the labor movement and the aim of a more ‘consensual’ corporatism. Third, Portugal underwent a profound restructuring of its economy during the 1960s and early 1970s, with figures for the labor force in the primary sector declining from 44% to 28% and the

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

27

rise of the secondary and (to a lesser extent) third sectors. However, these transformations were not sufficient to implement deep and functional reforms in the old corporatist system. Ultimately, this incapacity and inertia certainly contributed to the inevitability of the fall of the New State and the impossibility of pursuing a more gradual transition as in the Spanish case.

2.2   Democratization and the Development of Interest Representation The bloodless military coup known as ‘the carnation revolution’ determined the abrupt fall of the authoritarian regime and the beginning of the transition to democracy. The democratization process developed by means of a complex interaction between the military, political parties and civil society, as well as the active role played by social movements and radical forms of mobilization and protest (Maxwell, 1997). With the exception of the PCP—which was founded in 1921 and had a clandestine organization with relatively strong links to the labor movement—the main political parties emerged after the fall of the dictatorship. In addition to the communists, three other main forces were able to consolidate their parliamentary representation and to occupy government positions: the center-left Socialist Party (PS, Partido Socialista), the Social Democratic Party (PSD, Partido Social Democrata) and the Social and Democratic Center (CDS, Centro Democrático Social).1 In terms of institutional design, the new democracy adopted a semi-presidential system, characterized by a popularly elected President and a cabinet accountable to parliament (see Amorim Neto, 2023). One of the main legacies of the revolutionary process was the emergence of deep ideological and political cleavages. While communists exerted clear hegemony over the labor movement during the democratic transition, union pluralism was established from the late 1970s with the creation of União Geral dos Trabalhadores [General Workers’ Union] (UGT), supported by the two main governing parties (PS and PSD). The decision to break the initial union alliance mirrored the anticommunist struggle of the Cold War period and benefited from the aid and legitimacy provided by several party and state foundations, at both the European and US levels (Barreto, 1991; Magone, 2001; Rodrigues & Brito, 2013). 1   In voting ballots, the party appears as Popular Party (Partido Popular) and the label CDS-PP.

28 

M. LISI

According to Watson (2012), competition between moderate and radical trade unionism—and its impact on the electoral arena—led to a more liberal model of industrial relations and to more unequal social protection legislation. On the employers’ side, three confederations emerged according to sectoral criteria: Confederação Empresarial de Portugal (Confederation of Portuguese Business, CIP) for industry, Confederação do Comércio e Serviços de Portugal (Portuguese Confederation of Trade and Services, CCP) for trade and services; and Confederação dos Agricultores de Portugal (Confederation of Portuguese Farmers, CAP) for agriculture, a pattern that may be seen as a legacy of the old vertical or mixed ‘corporations’ (Barreto & Naumann, 1998, p.  407). The process of social revolution fostered workers’ radicalization and deepened class antagonism, leading to increasing polarization and relationships of distrust between actors. The establishment of the democratic regime constituted a fundamental landmark for the associative life and the intermediation role of interest organizations. The first decade of democracy was characterized by the consolidation of the main trade union and business confederations, which quickly established themselves as the principal social partners (Lucena & Gaspar, 1991, 1992). Moreover, several interest groups benefited from the institutional role enshrined in the new Constitution. Indeed, the new constitutional framework approved in 1976 acknowledged the positive role of a broad range of civil society associations (see Title III of the Constitution, ‘Economic, social, and cultural rights and obligations’). The most important role is attributed to trade unions and labor associations, whose participation in the decision-making process is mandatory for any matters concerning labor legislation and the development of economic and social plans (art. 56). Similarly, agricultural associations are mentioned as key players in this policy area (art. 98). Overall, these constitutional provisions confirm the importance of the ‘April Revolution gains’, characterized by intense civil society mobilization and the emergence of new social movements (Fernandes & Branco, 2017). The Constitution’s leftist orientation is also confirmed by the fact that there are no references to employers’ organizations as collective actors. The fact that the Constitution did not assign business associations any role in the Portuguese political system is also congruent with the overall principle of subordinating the economic power to the political power. Formal rules of social concertation also reinforced the institutional integration of the main economic (and welfare) groups. The country’s

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

29

economic weaknesses and the political instability of the first decade of the democratic regime led the main governing parties to institutionalize social dialogue with the main interest groups. In 1984, in the midst of a second International Monetary Fund (IMF) intervention and the PS/PSD governmental coalition  (so-called ‘Central Block’), the Permanent Council for Social Concertation (CPCS) was set up and included government representatives, the União Geral dos Trabalhadores (UGT), and three employer confederations. Until 1987, the Confederação Geral dos Trabalhadores Portugueses–Intersindical Nacional [General Confederation of Portuguese Workers–National Interunion] (CGTP-IN)), backed by the PCP, boycotted the institutional arena and refused to take a seat at this table, arguing that it favored employer and business organizations by facilitating the adoption of neoliberal policies. The constitutional revision of 1989 created a new entity, the Social and Economic Council (CES), a more plural body with representation from a wider range of interest groups that was assigned with consulting functions, drafting reports on major plans or social and economic reforms. But the CPCS, embedded in this new institutional arrangement, maintained its autonomy as the sole body that could produce social pacts, or tripartite agreements. However, questions remained as to whether these corporatist institutions would reinforce the state’s dominance or foster autonomous concertation between unions and employers (Barreto, 1991; Lucena & Gaspar, 1991). The process of Portugal’s integration into the European Community (EC) was extremely important for the democratization of the new regime. This contributed not only to the institutionalization of key political players, but also to improving the standard of living and the state infrastructure (see Amaral, 2023). In a nutshell, Portugal was a fully consolidated democratic country when it entered the EC. The Europeanization process brought new challenges and opportunities for interest groups and changed the logic of interaction with institutional actors and civil society itself. Overall, two important changes are worth highlighting in terms of the characteristics of system intermediation. On the one hand, there was an increase in the fragmentation of interest organizations and the type of associations present in Portugal. On the other hand, there was greater concern about the need to form coalitions between organizations working in the same policy area, altering in many cases the mobilization strategy of interest groups. This change was evident above all for agricultural associations, which began to focus their action mainly on the European sphere to the detriment of the national arena due to the impact of the Community

30 

M. LISI

Agricultural Policy (CAP). The impact of the European integration process was not only seen across different sectors, but also within each policy area; in the case of trade unions, for example, the UGT supported the European integration process while the CGTP initially rejected sitting in representative bodies at the supranational level (e.g. Rodrigues & Brito, 2013).2 Organized interests were also mobilized to integrate steadily into the European political-institutional sphere. As such, all organizations that were part of the CPCS were also members of some euro-group. The scarcity of resources, the fragmentation of interests and the fact that they are part of a peripheral economy have had a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of these organized groups at the European level. The organization that seems to have managed to gain the greatest visibility is the CCP (Magone & Martins, 2009), but there are few studies that assess the performance of the various interest groups in the European arena. Several authors suggest that this process has been superficial and incomplete, failing to effectively change the role and action of interest groups (Magone, 1997, pp. 111–126; 2014, pp. 115–138; Royo, 2012). One of the effects of European integration has been to encourage the participation of groups in the institutional sphere, strengthening the legitimacy of the social partners. The 1990s were characterized by the emergence of various public interest organizations (consumers, environmentalists, human rights, etc.) and the creation of several professional orders. This trend started in 1991 with the recognition of the Portuguese Dental Association and the Veterinary Medical Association, and it was boosted later in 1998 with the emergence of four new orders (architects, biologists, economists and nurses). In addition, mention should be made of the incorporation of the CPCS into the Economic and Social Council (CES), which played an important role in salary negotiation, working conditions and other aspects of labor relations (Magone, 2001). During the governments of António Guterres (1995–2001), CES actively collaborated with the executive in an attempt to implement long-term policies, contributing to the elaboration of structural reforms in the areas of the labor market, social security, finance, professional training and public administration.

2  The strategy of interest groups in the supranational arena will be analyzed in more detail in Chap. 8.

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

31

Over the last few decades, organized interests have seen their powers expanded, especially with the creation of new structures and public entities (Marques et al., 1996). The decision-making process sought greater legitimacy and inclusion in various areas of governance, thus reinforcing the role of interest groups, specifically with regard to civic associations and NGOs. This phenomenon can be seen, for example, in social policies, mainly due to the decentralization process that enhanced the role of national confederations of Private Social Solidarity Institutions (IPSS) and other local entities (Branco, 2017, pp. 424–425).

2.3  The System of Interest Intermediation in Portugal: General Features The first studies on interest representation in the democratic context characterized the Portuguese system as a case of ‘partial neo-corporatism’ due to the incomplete nature of the decorporatization process (Lucena & Gaspar, 1992). While some entities were transformed (e.g. farmer associations), others remained unchanged (e.g. people’s associations, trade organizations or cooperatives). The changes in distinct societal sectors led to the coexistence of different models, such as ‘statism’ (especially in the transition period), liberalism (e.g. in industrial relations) and corporatism (public companies, CPCS, etc.). A key feature of the role interest groups played in the Portuguese political system is their subordination to the main political parties. First, political parties sought to strengthen their legitimacy by linking with major organized interests. Under the new democratic regime, parties played the role of intermediaries and ‘gatekeepers’ in relation to interest groups, reinforced by the attempt to penetrate workers and farmers’ organizations (Morlino, 1998). However, the most important economic groups (trade unions, entrepreneurs and farmers) established different types of relationships with political parties. For example, domination was what characterized the link between the communists and the main trade union (CGTP), whereas the interaction between employer associations and the main governing parties was based on autonomous ties.3 Second, this subordination was associated with the lack of resources of organized interests, which resulted in the main organizations asking for protection or support from 3  The relationship between organized interests and political parties during the democratic period will be explored in detail in Chap. 5 and 6.

