Agency of National Social Interest Groups in EU Multilevel Governance: The Case of the European Semester

This paper theorises and analyses how national-level social interest groups navigate the social practices and epistemic hierarchies of EU multilevel governance. Our case is that of EU economic governance, more specifically the European Semester process that scrutinizes and coordinates a broad range of national policies. This process has been notorious for its technocratic, closed-off character, even if the Commission has tried to enhance stakeholder participation, as well as for the prioritisation of economic over social objectives. With both national and EU-level aspects, the European Semester is a good case to study how national interest groups use both national and EU channels, and how they navigate the multilevel governance space. The paper aims to answer the following questions: What consultative practices and interpersonal interactions capacitate or constrain the influence of national social interest groups in the European Semester? How do social interest groups interpret, experience and navigate European Semester consultative processes? The paper focuses on three similar yet dissimilar country cases: Austria, Finland and Ireland. The analysis is based on a qualitative, interpretative study of semi-structured interviews (n=49) with national social interest groups and national and Commission officials. By social interest groups we refer to social partners and civil society organisations (CSOs) advocating for social concerns. We develop a novel, agency-centred way to conceptualise interest group engagement. Drawing on Claassen’s (2018) theory of agency, we conceptualise interest group representatives as embodied agents participating in and navigating the social practices of consultative processes and EU economic governance that shape their engagement. Conversely, we understand the role of public officials as capacitating or incapacitating participation. This framework situates stakeholders and public officials within a system of social practices that capacitates some social interests to participate in consultative arenas, yet illustrates how cognitive frameworks and epistemic hierarchies to limit agency. It centres experiential aspects of consultative processes and lobbying. We find that the European Commission’s consultative practices have capacitated social interest groups to engage with the European Semester, while national practices and the overall economic and technical character of the Semester were experienced as incapacitating. The microlevel of interactions between interest groups and EU and national officials, underpinned by epistemic frames held by individual officials, is crucial for capacitating and incapacitating the agency of social interest groups and affects institutional practices. Finally, we find that despite the difficult set-up, social interest groups do not merely participate in existing consultative practices; they enact forms of navigational agency that show their ability to navigate and potentially change existing practices.