Of Houseplants and Wildflowers: the Development and Performance of Private Associations for Lobbyists in Brussels and Washington D.C.

As part of a broader process of professionalization in lobbying, professional associations for lobbyists have proliferated during the past few decades in both Europe and in North America. However, such bodies have often been neglected in empirical research, despite their growing significance in the fast-evolving lobby industry, with the existing literature (either comparative or single case studies) offering predominantly descriptive, stock-taking accounts. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by offering a theoretically informed analysis of the development and operation of private lobbyists’ associations active at the supranational level in the EU (Brussels) and at the federal level in the US (Washington D.C.). The comparison between these two jurisdictions is justified because, as the ‘lobbying capitals’ of the world, Washington D.C. and Brussels represent most likely cases for lobby professionalization. Drawing on the academic literature that deals with the governance of professions, this paper comprises a comparative population study. Firstly, it asks how the two jurisdictions compare regarding the number, age, membership, and internal governance structures of the existing lobbyists’ associations. Secondly, it investigates how these bodies perform along three key functions that are defining for associations in traditional, more established professions, namely: (a) education and community-building, (b) professional self-regulation, and (c) political advocacy. Findings show significant differences between the EU and the US. On the one hand, the organizational landscape in Washington D.C. is richer and more varied compared to Brussels, not only in terms of the sheer number of associations dedicated to lobbying practitioners, but also their respective membership profiles and the services offered to paying members. On the other hand, US associations largely prioritize the development of training capabilities and other professional enrichment activities (such as mentorship schemes), whereas political advocacy on behalf of the profession is more central for their EU counterparts. These and other differences can be traced back to the different developmental paths that the lobbying profession has followed in the EU and the US, as well as the different patterns of institutional engagement between state actors and private interests in the two jurisdictions. The paper employs a qualitative methodology that combines document analysis and expert interviews. It adds to an evolving scholarly debate about the profession of lobbying and builds on a body of literature that contrasts interest group politics and lobbying in the EU and the US, which has repeatedly demonstrated how institutional and cultural conditions on the two sides of the Atlantic shape lobbying and lobbyists in different ways.