32 

M. LISI

the state and parties. While business groups had to overcome a crisis of legitimacy and had few resources, since the period of democratic transition there has been a strong politicization of unions, which have been heavily dependent on left-wing parties (mainly communists). Another important element in the system of interest intermediation— which was shared by other Southern European countries—is the presence of a large public sector. This trait was particularly salient in the case of Greece, where some authors even spoke of ‘state corporatism’, based on state control of associations in the context of a weak civil society (Mavrogordatos, 1997). The main groups lacked autonomy and pluralism emerged only in the case of agriculture, largely due to interparty competition (Morlino, 1998, p.  241). This was of the utmost importance for interest group politics as the main political actors have widely used state resources to establish clientelistic relations. The phenomenon is also related to the use of patronage promoted by the main parties (especially when they are in government), which acted more as institutional than social actors (Biezen, 2003). Although this characteristic was most evident in the Italian case during the so-called First Republic, it also emerged as a common trait in new Southern European democracies. Finally, it is worth mentioning the importance of the ‘third sector’, or ‘solidarity economy’ to the system of intermediation of interests in Portugal. This category consists of solidarity institutions or organizations whose primary objective is to satisfy people’s needs by offering goods and services in a spirit of solidarity, sharing the benefits with the nonprofit community (Franco, 2005, p. 10). This is a restricted group of associations, distinct from both private and public sector organizations, that encompasses various types of organizations. In addition to civic associations, there are cooperatives—whose inclusion in the category is questionable mainly because some cooperatives admit the redistribution of profits by members—and foundations. These entities have their own resources, aiming to achieve organizational objectives; however, many foundations proved to be heavily dependent on the state. Other entities included in this classification are local development organizations and social solidarity organizations (Misericórdias). The 1976 Constitution and subsequent legislation recognized the important role of these institutions and regulated their action, favoring some sectors of civil society over others. This process was mainly due to the approval, in 1979, of the statute of Private Social Solidarity Institutions (IPSS), which covers several important sectors (health, education,

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

33

professional courses, housing, etc.). Subsequently, the evolution of IPSS was influenced by the European integration process through two mechanisms. On the one hand, European Community funds resulted in a greater dependence of these organizations on the state. On the other, the process of Europeanization favored coordinated action between these organizations to defend interests on a supranational scale. In this sense, European integration provided a stimulus for coordination and favored the expansion of the associative sector. This particular type of group has shown a great dependency on state funding and a strong orientation toward service provision. In general, the process of democratic consolidation in the Portuguese case has been described as being crucially driven by public sector resources and central corporatist structures. In fact, the state has been a particularly relevant actor, insofar as nationalizations and state monopolies had a decisive influence on the actions of interest groups. This pattern of ‘consolidation through the state’ is close to the Greek case, also characterized by the weak position of entrepreneurs, trade unions (dependent on political parties) and other associations supported by a vast public sector. In the Portuguese case, there was also an ‘inclusive legitimacy’—that is, the inclusion of the main social groups (and their representatives) in the decision-­making process as well as the institutional recognition of these interests in exchange for support for the new regime—and state control of society, which contributed to the institutionalization of the democratic regime despite the instability of the party system and the weakness of party organizations (Morlino, 1998). Trade unions, business confederations and some professional organizations have been able to develop more effective structures for interest representation, thus displaying greater strength and a better capacity to access the policymaking arena than other organized interests.

2.4   Interest Representation in Portugal from a Comparative Perspective The study of interest group population is important for several reasons. First, it allows us to examine the life and death of different organizations, the number of groups that exist, and the differences in distinct public policy arenas. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is through the analysis of the population—i.e. in the bias at the level of

34 

M. LISI

decision-­making—that implications about the quality of democracies can be drawn. From this viewpoint, the more the system of interests (at the national level) registers the prevalence of certain groups (of any kind, without any normative implications), the worse it will be for democratic quality. This is because in the democratic ideal, all groups, regardless of the positive or negative connotation, should have the same opportunities to give visibility to their preferences in the various stages of the ‘policy cycle’. This is an important indicator of the discrepancy between real and ideal democracy, showing the extent to which societal forces have equal chances of playing any role in the legislative process. In the literature on interest groups, recent studies have sought to map the population of interest organizations through empirical analyses, with the objective of studying density, diversity, and the degree of balance (or bias) in interest representation. Some key concepts must be specified if we are to systematically and comprehensively examine the system of interest representation—which, in open and advanced societies, always presupposes a very high degree of complexity and fluidity. Density refers to the number of groups in a given system of interests (Lowery & Gray, 1993). The greater the number of collective actors, the greater the population density of the groups. The notion of diversity is associated with the degree of concentration/dispersion of these actors in different categories (see the types of groups examined in the previous chapter). The important indicator is not the number of categories per se (i.e., business organizations, trade unions, environmental associations, professionals, etc.) into which a system of interest can be decomposed, but rather the fact that the groups are evenly distributed (Gray & Lowery, 1993). The greater the dispersion, the greater the diversity, but the level of diversity will be smaller where there is a great concentration in a few categories. This concept involves the notion of the bias of interest representation, which is linked to the normative debate about the advantage that groups (mainly economic) with greater resources enjoy vis-à-vis other groups. This advantage is mainly reflected in the greater capacity to lobby and to exert influence on final decisions. Empirical studies have sought to provide a specification of this advantage in relation to the ‘influence production process’ (Lowery & Gray, 2004), characterized by four stages: mobilization, survival, access and influence. In fact, not all ‘potential groups’ present in society manage to activate themselves in practice and mobilize their members to give expression to their preferences. This point is important because it highlights the

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

35

only partial overlap found between the existing groups within civil society and the groups that make up the interest representation system. In addition, there is a bias between groups that cannot guarantee their own survival and others that can mobilize on a regular basis in the medium and long term. The third phase of the cycle consists of the different degrees of access by interest groups; there can be considerable discrepancies between actors with easy and constant access to the main policymakers and others who do not have this possibility. Finally, the asymmetry between groups emerges at the moment when certain organizations influence different public policy decisions. The problem is that it is not easy to identify the population of interest groups empirically. The first difficulty lies in the fact that the composition of interest groups varies across different policy arenas. Indeed, studies based on just one source (or just one institution) can only provide a partial view of population ecology. The second difficulty is the lack of transparency surrounding the action of interest groups. Here, the choice of source to be considered by researchers is often conditioned by the availability of empirical data. In some countries it is possible to use the register of interest groups (at the national or local level), thus providing systematic data on population ecology in the institutional arena. This strategy is problematic not only because registration is in many cases voluntary and various relevant actors are not in the register, but also because it often includes any type of association and is not just limited to interest groups. Hence, an alternative strategy has been to focus on groups that participate in the work of parliamentary committees or advisory councils to map the universe of groups mobilizing in a specific arena. In the Portuguese case, there are no systematic empirical studies that focus on population ecology. Some authors have used the concept of civil society—understood as a set of organizations that are part of the public space, but outside the state and distinct from the private sphere (Bernhard et al., 2017, p. 297)—to analyze the density of organized interests and its evolution over time (Bermeo, 2000; Vázquez, 2010; Fernandes, 2015). One of the most relevant projects on organized civil society is based on data collected by Tavares de Almeida et al. (2012). Analyzing the longitudinal evolution of associativism in Portugal (1974–2010), these authors show how the Portuguese case presents a higher density—measured through the number of organizations formed over time—than that of Eastern European democracies. In addition, no common pattern can be found in the Southern European region, as the density (i.e., number of

36 

M. LISI

associations) is higher than in Spain, which experienced a similar democratic trajectory. The results of this research suggest that the post-democratic context that took place after the 25th April Revolution favored associative development, with considerable expansion in the first two decades of democracy. This trend should not come as a surprise given that the establishment of democratic rules encourages the consolidation and expansion of civil society organizations, as the cases of the new democracies of Eastern Europe also demonstrate (Rozbicka et al., 2021). However, distinct patterns can be identified in terms of the evolution of different categories (Branco et al., 2012; Fernandes, 2014). In the case of trade unions, cooperatives or mutual associations, there was a rapid expansion in the first decade after the revolution, followed by a steady and gradual decline. On the other hand, both business organizations and political associations continued to grow into the twenty-first century. It was also during this period that there was an expansion of groups based on ‘post-­ materialist’ values, such as environmental, scientific/educational organizations, youth groups and NGOs linked to development and cooperation. Finally, there is a residual group of associations (pensioners, neighbor, social development and territory) that consolidated until the 1990s, showing a pattern of stability in the following period. The main problem with this approach is that it includes organizations within the associative universe that do not meet the requirements normally associated with the definition of interest groups mentioned in the previous chapter. This is because the notion of civil society is more comprehensive and can include actors that privilege or remain in the societal sphere, without mobilizing themselves in the institutional and political arena. One of the techniques used to identify the population of interest groups is based on carrying out surveys after compiling as exhaustive and complete a list as possible. This approach—designated ‘organization-centered sampling’—was used within the scope of the project ‘From representation to legitimation: parties and interest groups in Southern Europe’, with the aim of surveying the active interest groups in Portugal (Lisi, 2019). Given the lack of an official list or directory containing all target organizations, multiple sources were used to collect and cross-reference data on different interest organizations. First, we relied on institutional and publicly available data such as the Central File of Collective Persons (requested from

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

37

the Institute of Registries and Notaries), the list of public entities of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the National Register of Youth Associativism from the Youth Portal, the list of foundations of the Institute of Registries and Notaries, the National Register of Environmental Non-­ Governmental Organizations, the Portuguese Environment Agency and the list of Group Agriculture Societies of the General Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development. Second, we consulted the lists of member associations of trade unions and employer confederations, namely the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP), General Union of Workers (UGT), Union of Independent Unions (USI), Business Confederation of Portugal (CIP), Confederation of Commerce and Services of Portugal, Confederation of Farmers of Portugal (CAP), Confederation of Portuguese Tourism (CTP), Confederation of Services of Portugal, Confederation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and the Portuguese Confederation of Construction and Real Estate. Third, we also used data on Portuguese interest groups included in the European Transparency Register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do), in the list of Portuguese NGOs elaborated by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and in the ‘Professional Associations Database’ compiled by CIES-IUL (Freire, 2004). Finally, all interest groups that participated in parliamentary committees in the period 2002–2015 were included in the final list. We performed a complementary online search to add possible interest groups absent from the database. In light of the extensive list obtained, we proceeded to collect the contact data (when missing from the original source) and to eliminate repeated interest groups or those for which contact data were impossible to find and/or whose websites were no longer active (assuming that these cases would correspond to currently inactive organizations). After this process, we had a list of 1181 interest groups (Table 2.1). Note that the population size of interest groups is in line with population estimates from other medium-sized countries, based on similar sampling procedures (see www. cigsurvey.eu). This is the sample of organizations that will also be used to assess interest group strategies and access (see Chaps. 5 and 8). Although this methodology does not allow us to analyze the evolution of the population of interest groups in Portugal over time, it is important to highlight some interesting aspects. Firstly, and in line with other international studies, economic groups constitute a considerable part of the

38 

M. LISI

Table 2.1  Comparison of interest group population across countries Country

Portugal Belgium Spain Netherlands Lithuania Poland Slovenia

CIGS’ interest group population

Country size

Population (mln)

1181 1352 2636 2479 905 1546 1203

92,212 30,528 505,990 41,543 65,300 312,679 20,273

10,291,027 11,250,585 46,423,064 17,100,475 2,827,947 38,454,576 2,065,879

Interest Interest organizations organizations per per square km capita (per 1000 citizens) 0.013 0.044 0.005 0.060 0.014 0.005 0.059

0.115 0.120 0.057 0.145 0.320 0.040 0.582

Source: Comparative Interest Group Survey (Lisi & Loureiro, 2020; Rozbicka et al., 2021)

interest group population. However, identity or cause organizations also make up an important part of the associative universe. It should be noted that the category ‘civic organization’ does not include third sector associations that are not present in the political sphere, as they do not fulfill one of the essential features of the definition of an interest group. From this point of view, it is possible to state that population ecology is quite diverse and dense.4 To deepen the comparative analysis, we rely on the representative samples used to examine the features of interest groups in different contexts. This approach allows us not only to investigate how organizational types vary across countries, but also to compare the resources available to each category. The first important point worth noting is that Portugal presents an overall picture that resembles Western democracies rather than Eastern European countries. Indeed, it shows a predominance of business and union organizations, representing approximately 44% of all organized interests. Sweden shows the highest proportion of economic groups, a feature that is closer to Germany (Klüver, 2015) or USA (Gray & Lowery, 2000). On the other hand, cause and identity groups are also an important category, representing around 1/5 of the set. Overall, the picture of population diversity suggests that, despite the bias toward the predominance of economic interests, there has been a growing pluralism and the 4  Chapter 8 will provide similar data on population ecology of Portuguese groups analyzing the European arena.

