Professionalization of EU-Lobbying: Processes of Closure

The paper deals with Public Affairs professionals at the European Union, with a particular focus on EU-Lobbyists. We are interested in uncovering whether and to what extent these professionals form an occupational group with a common knowledge base, professional identity and work ethic. The case of EU-Lobbyists is an interesting case, because available evidence hints into very different directions. On the one hand, findings recurrently highlight the internal diversity of this occupational field, given the fact that we are speaking of professionals with a remarkable variety of educational backgrounds and career-paths. Moreover, the low regulatory impetus of the institutions of the European Union does not seem to prioritize an integration and structuration of this occupational field. On the other hand, however, evidence tends to show that this field of activity is highly patterned concerning working routines and professional talk. In order to advance our knowledge about the professionalization of EU-Lobbying, we propose a sociological analysis that centers on the concept of social and symbolic closure, as it was defined and used by Parkin, Brante or Bourdieu. According to this approach, we hypothesize that an occupational field with its internal diversity might still be exposed to a process of social closure, as soon as its actors seek to maximize rewards by restricting access to its field (Parkin). Other authors have focused more strongly on a process of symbolic closure, according to which actors stress scientifically authorized knowledge (Brante) and distinctive traits of professionalism in order to establish and reproduce a group or category (Bourdieu) of EU-Public Affairs ‘insiders’. In our contribution, we will point out the relative importance of symbolic closure, when compared to social and legal closure. Our analyses will be based on empirical data generated within a research project analyzing the professionalization of EU-Lobbying at the EU-level, particularly through extensive fieldwork in Brussels. The analyses of relevant documents, field-notes from participant observations among Lobbying professionals in Brussels, and semi-standardized interviews will show that the professionalization of EU-lobbyists is not primarily a reaction to the social or legal closure of this highly fragmented occupation field in terms of credentials and rewards, for the reasons mentioned. Much more important are processes of symbolic closure that center on the construction and reproduction of best practices, a common knowledge and a habitus of professionalism. In this context, we will be able to discuss also power structures within this occupational field, because processes of social and symbolic closure have implications for the access to the field, the assignment of an expert status and the recognition of being an insider.