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

39

asymmetry in interest representation is not as skewed as in other counterparts, especially if we look at new Eastern European democracies. Our dataset also allows us to examine how resourceful interest groups are. The standard CIGS questionnaire includes a measure of the human resources available for each type of organization. The first indicator is based on (internal) permanent staff, measured through the full time equivalent (FTE). The figures are quite surprising for identity and cause groups, which register the highest levels of staff (Table 2.2). This can be due to public subsidies and the growing professionalization of these associations, as well as to the high centralization of their activities, mostly based in the capital and without regional or local offices. However, economic groups also display high levels of in-house staff, especially when compared to other democracies (see Rozbicka et al., 2021). The picture is more balanced when we observe the use of external professionals, with labor unions also relying on outside expertise. Regarding the year of foundation, given the democratization process it is not surprising that most organizations were established during the democratic period. Considering our sample, the median year of establishment is 1991, slightly lower than the median registered for Eastern European countries. As expected, labor

Table 2.2  Staff and year of establishment of Portuguese interest groups (sample), by type Type of groups

Business Professionals Labor unions Identity groups Cause groups Leisure Institutions and public authorities Total

n

%

Staff (median)

External professionals (median)

Foundation (median)

147 141 63 34 70 11 7

30.9 29.6 13.2 7.1 14.7 2.3 1.5

4.5 1.0 3.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 1.5

1.0 0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.5

1989 1992 1980 1995 1999 2001 2012

476

–

3.0

1.0

1991

Source: Comparative Interest Group Survey (Lisi & Loureiro, 2020)

40 

M. LISI

associations are, on average, older than the remaining group types, while leisure and public authority groups emerge as the youngest groups of the whole dataset.

2.5  Conclusion This chapter aimed to present a general picture of the system of interest intermediation in Portugal throughout the twentieth century. It started by identifying key characteristics of interest politics during the authoritarian regime, moving then to depict the changes brought by democratization and the establishment of the democratic regime. We noted that the legacy of the long authoritarian period played an important role in the reactivation of organized civil society and the formation of some institutional structures. Despite the collapse of the old regime and the radical elite replacement, some important continuities emerged. Moreover, the democratization process had a fundamental impact on the formation of key economic groups and on the constitutional framework that regulated and legitimized the role of specific categories of organized interests within the political system. The consolidation of the new democratic regime contributed to the growing pluralism of interest representation in Portugal. After 25th April 1974, a wide variety of new groups emerged in Portugal (e.g. youth organizations,  neighbourhood committees, human rights associations, etc.). The process of social revolution that characterized the democratic transition was a determining factor in the characteristics of group ecology in the new regime (e.g. Fishman, 2011; Fernandes, 2015). Civic mobilization strengthened associations within the Portuguese political system and contributed to the recognition of their important role in the institutional sphere. In addition, the social transformation and grassroots mobilization that characterized the transition to democracy facilitated the expansion of specific groups, particularly trade unions and those linked to the welfare sector. Overall, the radical transformations in the social and political structures that occurred in the revolutionary period led to an organized civil society that was closely articulated with the state and was denser and more robust compared to other ‘third-wave’ democracies (see Fishman, 2017). However, as in Western counterparts, traditional economic groups rapidly prevailed in the ecology of the interest population in Portugal. The fact that the main political parties actively sought the support of the main groups and their inclusion in neo-corporatist institutions (socio-economic councils) reinforced the bias between traditional economic groups and

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

41

other categories. Indeed, state intervention in collective bargaining strengthened the role of employer associations and trade unions (mainly, but not only, in the labor market sector, see Afonso, 2023). A preliminary analysis of the population ecology of Portuguese interest groups shows that employer and trade union organizations are the predominant players in interest group politics, followed by civic associations and professional organizations. It is also worth highlighting the growing pluralism that emerged in Portugal over the democratic period. As scholarship emphasizes (Gray & Lowery, 2000), changes within population ecology are slow and depend on major events. In terms of external shocks, the two main factors that shaped the evolution of the Portuguese political system were the Europeanization process on the one hand, and international economic crises on the other. The first will be investigated in more detail in Chap. 8. As for the second, we can look at the recent global financial crisis that emerged in 2008 to speculate on changes in the characteristics of the group population. Portugal was one the countries hardest hit by the Great Recession, leading to the intervention of the Troika (IMF, ECB [European Central Bank] and European Commission) and the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding. This period was characterized by a significant increase in strikes and protests, mainly by unions and civic associations (Accornero & Pinto, 2015). Empirical research suggests that the Great Recession did not significantly alter the strategy of unions, mainly due to its politicization. This means that the UGT continued to prefer negotiating with the government, while the CGTP adopted forms of protest and grassroots mobilization, often in strict alliance with social movements (Lima & Artiles, 2011). In the same vein, employer confederations continued to adopt a pragmatic approach and seek collaboration with government officials (Lisi & Loureiro, 2019). However, the historical legacy of the internal divisions within the business representatives remained unchanged and, from a comparative perspective, is characterized by partially dissonant interests and the limited alignment with the parties of the right (unlike what happens in other third wave democracies, such as Spain or Greece). Overall, these findings seem to suggest that no major changes occurred in the population ecology, but this is an aspect that will be explored in specific arenas in the remaining chapters of the volume. The Portuguese case tells us that major transformations within population ecology can also take place over an extended time period through the impact of internal factors. First, the democratization process was of the

42 

M. LISI

utmost importance in fostering the emergence of new organized interests and the expansion of their activities. This comes as no surprise and is corroborated by the evidence for new Eastern European democracies. Second, economic development was also vital to strengthening the growth of interest groups. The expansion of new sectors and the transformation of the Portuguese economy (also related to the European integration process) increased the diversity of the group population. Last, institutional changes contributed to shaping the features of interest representation, not only due to the legal opportunities for interest groups to become active in national policymaking, but also given the party actors’ propensity to use state resources to facilitate or constrain group action. Although our focus was the characteristics of the group population at the national level, we believe this is not a major problem in the Portuguese case due to the high level of centralization of the state administration and the strong vertical and hierarchical traits of decision-making processes. Yet the analysis of sub-national groups and their cooperation with national organizations remains a promising research avenue. Furthermore, it would be interesting to have more data for other countries to allow for systematic comparisons within and outside the European region.

References Accornero, G., & Pinto, P. R. (2015). ‘Mild Mannered’? Protest and Mobilisation in Portugal under Austerity, 2010–2013. West European Politics, 38(3), 491–515. Afonso, A. (2023). Portuguese Labour Market Governance. In J. M. Fernandes, P. C. Magalhães, & A. C. Pinto (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Portuguese Politics (pp. 527–541). Oxford University Press. Amaral, L. (2023). Social, Economic, and Demographic Change during the Portuguese Democracy (1974–2020). In J. M. Fernandes, P. C. Magalhães, & A. C. Pinto (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Portuguese Politics (pp. 53–69). Oxford University Press. Amorim Neto, O. (2023). Semi-presidentialism in Portugal: Academic Quarrels Amidst Institutional Stability. In J.  M. Fernandes, P.  C. Magalhães, & A.  C. Pinto (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Portuguese Politics (pp.  121–135). Oxford University Press. Baklanoff, E.  N. (1979). The Political Economy of Portugal’s Old Regime: Growth and Change Preceding the 1974 Revolution. World Development, 7(8–9), 799–811. Barreto, J. M. T. (1991). A formação das centrais sindicais e do sindicalismo contemporâneo em Portugal. Universidade de Lisboa.

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

43

Barreto, J., & Naumann, R. (1998). Portugal: Industrial Relations under Democracy. In A. Ferner & R. Hyman (Eds.), Changing Industrial Relations in Europe (pp. 395–425). Blackwell Publishers. Bermeo, N. (2000). Teoria da democracia e as realidades da Europa do Sul ensaios. Difel. Bernhard, M., Fernandes, T., & Branco, R. (2017). Introduction. Civil Society and Democracy in an Era of Inequality. Comparative Politics, 49(3), 297–309. Biezen, I. van. (2003). Political Parties in New Democracies. Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. Branco, R. (2017). A sociedade civil de welfare em Portugal—Uma perspetiva histórica e comparada. In O Sistema Político Português. Uma perspetiva comparada (pp. 403–430). Princípia. Branco, R., Fernandes, T., Cancela, J., & Coelho, T. D. (2012). Démocratisation et société civile. leçons de l’expérience portugaise. Pôle Sud, 37(2), 9–23. Fernandes, T. (2014). A Sociedade Civil. Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos. Fernandes, T. (2015). Rethinking Pathways to Democracy: Civil Society in Portugal and Spain, 1960s–2000s. Democratization, 22(6), 1074–1104. Fernandes, T., & Branco, R. (2017). Long-Term Effects: Social Revolution and Civil Society in Portugal, 1974–2010. Comparative Politics, 49(3), 411–431. Ferreira, N. E. (2007). O corporativismo e as instituições do salazarismo: a Câmara Corporativa (1935–1945). In F. C. P. Martinho & A. Costa Pinto (Eds.), O corporativismo em português (pp. 165–199). Civilização Brasileira. Ferreira da Silva, Á., Amaral, L., & Neves, P. (2016). Business Groups in Portugal in the Estado Novo Period (1930–1974): Family, Power and Structural Change. Business History, 58(1), 49–68. Fishman, R. M. (2011). Democratic Practice after the Revolution: The Case of Portugal and Beyond. Politics and Society, 39(2), 233–267. Fishman, R. M. (2017). How Civil Society Matters in Democratization: Setting the Boundaries of Post-Transition Political Inclusion. Comparative Politics, 49(3), 391–409. Franco, R.  C. (2005). Defining the Nonprofit Sector. The Johns Hopkins, No. Working Paper 43. Freire, J. (2004). O Associativismo em Portugal. Celta Editora. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1993). The Diversity of State Interest Group Systems. Political Research Quarterly, 46(1), 81–97. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (2000). The Population Ecology of Interest Representation: Lobbying Communities in the American States. University of Michigan Press. Klüver, H. (2015). Interest Groups in the German Bundestag: Exploring the Issue Linkage between Citizens and Interest Groups, 24(2), 137–153. Lains, P. (2011). The Portuguese economy in the Twentieth Century: Growth and Structural Change. In A. C. Pinto (Ed.), Contemporary Portugal: Politics, Society and Culture (pp. 131–152). Columbia University Press.

44 

M. LISI

Lima, M. da P. C., & Artiles, A. M. (2011). Crisis and Trade Union Challenges in Portugal and Spain: between General Strikes and Social Pacts. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 17(3), 387–402. Lisi, M. (Ed.). (2019). Grupos de Interesse e Crise Económica: O Caso Português. Edições Sílabo. Lisi, M., & Loureiro, J. (2019). Employer Preferences and Political Alignments during the Eurocrisis: Evidence from the Portuguese Case. Business and Politics, 21(3), 385–414. Lisi, M., & Loureiro, J. (2020). Portuguese Interest Groups Survey. NOVA-FCSH and IPRI-NOVA. Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (1993). The Density of State Interest Group Systems. The Journal of Politics, 55(1), 191–206. Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (2004). A Neopluralist Perspective on Research on Organized Interests. Political Research Quarterly, 57(1), 163–175. Lucena, M. de (1976). A evolução do sistema corporativo português. Perspectivas & Realidades. Lucena, M. de, & Gaspar, C. (1991). Metamorfoses corporais?: associações de interesses económicos e institucionalização da democracia em Portugal (II). Análise Social, 114(5), 847–903. Lucena, M. de, & Gaspar, C. (1992). Metamorfoses corporais?: associações de interesses económicos e institucionalização da democracia em Portugal (II). Análise Social, 27(15), 135–187. Magone, J.  M. (1997). European Portugal. The Difficult Road to Sustainable Democracy. Macmillan Press. Magone, J. M. (2001). Iberian Trade Unionism. Transaction Publishers. Magone, J.  M. (2014). Politics in Contemporary Portugal. Democracy Evolving. Lynne Rienner. Magone, J.  M., & Martins, V. (2009). The Multilevel Strategies of Portuguese Socio-Economic Actors in the EU.  In S.  Devaux & I.  Sudbery (Eds.), Europeanisation: Social Actors and the Transfer of Models in EU-27 (pp. 59–93). Centre Français de Recherche en Sciences Sociales. Marques, M. Manuel Leitão, Santos, A. I. & Nogueira, S. (1996). A Administração Consultiva em Portugal. Conselho Económico e Social. Mavrogordatos, G. T. (1997). From Traditional Clientelism to Machine Politics: The Impact of PASOK Populism in Greece. South European Society & Politics, 2(3), 1–26. Maxwell, K. (1997). The Making of Portuguese Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Morlino, L. (1998). Democracy between Consolidation and Crisis. Oxford University Press.

2  THE SYSTEM OF INTEREST REPRESENTATION IN PORTUGAL 

45

Pinto, A. C., & Martinho, F. C. P. (Eds.). (2008). O Corporativismo em Português— Estado, Política e Sociedade no Salazarismo e no Varguismo. Imprensa de Ciências Sociais. Rodrigues, C., & Brito, J.  M. B. de. (2013). A UGT na história do movimento sindical português. Tinta da China. Royo, S. (2012). The Europeanization of Portuguese Interest Groups? Trade Unions and Employers’ Organizations. In N. S. Teixeira & A. C. Pinto (Eds.), The Europeanization of Portuguese Democracy (pp.  139–181). Social Science Monographs. Rozbicka, P., Kaminski, P., Novak, M., & Jankauskaite, V. (2021). Achieving Democracy Through Interest Representation. Palgrave Macmillan. Schmitter, P. C. (1999). Portugal. Do autoritarismo à democracia. ICS. Tavares de Almeida, P., Branco, R., & Fernandes, T. (2012). Société civile et démocratie en Europe du Sud, 37(2), 5–8. Vázquez, R.  G. (2010). Compromiso cívico y democracia. Centro de estudios Andaluces. Watson, S. E. (2012). The Left Divided. Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 3

Associational Involvement and Political Participation in Portugal: Insights from a Longitudinal and Comparative Study Sofia Serra-Silva and Rui Oliveira

3.1   Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to examine the patterns and dynamics of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal and place our case within the larger European context and over time. It  seeks to address key questions:What is the extent of Portuguese citizens’ involvement

S. Serra-Silva (*) Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] R. Oliveira Department of Political Studies and IPRI-NOVA, Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 M. Lisi (ed.), Interest Groups and Political Representation in Portugal and Beyond, Interest Groups, Advocacy and Democracy Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32585-4_3

47

48 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

in civil society associations1 and how do they participate in their country’s political and civic life? What changes have taken place over time in terms of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal, and how does Portugal compare to other European countries? Perhaps, most importantly what factors drive membership and active involvement in civil society associations, and is there a difference between those who are actively involved and those who are passively involved in these associations? To answer these research questions, we rely on an original opinion survey data (Lisi et al., 2021) and secondary data, and resort to statistical analysis for analyzing the collected data. Although the primary objective of this study is not to examine the relationship between associational involvement and political participation (e.g. Aggeborn et al., 2021), it is essential to acknowledge that both factors play crucial  roles in promoting civic engagement and sustaining democratic societies.  Thus, a comprehensive analysis of the social fabric of a country necessitates the examination of both aspects. This study is innovative in several ways. First, it aims to provide a detailed analysis of citizens’ associational involvement, including the scope of participation (single versus multiple affiliations), the type of association (distinguishing different types of civil society associations), and the intensity of involvement (active versus passive). Associational life includes a plethora of different types of civil society associations in which citizens may be active (van der Meer et al., 2009). Therefore, a comprehensive list of associations, such as trade unions, professional organizations, sports clubs, and parents’ associations will be used to achieve this goal. Second, this chapter considers both associational involvement and political participation, as together they offer insights into how individuals participate in the civic and political life of their communities. Third, the study places the Portuguese case within the larger European context and over time, providing a unique  longitudinal and comparative perspective and novel insights. Finally, the chapter aims to identify the distinguishing characteristics of the most participative and civically engaged citizens in order to 1  The concept of civil society encompasses a vast array of groups, which may not be based on an organizational structure, such as social movements, or may not have the explicit goal of influencing public policies, such as civic associations (Lisi & Oliveira, 2022, p. 58). Thus, civil society associations encompass not only interest groups but also organizations that do not seek to directly influence public policy. In this chapter, the terms ‘civil society associations’, ‘civil society organizations’, and ‘voluntary associations’ are utilized interchangeably. Chapter 4 provides a thorough examination of the implications of using different terms from citizens’ perspectives.

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

49

understand the extent to which those who are actively involved in civil society organizations differ from those who are passively involved. This study seeks to address a commonly recognized imbalance in the political science literature, which tends to focus more on the ‘supply side’ (i.e. the capacity of these organizations to gain support) and less on the ‘demand side’ (i.e. what citizens request from these organizations and their engagement with them). By examining these issues in the Portuguese context, this study also aims to contribute to the growing body of literature on interest groups, which has predominantly focused on the ‘supply side’. To achieve these goals, the chapter utilizes empirical evidence to create a longitudinal, comparative, and explanatory analysis of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal. It aims to offer a comprehensive overview of the relationship between Portuguese citizens and civil society associations, an area that has not been previously explored in the specific context of Portugal. This research endeavors to be a pioneering contribution to the emerging field of study on this topic in Portugal. The structure of this chapter is as follows. The following section presents the goals, methodological design, and data sources used for the study. The third section provides a brief conceptualization of the two main concepts and introduces the main measures used. Next, a comprehensive analysis of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal, comparing and contextualizing these phenomena within a longitudinal and cross-national perspective, is provided after presenting our data. The chapter also investigates the factors that influence associative involvement. Finally, the concluding section summarizes the findings of the study in relation to the Portuguese context and offers directions for future research.

3.2   Goals, Data and Methods The goals of this chapter are threefold. First, the study aims to analyze and characterize the dynamics of associational involvement in Portuguese society based on three dimensions: the intensity of participation (active versus passive), the scope of involvement (multiple versus single affiliations), and the type of association (social integration associations versus group interest associations versus civil society organizations reflecting new social movement perspectives). Second, it endeavors to explore the patterns of political participation in Portugal, including diverse modes of participation including traditional and unconventional forms. Third, this study will

50 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

leverage secondary data to conduct a cross-national and longitudinal comparison of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal with other European countries. This comparison will help us to place our results in a broader perspective in the European context and identify the changing and unchanging face of political participation and associational involvement in Portugal. Lastly, it will examine the determinants of variation in associational involvement among the adult population in Portugal, with a focus on both membership, that is, affiliation with voluntary associations, and the level of intensity (active versus passive participation) in associational involvement (see Fig. 3.1 ). This analysis aims to fill an important gap in current knowledge, as the existing body of research primarily focuses on investigating the determinants of political participation, leaving a dearth of studies exploring the determinants of membership in civil society associations. The data analyzed in this chapter were obtained from a survey conducted as part of the GRIP project (Lisi et  al., 2021). The survey was administered online through the company NetQuest, with fieldwork occurring between December 31, 2020, and January 11, 2021. A total of 1516 responses were collected from individuals aged 18 or older. The sample was selected using quotas to ensure a good representation of the Portuguese population in terms of sociodemographic variables such as

Associational Involvement (Participation in voluntary associations): Over time & crossnational

Scope (single vs multiple affiliations) Type (social integration associations vs associations defending group interests vs associations expressing the new social movements) Intensity (active vs passive participation) Political Participation Modalities of participation (classic vs new reportoires of action)

Determinants of associational involvement: membership (affiliation) and intensity (active vs passive participation)

Fig. 3.1  Analytical scheme. (Source: Own elaboration)

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

51

region, gender, and age. The sample consisted of approximately 52% female and 48% male respondents, with roughly equal representation across different age groups: 12% of respondents were between 18 and 24 years old, 13% were between 25 and 34 years old, 17% were between 35 and 44 years old, 17% were between 45 and 54 years old, and 25% were over 65 years old. The sample was also geographically balanced, with representation from Lisbon (28%) and the North of the country (37%). Table A1 in the appendix provides further details on the characteristics of the sample obtained from the online survey. The survey discussed in this research is unique in that it represents the first attempt to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between citizens and civil society associations in Portugal (in the broadest sense of the term, as intermediary organizations concerned with the domains of family, state, and market) through the use of a representative sample of the population. The survey was developed by the research team of the GRIP project, inspired by  other relevant studies, including the Portuguese Electoral Study, the projects on the quality of democracy conducted in Portugal, the PartiREP2 and RELEPAGI3 projects, among others. In addition to examining the relationship between citizens and civil society organizations, our survey explores novel questions related to the level of trust that citizens place in various types of voluntary associations, and the evaluation of the action and contribution of interest groups to democracy (see Chap. 4). This survey was designed to overcome common measurement issues and specification errors, as identified by Hooghe (2003), by incorporating information about the intensity of involvement and the nature (type) of the associations involved. The resulting data from this survey allow for a novel understanding of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal, providing valuable insights into the relationship between citizen participation and organized civil society. In addition to primary data collected through the survey, this chapter also relies on individual-level secondary data from the European Social Survey and the European Values Study. These secondary data sources serve the purpose of enabling comparisons between the Portuguese case 2  Participation and Representation. A comparative study of linkage mechanisms between citizens and the political system in contemporary democracies. 3  ‘From Representation to Legitimacy? Political Parties and Interest Groups in Southern Europe’, coordinated by Marco Lisi at Nova University of Lisbon and IPRI-NOVA.  The project was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (grant PTDC/IVC-CPO/1864/2014).

52 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

and other countries, whenever feasible. Furthermore, longitudinal analysis is conducted by leveraging individual-level data obtained from previous national projects. This comprehensive approach allows for a robust examination of the subject matter over time and enhances the depth of analysis in this study.

3.3  Concepts and Measures: Associational Involvement and Political Participation For several decades, sociologists and political scientists have explored the interplay between associational involvement (or membership) and political participation. This line of inquiry is motivated by the understanding that associational involvement is a crucial source of social capital and a driver of political participation (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba et al., 1995). Voluntary associations play a significant role in fostering individual engagement in conventional politics. They offer a platform for individuals to cultivate attitudes and skills that are essential for broader political participation (Almond & Verba, 1965; Olsen, 1982; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993; Verba & Nie, 1972). Associational involvement has been linked to the success of democracy (Putnam, 1993) as well as other positive societal outcomes, such as wealthier, healthier, and less criminal societies (for an overview see Halpern, 2005). While this study does not aim to examine the extent to which associational involvement leads to political participation, both play crucial roles in promoting civic engagement and ensuring the vitality of democratic societies and together provide a comprehensive picture of the social fabric of a country. Therefore, it is important to define the two central concepts that will guide this research toward its objectives. The concept of associational involvement, also referred to as associational membership, has been widely studied in the literature (e.g. Morales & Geurts, 2007; Eggert & Giugni, 2010; Sønderskov, 2011; van Deth & Maloney, 2015; Giugni & Grasso, 2020). Robert Putnam (2000) conceptualized associational involvement, along with civic virtues, solidarity, and trust, as part of a general syndrome he referred to as ‘social capital’. Putnam identified associational involvement as a structural indicator of social capital, and since then, it has been a crucial component in the empirical measurement of social capital, alongside social trust (Morales, 2002). Consequently, social scientists have become more interested in examining citizens’ involvement in voluntary associations, classifying forms of involvement as either passive (mere membership) or active (being active in civil society organizations). It is believed that membership itself matters

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

53

but that a deeper involvement (actively participating in voluntary work) has a greater impact on the development of civic virtues (Denters et al., 2007). In most surveys, associational involvement is typically measured by including only a question on the number of associations the respondent is involved or a survey question that lists different types of organizations and asks respondents whether they are currently members or have previously been members of an organization (e.g. Giugni & Grasso, 2020). However, these measures may result in specification errors as they do not gather information about the intensity of involvement or the nature and goals of the associations (Hooghe, 2003). Assuming that associations have a socialization impact on their members, the intensity of involvement is critical for understanding social capital and civic engagement, according to Putnam (2000). Despite evidence suggesting that passive membership can also significantly impact social capital (Wollebaek & Selle, 2002), an assessment of the level of participation intensity remains important. According to Hooghe (2003), the provision of a list of potential associations to survey respondents has been shown to result in a more comprehensive recall of their associational involvements. In accordance with this finding, the current study employs a similar approach by presenting respondents with a list of 18 distinct types of associations, encompassing youth organizations, labor unions, political organizations, associations for women or senior citizens, and others. For each association selected, respondents were asked to indicate their frequency of participation in meetings and gatherings (with options ranging from ‘never’ to ‘often’). As for political participation, there has been considerable interest in its examination and implications for democratic theory. However, there is a wide range of definitions of political participation, which has resulted in diverse research findings (Talò & Mannarini, 2015). Verba et al. (1995, p.  38) offer a classical definition of political participation as ‘an activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action—either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies’. Brady (1999, p. 737) further defines political participation as ‘action by ordinary citizens directed toward influencing some political outcomes’. Since then, researchers have distinguished various types of political participation among ‘ordinary citizens’ (e.g. Teorell et  al., 2007; Ekman & Amnå, 2012). Political participation is a widely studied topic and has been gauged through various means in the past. Surveys have been used as a popular tool for measuring political participation, which typically assesses

54 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

voting behavior by inquiring about participation in the last local and national elections (e.g. Anderson, 2009; Prezza et al., 2009; Rollero et al., 2009). Other studies have employed a single-item evaluation approach, where participants are asked to rate their level of involvement in activities such as donating money or contacting a politician (e.g. Teorell et al., 2007). In this study, we adopt a relatively inclusive definition of political participation that acknowledges that participation encompasses more than just electoral participation and includes novel forms of participation. Thus, by political participation, we refer to all activities undertaken by citizens with the aim of influencing the decisions and choices of rulers (including those of powerful corporations and organizations with economic and social influence), protest activities, and contact with institutions of political and nonpolitical representation. Therefore, political participation is assessed by inquiring about the respondents’ participation in a range of political activities over the course of the 12 months preceding the survey. Based on the responses, the study differentiates between several forms of political participation. However, this approach poses a challenge as it requires the respondent to exercise their memory and recall their political activities over the course of a year, which may be difficult to do accurately. Recalling sporadic activities, such as protests or contacting politicians, is particularly challenging as they are not centered on a regularly scheduled event, such as an election.

3.4  Associational Involvement and Political Participation in Portugal 3.4.1   Scope, Type, and Intensity of Associational Involvement Previous research has consistently found that levels of associational involvement among Portuguese citizens are consistently low—and similar to other young democracies of Southern and Eastern Europe (e.g. Viegas & Santos, 2009). Specifically, the percentage of the population that is affiliated with some form of association is typically quite low. Figure 3.2 displays descriptive data of associational involvement in the three dimensions considered: scope, type, and intensity of involvement. While it is possible to measure the extent of an individual's involvement by aggregating the number of organizations they are connected to, this does not provide insight into the level of in-person interaction individuals have within civil society (Vromen, 2017).

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

55

Fig. 3.2  Associational involvement in Portugal: scope, type and intensity. (Source: Lisi et al. (2021)). Notes: ** Entire sample; * Sample restricted to members only

Regarding scope of participation, we see two prominent trends. On the one hand, 50% of the respondents report being affiliated with a voluntary association, which might be overly optimistic when compared to other studies that have reported affiliation rates among the adult population to

56 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

be approximately 25–30% (Fernandes, 2012) or 30–45% based on data from the European Values Study and national research projects conducted in Portugal between 1990 and 2006 (e.g. Viegas, 2011). It is worth noting that discrepancies may arise due to variations in the way affiliation to civil society associations is measured differently over time and across projects. On the other hand, the majority of those who report affiliation in a civil society association are single affiliated (68.4%), with a smaller percentage (18.5%) affiliated with two associations, and an even smaller proportion (7.6% and 5.5%, respectively) affiliated with three or more associations. Despite the prevalence of single affiliation, multiple affiliations are considered more important in terms of its contribution to social capital (Almond & Verba, 1965, pp. 264–265). Research shows that even when activity level is held constant, multiple affiliations are more beneficial for social capital compared to single affiliations (Wollebaek & Selle, 2002). Moving to the type of association, in the survey we asked respondents their affiliation with a total of 18 different associations, which were classified after in larger groups of types of voluntary associations using classic typologies such as those developed by Wessels (1997) and Van Deth and Kreuter (1998). These typologies divide associations into three broad categories: ‘social integration’ associations, ‘associations defending and representing specific interests’, and associations expressing ‘the new social movements’. Social integration associations, which include social solidarity and religious and cultural associations, among others, primarily serve to facilitate social integration. However, it is important to note that these associations may also fulfill other functions. Associations defending group interests, such as trade unions and professional associations, not only defend the interests of their respective groups but also contribute to the public debate. Finally, associations expressing the new social movements, such as environmental protection associations, engage in public discourse and shape public opinion on socially relevant issues. By aggregating the various types of associations into these typologies, we can distinguish the fundamental contributions of each type of association: social integration, representation of interests, or contribution to public discourse. Figure 3.2 also depicts the distribution of members among various types of civil society organizations. The largest proportion of members, accounting for 25.3%, is found among sports clubs in the category of social integration associations. This finding is in accordance with previous studies that have identified the prevalence of ‘sports associativism’ in Portugal (Ferreira, 2008; Viegas & Santos, 2009), as well as in most

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

57

European countries (Morales & Geurts, 2007). It is crucial to note that although sports clubs serve the community, they may not be as effective in fostering a sense of collective responsibility and obligation among members. This could be attributed, in part, to the perception of members as ‘customers’ rather than ‘active’ participants (Ferreira, 2008, p. 11). Local associations encompass nearly 16% of the members of voluntary associations, followed by solidarity organizations and religious or church-related associations, each accounting for 10% of the members. Among the members, trade unions are one of the most popular types of associations, constituting 25% of the sample of individuals affiliated with a civil society associations. To gain a better comparison, the whole sample was analyzed, and it was found that only 10% of respondents were affiliated with a union (data not shown in the figure). These membership figures are consistent with Portuguese post-electoral studies, which have reported that approximately 4–5% of respondents are members of trade unions in recent years (e.g. 4.5% in 2022, 5.1% in 2019, and 5.5% in 2015). Over time, membership in trade unions in Portugal has decreased, falling from 15% in 2002 to the lowest level recorded in the post-electoral study conducted in 2022 (Lobo et al., 2022). Despite the low membership figures, it is important to recognize that the influence of trade unions in the public sphere in Portugal remains significant, as their participation in social concertation is significantly higher than the number of respondents who reported membership in a trade union would suggest. In the category of interest groups associations, which aim to represent the interests of their members, professional associations and orders (13.8%) are found in close proximity to unions. It is noteworthy that for a number of professions, such as doctors, nurses, veterinarians, nutritionists, architects, and engineers, registration with the relevant professional order is a requirement for the practice of the profession. Currently, there are 18 professional orders in Portugal.4 At the opposite end of the spectrum, we find feminist organizations (1.2%), farmers’ associations (1.1%), ethnic associations (1.1%), and technical associations (1.0%). It is noteworthy that organizations representing new movements have a low prevalence among the subsample of members. Although the pattern of associational involvement in Portugal is characterized by a low number of participants, it is also characterized by a high intensity of participation (Viegas, 2004; Viegas & Santos, 2009). The 4

 https://dre.pt/dre/lexionario/termo/ordem-profissional

58 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

intensity of participation is often measured through indicators such as participation in activities, volunteering, or making donations. A more comprehensive understanding of the level of commitment of those who are involved in civil society organizations would therefore require examining a wider range of indicators that are unfortunately not available in this study. Based on the information available regarding respondents’ participation in meetings or activities of the associations to which they belong, it was found that approximately one in three respondents reported participating sometimes, while one in four reported participating often. These active participants, who either participate sometimes or often, make up approximately 59% of respondents. On the other hand, 41% of respondents reported never or rarely participating in the activities and meetings of the associations to which they belong. Similarly, Morales and Geurts (2007) found that the Portuguese citizens actively involved in associations (58%) outnumber those passively involved—this finding holds true regardless of the specific type of involvement. Nevertheless, there is a large proportion of individuals affiliated with civil society associations in Portugal who never or rarely engage in the activities or meetings. It is worth mentioning that this measure, since it combines both participation in meetings and activities, fails to distinguish between members who participate in activities from a consumer perspective (e.g. a football match) and those who are actively engaged in meetings and internal affairs of the associations to which they belong. Thus, a more nuanced understanding of the intensity of involvement among members would require examining a wider range of indicators. In conclusion, the empirical analysis of the intensity of participation, the scope of involvement, and the type of civil society associations provides a descriptive picture of associational involvement in Portugal. The data indicate that involvement in civil society organizations is more widespread than previously believed, with half of the sample reporting membership in at least one such association (single affiliation). Among those who are members, the majority tend to participate in some capacity in the meetings or activities organized by these organizations. Additionally, Portuguese citizens show a preference for participating in associations related to sports or labor (unions), rather than those associated with new movements such as feminism or environmental protection, despite the growing significance of these issues in modern society.

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

59

3.4.2   Beyond Associational Involvement: Political Participation Thus far, this chapter has focused on associational involvement in Portugal, primarily examining patterns of associational involvement. The chapter now turns to the dimension of political participation, defined in this research as all activities undertaken by citizens with the goal of influencing the rulers’ choices and decisions (including those of large corporations and organizations with economic and social power), protest activities, and contact with institutions of political and nonpolitical representation. This conceptualization of political participation is relatively broad, recognizing that since the 1970s, political participation has come to encompass more than just electoral participation and includes new forms of participation such as protests (Verba & Nie, 1972). Drawing upon multiple typologies of political participation (Verba et  al., 1978; Milbrath & Goel, 1977; Montero & Torcal, 1994; Cruz, 1995; Brady, 1999; Teorell et al., 2007), many of which have been successfully applied to the Portuguese case (e.g. Viegas & Faria, 2007; Viegas et  al., 2010), this research sought to understand the extent to which respondents participated in the political sphere in the 12 months prior to the survey. Notably, this analysis is not exhaustive of all existing forms of political participation. In fact, the identification of what constitutes political participation is complex and controversial, and there are other forms of participation that were not considered in the survey (such as ‘hanging posters or distributing leaflets’ or ‘writing a letter to a newspaper’). Additionally, this analysis does not consider electoral participation, which has been extensively studied in the Portuguese context (e.g. Cancela & Vicente, 2019). Instead, this analysis places its emphasis on the nature of citizens’ interactions with interest organizations. Specifically, it seeks to investigate the degree to which citizens engage with alternative channels of political participation that extend beyond the act of voting. By shifting the focus to these additional avenues, the study aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of the broader dynamics of citizen engagement and the evolving relationship between interest organizations and the public. Previous data from the last few decades have indicated that political participation in various modalities is generally low in Portugal (Teorell et al., 2007; Viegas & Faria, 2009). These findings collectively depict a portrait of limited political citizenship in Portugal, with citizens displaying low levels of participation and a negative attitude towards politics

60 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

(Quaranta et al., 2021). However, the data presented in Table 3.1, which pertains to 2020-21, suggest a more optimistic picture. While some modalities of participation exhibit low levels, such as participation in demonstrations (7.5%) and collaboration with a political party (6.9%), the remaining modalities show a different trend. It is worth noting that there are clear differences between the various modalities of political participation, with some forms being more attractive than others. However, it is important to consider that each of these forms of participation requires different resources (such as financial, time, and cognitive resources) that are not evenly distributed throughout society (Verba et al., 1995; Beetham, 2002; Landman, 2008). Additionally, due to the time period under consideration, it is unclear to what extent these differences reflect substantive preferences for certain forms of political participation among Portuguese society or if they are a result of the constraints and limitations imposed during 2020, which was marked by the pandemic, confinement measures, and restrictions on movement that may have affected the opportunities and costs of participation (Serra-Silva & Santos, 2022). Signing campaign petitions stands out as the most popular form of political participation among respondents, with almost half (43.8%) of the sample reporting having signed one or more petitions in the past 12 months. The high level of popularity of signing campaign petitions may be due to the efforts made in recent decades to revitalize the right to petition Table 3.1  Percentage of individuals reporting political participation in the last 12 months, by modality

Contacting a politician or a state or local authority or official Collaborate with a political party Collaborate with some other organization or association Sign a petition in a signature collection campaign Participate in authorized demonstrations Boycott or stop using certain products for social or political reasons Giving money to a political group or organization Participating in illegal protest activities Source: Lisi et al. (2021)

Yes

No

297 (19.6%)

1219 (80.4%)

104 (6.9%) 407 (26.8%) 664 (43.8%) 113 (7.5%) 253 (16.7%)

1412 (93.1%) 1109 (73.2%) 852 (56.2%) 1403 (92.5%) 1263 (83.3%)

108 (7.1%) 38 (2.5%)

1408 (92.9%) 1478 (97.5%)

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

61

in Parliament (Tibúrcio, 2015) and the positive evaluation of this participatory tool by Portuguese citizens as effective (Lisi et al., 2013). On the other hand, collaborating with a political party (6.9%), donating money to a political group or organization (7.1%), and participation in authorized demonstrations (7.5%) are one of the less frequent forms of political participation among respondents in 2020. The low level of participation in demonstrations may be due to the unusual circumstances of 2020-21, which placed some limitations on the right to demonstrate as protected by the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic in the context of the states of emergency and calamity implemented throughout the year  due to the Covid pandemic.5 A longitudinal analysis will be able to determine whether this pattern is consistent over time or if it is specific to 2020–21.

3.5  Associational Involvement and Political Participation over the Years In this section, we aim to examine the changes in the dimensions of associational involvement and political participation in Portugal over time. Despite the lack of continuous data and the limited scope of previous studies, it is possible to perform a longitudinal analysis by comparing a few points in time since 1990 and 1999. However, due to the limitations of data and the use of different sources, caution must be exercised when interpreting the results. The analysis is restricted to a few variables and does not include the intensity of participation, for which comparable data were not found. Moreover, the available data on the type of association are limited and pertain only to certain types of organizations. The information from existing data sources has been aggregated in Table 3.2 to provide a longitudinal perspective. When comparing the data over the past 20 years, there appears to be an upward trend in membership in most civil society organizations, with the exception of religious organizations, which have shown 5  As an example, Presidential Decree 20-A/2020, dated April 17, 2020, in its article 4, paragraph e), stipulates that ‘the competent public authorities, based on the position of the National Health Authority, may impose necessary restrictions to reduce the risk of contagion and implement measures to prevent and combat the epidemic, including limiting or prohibiting the holding of meetings or demonstrations that, due to the number of people involved, potentially facilitate the transmission of the new coronavirus’. This demonstrates how the exceptional circumstances of the year 2020 have led to limitations on the right to demonstrate as protected by the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.

62 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

Table 3.2  Types of association: evolution in Portugal, 2001–2020 (%)

Sources: 2001 data come from the Citizenship Involvement and Democracy project (2001). The 2008 data come from the project Freire, A. and Viegas, J.  M. L ‘Survey to the Portuguese population— Database, 2008’, in Freire, Viegas, and Seiceira (2009). The 2020 data from the GRIP opinion survey (Lisi et al., 2021)

a slight decrease between 2001 and 2020. This exception may be due to the increasing secularization of Portuguese society, as observed in other studies (Viegas & Santos, 2009). It is noteworthy that there is a general downward trend between 2001 and 2008, followed by an upward trend towards 2020, regardless of whether the starting point is 2008 or 2001, with the exception of religious organizations. The longitudinal data on the extent of associational involvement, presented in Table 3.3, reveal a relatively stable trend from 1990 to 2006. However, there is a significant drop in citizen involvement in 2008, with the proportion of citizens not associated with any organization rising to 84%. The GRIP survey of 2020 indicates similar levels of multiple affiliations as previous years. However, it reveals a higher proportion of single affiliations compared to previous years. This can be attributed to the smaller sample size of nonmembers captured in the 2020 survey compared to past years. The figures for single and multiple affiliations in 2020  in Table  3.3 represent percentages calculated based on the entire sample (including both members and nonmembers) to facilitate comparison with past years. This was done to ensure consistency in the operationalization of the variables used to measure the scope of participation in previous studies. In the following analysis, we will examine the evolution of the political participation trend over the same period. Notably, this analysis is not without limitations. First, as shown in Table 3.3, there is a lack of comparative data for certain indicators. Second, even when the indicators are analogous and common to the projects being considered, the question

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

63

Table 3.3  Scope of participation: evolution in Portugal, 2001–2020 (%)

Sources: The data from 1990 and 1999 are obtained from the European Values Survey. The data from 2001 are obtained from the Citizenship Involvement and Democracy project (2001). The data from 2006 are obtained from the study titled ‘Participação e Deliberação Democráticas’ (2006). The data from 2008 are obtained from the project titled ‘Survey to the Portuguese population - Database, 2008’, which is presented in the publication ‘Freire, A. and Viegas, J. M. L., Freire, Viegas and Seiceira (2009)’. The data from 2020 are obtained from the GRIP opinion survey (Lisi et al., 2021)

regarding the modalities of participation has a different formulation: in the 1999 European Values Study (EVS) and the Portuguese Population Survey—Databases of 2008, individuals are asked whether they have engaged in this type of participation without a time limit, while in our study (2020) and the European Social Surveys (ESS) of 2002, 2010, and 2014, the question is limited to the past 12 months. Based on Table 3.4, it appears that all forms of participation in Portugal increased from 1999 to 2020, with the exceptions of participation in demonstrations and illegal protest activities. It is important to again consider the context of the pandemic in the 12 months prior to the survey’s administration between December of 2020 and January of 2021when analyzing these data. For example, it is expected that participation in demonstrations, which inherently involves close proximity to other citizens, would be significantly lower than in previous years due to the pandemic. Additionally, the question was posed to respondents during a period that included a complete lockdown from January 15 to mid-March, as well as other restrictions throughout the year. Despite the need for cautious interpretation of these findings, another recent study has also observed a growth in political participation among the Portuguese population over

64 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

Table 3.4  Political participation: evolution in Portugal, by modality 1999–2020 (%)

Sources: 1999 data are from EVS. Data for the years 2002, 2010 and 2014 are from the ESS. Data for 2008 come from the project ‘Survey of the Portuguese Population—Database, 2008’ in Freire and Viegas (2010). Data for 2020 are from the GRIP opinion survey (Lisi et al., 2021)

the past two decades, with a particular upswing in the last decade, albeit with the exception of electoral participation (Magalhães, 2020). It is worth noting the substantial increases in certain forms of participation, such as contacting politicians or signing petitions. It is likely that these differences, particularly in these modalities, can be attributed to the proliferation of information technologies in recent decades, both among the general population and in public and political institutions. These tools, such as the Internet and email, have significantly streamlined communication between representatives and those they represent (Serra-Silva, 2021). Additionally, the development of electronic petition systems has made the process of signing petitions significantly easier. It should also be noted that

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

65

the literature has previously highlighted the significant increase in participation through protest modalities, including signing petitions, since 2008 and particularly during the years of austerity and the troika (Viegas et al., 2015). Table 3.4 shows that participation in demonstrations was among the least utilized modalities of political participation in 2020, with only 7.5% of respondents reporting involvement. However, once again it is unclear whether this low value is a result of the limitations imposed during 2020 or part of a longer-term pattern of low use of this form of participation. On the one hand, both in 1999 and 2008, approximately 15% of Portuguese citizens participated in demonstrations, while on the other hand, data from the European Social Survey from 2002, 2010, and 2014 show lower values, ranging from 3 to 4%. This may suggest that the low participation in demonstrations in 2020 may be largely influenced by the limitations of that year—due to the COVID-19 pandemic—rather than a broader trend of disinterest in this form of political participation. Figure 3.3 illustrates the changes in political participation in Portugal between 2002 and 2020. The data show a positive trend in all forms of participation over this time period. The most significant increases are observed in signing petitions, which increased by 37 percentage points and collaborating with organizations or associations, which increased by 22 percentage points. In contrast, forms of participation that involve

Fig. 3.3  Evolution of political participation in Portugal by modality: differences between 2002 and 2020. (Sources: Data referring to 2002 are from ESS. Data for 2020 come from the GRIP opinion survey (Lisi et al., 2021))

66 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

engagement with political groups or organizations, such as collaborating with a political party or giving money to a political group or organization, saw relatively little change, with increases of only 3 percentage points. This may be due to perceptions that political parties tend to instrumentalize and influence mobilization dynamics, leading to mistrust of these forms of participation among citizens (Lisi et al., 2013).

3.6  Associational Involvement and Participation: Portugal in a Comparative Perspective In this section, we conduct a descriptive and comparative analysis of associational involvement and various forms of political participation to situate the Portuguese case in the broader European context. It should be noted, however, that this comparison is limited in scope, as it only examines a subset of all possible modalities of political participation and is restricted to European countries. To gather data for this analysis, we utilized the European Value Study and European Social Survey. The European Value Study allowed us to assess membership in organizations such as sports clubs, trade unions, and political parties, while the European Social Survey permitted us to compare individual participation in activities such as signing petitions or participating in demonstrations. Our comparison included twenty Member States of the European Union, with the exception of Croatia, Malta, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, and Romania, for which data were unavailable.6 Past studies have demonstrated that levels of involvement in associations vary significantly among countries, encompassing not only formal membership (Curtis et  al., 1992, 2001; Wessels, 1997; van Deth & Kreuter, 1998; Morales, 2001, 2002, 2004) but also participation and involvement in activities (Morales & Geurts, 2007). These variations are also evident within Europe, where citizens’ levels of belonging to associations and their participation in association activities vary substantially. As such, it is expected that significant differences will be observed among the cases under consideration in our analysis, which is limited to associative belonging by type of association.

6  In some of these six cases data are available for only one dimension, but not all. In these cases, we decided to exclude the country in order to compare the same cases in both analyses.

12.7 19.7 24.1 5.5 23.3 40.3 28.1 10.9 6.6 18.3 24.9 10.0 4.9 7.8 6.7 6.7 45.8 3.2 20.4 9.7 32.0

3.8 11.0 15.9 5.5 11.0 16.4 10.2 9.4 5.5 8.7 9.8 6.6 4.6 6.3 5.5 5.2 29.1 2.5 12.7 4.5 16.9

10.4 14.5 14.9 9.3 12.7 50.1 16.7 15.8 4.3 5.9 10.9 5.3 4.5 20.8 11.7 10.1 18.8 9.4 15.2 11.3 45.4

Educational, Unions artistic or cultural groups 4.6 9.2 5.2 5.9 4.3 6.3 5.6 3.7 2.3 2.4 4.4 3.9 6.7 6.2 4.1 1.5 8.5 1.2 3.6 2.9 9.3

Parties or political groups 1.9 2.9 6.6 3.8 6.7 12.5 4.2 2.7 1.4 2.3 2.3 3.3 0.0 4.3 2.1 1.4 23.8 1.5 1.7 5.8 10.6

Environmental associations 7.0 6.0 6.7 4.2 6.6 12.5 7.2 4.2 3.3 3.8 6.4 4.4 3.6 3.2 2.3 4.3 13.2 3.3 8.7 3.7 10.7

Professional orders 5.0 21.9 10.5 2.4 7.6 39.5 17.4 6.5 7.8 4.7 23.1 7.9 5.5 5.7 6.3 11.5 31.6 5.9 13.1 11.5 26.1

Religious organizations 0.6 4.7 8.2 1.2 3.4 2.2 4.8 2.9 1.2 0.7 5.6 0.4 2.8 1.0 1.5 0.6 6.5 2.1 2.2 4.5 2.7

Feminist associations/ women’s groups

Source: Data for European countries from the European Values Study (2017–2021). Notes: Portugal - PT; Austria - AT; Belgium - BE; Bulgaria - BG; Czech Republic - CZ; Denmark - DK; Germany - DE; Estonia - EE; Spain - ES; France FR; Ireland - IE; Italy - IT; Cyprus -CY; Latvia - LV; Lithuania - LT; Hungary - HU; Netherlands - NL; Poland - PL; Slovenia - SI; Slovakia - SK; Sweden - SE

PT AT BE BG CZ DK DE EE ES FR IE IT CY LV LT HU NL PL SI SK SE

Clubs or sport associations

Table 3.5  Types of association: by modality and country (%)

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

67

68 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

Table 3.5 presents data on membership by type of association in 20 European countries, including Portugal. In general, sports clubs and associations consistently attract the most significant proportion of citizens across Europe. In Scandinavian countries such as Denmark and Sweden, between 30% and 40% of the adult population is involved in these organizations. Lower levels of involvement in sports clubs and associations are only observed in countries such as Bulgaria and Cyprus. Trade unions also attract significant proportions of citizens, particularly in Denmark, where half the population is unionized. When we consider the Portuguese case, we find that the pattern of membership to civil society associations found in Portugal is largely consistent with that observed in other European countries, with trade unions and sports groups attracting greater membership and political parties, professional associations, and feminist associations or groups attracting relatively low levels of membership. It is worth noting that, in addition to sports clubs and trade unions, religious organizations also mobilize, albeit to a lesser extent, a substantial portion of European citizens. However, Portugal stands out as one of the countries with the lowest level of mobilization, surpassed only by France (4.7%) and Bulgaria (2.4%). The Portuguese case is well-documented for its notable characteristic of low levels of participation in associations that represent ‘new social movements’, such as environmentalist associations (Viegas & Santos, 2009). When compared to other European countries, Portugal has a participation rate of 1.9%, which is below the European average of 4.8% and significantly lower than countries such as Denmark (12.5%) and the Netherlands (23.8%). A major finding from this analysis is that levels of associative membership in Portugal are generally lower than those observed in most European countries. This pattern holds true even for categories that tend to have relatively high levels of membership in Portugal, such as sports clubs and associations (12.7%) and trade unions (10.4%). Compared to countries such as Denmark (50%) and Sweden (45%), which have high levels of associative membership, the gap between Portugal and these Nordic countries is particularly pronounced. This aligns with previous research that has also identified a wide gap in levels of membership between Portugal and the Nordic countries in the past (Morales & Geurts, 2007; Viegas, 2011). Next, we aim to examine the extent to which levels of political participation vary among European countries and how Portugal stands in the European context. Given the limitations previously discussed, we compare

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

69

four specific channels of political participation: contacting a politician (at the state or local level), signing a petition, participating in authorized demonstrations, and boycotting or refraining from using certain products. According to Teorell et al.’s typology (2007), these represent three different modes of participation: ‘contact’ (contacting a politician), ‘protest activity’ (participating in demonstrations), and ‘consumer participation’ (boycotting products and signing petitions).7 We seek to answer the following questions: Is there a common pattern of political participation in Europe? Are certain forms of participation more prevalent than others? Are there countries more participative than others? Finally, where does Portugal stand in the European landscape of political participation? Contrary to our initial  expectations and in contrast to the pattern observed in the previous dimension (associative membership), Portugal is in line with the average level of political participation in Europe across the various forms of participation analyzed (see Table  3.6). In particular, Portuguese respondents in our sample are among the most likely to use petition signing as a form of protest activity (43.8%), surpassing even the Danes (37.3%) and Swedes (40%), who are known for their high levels of petition use. It is worth noting, however, that petition systems in Europe vary in their characteristics and, as a result, the opportunities and costs associated with this form of participation also differ. For instance, the Portuguese Parliament has implemented an electronic petition system since 2005, which has undergone gradual improvements over the years, making it increasingly accessible for ordinary citizens to participate in the process (Serra-Silva, 2020). This has mostly contributed to the upward trend in petition adherence in Portugal since 2005 (Tibúrcio, 2015; 2017). The high level of petition use in Portugal, as highlighted in the European context, may therefore reflect the particular characteristics of the Portuguese petition system and its recent technological developments. Again, we observe significant variations in the popularity of different forms of participation among citizens. On average, participation in demonstrations is the least popular form of participation in both Portugal and Europe, with Spain (19.7%) and France (14.3%) being the exceptions. Previous research has already identified Spain as exceptional in terms of protest activities, including participation in demonstrations (e.g. Teorell 7  This typology includes two additional modes of participation, ‘party activity’ and ‘voting’, which are operationalized using multiple indicators rather than a single measure as in the present analysis.

70 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

Table 3.6  Political participation by modality and country (%)

PT AT BE BG CZ DK DE EE ES FR IE IT CY LV LT HU NL PL SI SK SE

Contact a politician (state or local)

Sign a petition

Participate in authorized demonstrations

Boycott or stop using certain products

19.6 18.2 19.5 2.4 13.5 18.9 18.9 17.2 14.3 11.7 22.7 9.7 15.7 18.6 9.3 6.0 19.4 9.0 15.3 10.7 21.7

43.8 28.6 25.5 5.4 20.3 37.3 38.0 12.2 21.6 33.3 27.6 14.5 8.6 10.1 10.0 3.6 27.3 14.3 13.2 26.8 40.0

7.5 6.3 7.0 3.4 9.5 7.5 9.4 2.5 19.7 14.3 9.6 8.2 7.2 3.5 3.2 2.2 3.3 6.3 5.3 6.6 11.1

16.7 21.2 15.7 2.9 15.1 38.8 38.5 8.9 13.6 34.7 15.7 7.3 9.9 6.6 4.5 3.1 14.9 5.8 10.5 5.7 49.4

Source: Data for European countries from the European Social Survey (2018).

et al., 2007). Petition signing stands out as the most popular form of participation among European citizens. The boycott of certain products also shows high levels of adherence in Europe, particularly in Sweden (49.4%), Denmark (38.8%), and Germany (38.5%). Previous studies have indicated that consumer activities, which include both petition signing and product boycotting, rank second to voting in terms of prevalence (Teorell et al., 2007). Upon examining only these four instruments of political participation, it is difficult to identify a common pattern across Europe. It is clear that some instruments are more popular than others, but this preference varies among countries, reflecting the cultural, social, economic, and political differences that exist within the European context. Additionally, some countries are more actively participative than others. While looking at aggregate and average values for the four forms of participation by country is somewhat reductive, it does reveal that countries such as Sweden,

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

71

Denmark, and Germany are, on average, more participative than Bulgaria, Latvia, or Lithuania. Portugal falls somewhere in between these two groups. This does not mean, however, that the levels of high and low participation observed in these countries are consistent across all forms of political participation considered, though.

3.7  Determinants of Associational Involvement: Membership and Intensity of Involvement Finally, our study aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion surrounding the distinctive characteristics that differentiate individuals who participate in civil society associations from those who do not. In our sample, we observed a clear distinction between individuals who report some level of involvement/membership in associations, even if only passive, and those who report not being members at all. Additionally, we observed varying levels of participation intensity in the activities and meetings among those who are members of civil society associations. This prompted us to consider the extent to which these groups possess fundamentally different characteristics and whether individuals who are actively involved in voluntary associations differ from those who are passively involved? Early research on the topic of associational involvement primarily focused on the influence of citizens’ socioeconomic status (Verba & Nie, 1972). However, Verba et al. (1995) expanded upon this by incorporating the impact of both socioeconomic resources and attitudes as the main determinants of their explanatory model of participation in civil society organizations. Subsequently, other studies have further contributed to our understanding of the influence of resource disparities among individuals or households (see Pattie et al., 2003 for a review). Despite the advancements that emphasize the role of civic attitudes and the rise of sociopsychological explanatory models incorporating indicators such as trust in institutions, recent research continues to uphold the explanatory power of traditional models, especially those emphasizing the significance of resources (John et al., 2011). This is because joining voluntary organizations is a selective process that is conditioned by various demographic and social factors (Wilson, 2000). In light of these developments, we examined both classical variables of the socioeconomic model, including sociodemographic characteristics such as gender and age, as well as material and cognitive resources, as also attitudinal variables such as interest in politics and satisfaction with democracy. Our study thus includes the following set of factors, which are

72 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

frequently utilized in explanatory models of associational involvement (Pattie et  al., 2003; Verba et  al., 1995; Badescu & Neller, 2007; John et al., 2011): (a) Sociodemographic factors: age and gender (b) Economic and cognitive resources (c) Religious practice (d) Interest in politics (e) Satisfaction with democracy (f) Trust in voluntary associations Sociodemographic factors: age and gender. Among the most studied factors are age and gender. Age can also be considered a life cycle factor (John et al., 2011), and gender can be considered a selective factor impacting participation (such as ethnicity or marital status). These two factors are referred to as general factors here because they are expected to have a general influence on respondents’ associational involvement (Badescu & Neller, 2007). Several studies have shown that both young and old individuals tend to be less involved in voluntary organizations than those in middle age. This pattern is partly due to the physical barriers faced by older individuals and the high level of mobility of young people (Curtis et al., 1992; van Deth & Kreuter, 1998). With regard to the gender effect, differences observed are often attributed to gender roles that have been socially constructed over time: where women are traditionally responsible for domestic tasks and may therefore be less integrated into social or professional contexts that promote organizational involvement (see, e.g., van Deth & Kreuter, 1998). Previous studies on associational involvement and participation in Portugal have identified significant structural differences among various social groups, including between men and women (e.g. Cancela, 2020). Men traditionally demonstrate a higher propensity for participation in public life, while women are less prominent in classical activism (Viegas & Faria, 2004; Viegas & Faria, 2007), although this difference has become increasingly less clear (and even contradictory) in recent years (Baum & Espírito-Santo, 2007; Cabral, 2018). Additionally, there is a trend toward greater participation with increasing age (Freire, 2001; Freire & Magalhães, 2002).

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

73

Economic and cognitive resources. The political science literature consistently demonstrates the impact of individuals’ socioeconomic status on their likelihood of participating in public, civic, and political life (Verba & Nie, 1972). It is commonly believed that membership and activity in voluntary associations are direct effects of socioeconomic factors (Milbrath & Goel, 1977). These factors, such as access to resources such as time, money, social connections, and verbal and cognitive skills, are thought to enable individuals to more easily participate in such activities (Kohn & Schooler, 1982; van Deth & Kreuter, 1998; Gabriel et  al., 2002). As a result, socioeconomic inequalities often perpetuate inequalities in political and organizational participation. Empirical research has shown that the middle class is disproportionately represented in voluntary organizations across various Western societies (Richter, 1985; Curtis et al., 1992; Dekker & den Broek, 1996; Gabriel et al., 2002). This trend is expected to hold true, with some variations, in that individuals with higher levels of education and income are more likely to participate in such organizations (Schlozman et al., 1999). Religious practice. The literature recognizes churches as spaces that serve as effective contexts for practical social integration, as religious practice has been found to encourage greater involvement in public life and strengthen social integration and connections between individuals and their communities (Badescu & Neller, 2007). This effect has been observed in most European countries, particularly in terms of participation in civil society associations rather than formal belonging. Given that previous research has identified positive and significant associations between the frequency of religious practice and political participation in various forms in Portugal (Tavares & Carr, 2013; Freire, 2000), it is expected that a similar relationship will be found with regard to individuals’ involvement in voluntary organizations. Interest in politics. Introducing predictors such as ‘interest in politics’ or other indicators of political orientation into explanations of patterns of organizational involvement may be problematic, as the relationship between these factors is not yet clearly understood. Most studies tend to focus on the effects of involvement in voluntary organizations on political orientation, such as Peterson’s (1992) classic work indicating that participation in churches and other places of worship can increase interest in politics. However, other causal directions are also plausible (van Deth, 1997). Comparative studies in most Western countries have found positive and

74 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

significant associations between involvement in voluntary organizations and political orientation (Badescu & Neller, 2007). Individuals who express a strong interest in politics are more likely to participate in public, civic, and political life (Cancela, 2012). Both formal membership and participation in the activities of voluntary associations are likely to depend on interest in political affairs, which itself may be influenced by socialization and mobilization for politics arising from individuals’ life experiences. While it would be interesting and important to consider other indicators that capture other policy orientations, such as policy effectiveness, these data are not available in the current survey. Satisfaction with democracy. The relationship between satisfaction with the functioning of democracy and involvement in voluntary organizations is also not well understood. On the one hand, satisfaction is thought to enhance citizens’ capacity and motivation to become involved, while on the other hand, dissatisfaction with the functioning of democracy can be a source of demotivation and does not necessarily drive greater participation (Norris, 2002). While the explanatory power of this indicator may be contradictory, previous research in Scandinavia and Switzerland has shown that citizen dissatisfaction is an important factor in explaining participation in small-scale democratic initiatives (Andersen & Hoff, 2001; Von Erlach, 2001). Therefore, it is expected that the relationship between satisfaction with democracy and propensity to participate in civil society will be negative, with those who are less satisfied being more likely to get involved. Trust in civil society associations. The relationship between trust in institutions, generalized social trust, and involvement in voluntary associations has been well established in the literature (e.g. Putnam, 2000; Paxton & Ressler, 2018). Previous research has generally posited a unidirectional relationship, suggesting that membership in voluntary associations leads to increased trust (e.g. Whiteley, 1999; Paxton, 2007).Undoubtedly, membership in voluntary associations inherently entails a certain level of trust from the outset (Paxton and Ressler, 2018). However, concerns have been raised about potential bias due to endogeneity and selection issues in these studies (e.g.  Sønderskov, 2011;  Paxton & Ressler, 2018). For instance, Sønderskov examined this relationship from a different perspective and found that individuals with higher levels of generalized social trust are more likely to join public good-producing associations, while trust does not significantly impact membership in other types of associations. In line with this, we propose that trust in voluntary organizations

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

75

(which can also be seen as a proxy for generalized social trust) is a key factor in determining an individual’s level of engagement with voluntary associations, specifically that a lack of trust may discourage individuals from joining and participating in these organizations. To test the explanatory factors identified, we employ logistic regression analysis using the Enter method, as the two  dependent variables in this study are dichotomous: (a) ‘Membership’, which distinguishes between those who belong to any civil society associations (value=1) and those who do not (value=0); and (b) ‘Intensity of Engagement’, which differentiates between respondents who participate, often or sometimes, in the activities and meetings of the associations to which they belong, assigned a value of 1, and those who never or rarely participate, which are assigned a value of 0. In this study, we conduct two levels of analysis. Model 1 considers the influence of socioeconomic characteristics and social integration on both dependent variables—membership and intensity of participation in civil society associations. Model 2 expands upon Model 1 by examining a set of variables related to attitudes and orientations. Our proposed model and the chosen levels of analysis draw upon various theories of political behavior and attitudes, including those previously used to explain associational involvement (Viegas & Faria, 2007). As presented in Table 3.7, the variables included in the analysis and their descriptions are as follows: The results of the logistic regressions are reproduced in Table 3.8.8 This analysis does not aim to examine the variations in the nature of association involvement, as previously conducted by Wollebaek and Selle (2002) who differentiated between pure nonpolitical associations, such as sports organizations, and those with a primarily political purpose, such as political parties and unions. The focus of this analysis is on identifying the factors that predict (a) formal membership in voluntary associations, regardless of the type of association, and (b) the intensity of engagement, contrasting passive and active modes of participation among members in all civil society associations considered. As demonstrated in Table 3.8, men are more likely to be a member of a voluntary association than women (0.790) in Portugal, a trend that is widely observed in many European countries as well (e.g. Maslyk & Piróg, 2020). Respondent’s gender is the strongest driver of being a member and 8  To assess the multicollinearity of the variables, two tests were performed for all independent variables, in which the tolerance presented values above 0.200 and the VIF (variance inflation factor) presented values below 10.

76 

S. SERRA-SILVA AND R. OLIVEIRA

Table 3.7  Dependent and independent variables used in the logistic regressions Membership to civil society associations Intensity of Participation in activities and meetings Gender Age

Education

Income

Religious practice frequency

Interest in politics

Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy

Trust in civil society associations

0= Does not belong to any association 1= Belongs to at least one association 0=Never or rarely participate 1=Participate sometimes or often 0= Women 1= Men Continuous variable Minimum= 18 Maximum = 83 1= Did not complete primary education 2= Complete primary education 3= 6th year 4= 9th grade 5=12th grade 6= Higher education 1=Less than €600 2=Between €601 and €950 3=Between €951 and €1400 4=Between €1401 and €2000 5=More than €2001 1= Almost never 2= Several times a year 3= Once a month 4= Almost every Sunday or public holiday 5= Several times a week 1= Not interested 2= Little interested 3= Reasonably interested 4= Very interested 1= Totally satisfied 2= Quite satisfied 3= Somewhat satisfied 4= Little satisfied 5= Not satisfied Average value of trust deposited in different types of civil society associations Minimum= 1 Maximum = 5

77

3  ASSOCIATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION… 

Table 3.8  Results of logistic regressions for the dependent variables ‘Membership’ and ‘Intensity of Participation’ Membership Model 1

Male

Model 2

B

IF

.790

.138 .724

***

Age

Intensity of participation

.004

B

Model 1 IF

B

.316 ***

Income

.219 ***

Religious practice frequency .354 ***

Interest in politics

.080 .292

B

IF

.194 −.177

.005 −.013

.006 −.015 ** .008

**

Education

IF

.142 .116

***

.004 .003

Model 2

083 .233 ** .118 .209

.228

.135

***

.060 .189 ** .062 −.190

089 −.286

.063 .334

.091 .545 *** .104

**

065 .508

***

.378

.105

***

***

.091

.559 *** .151

−.102

077

−.200

.131

.444

085

.045

.140

***

Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy Trust in civil society associations Constant

−3.231 .501 −4.845 .592 −.374

Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R2

0.146

***

0.207

0.132

.706 −1.114

.921

0.205

Note: * = p