ABSTRACT
Survey results (in Chapter 1) indicate a number of significant differences between Euro groups representing the professions, and those of other interests. The lowest response rate to the survey was experienced from groups representing the professions (45 per cent – thirty-one groups). Whilst the low number of replies received makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions, analysis of results indicates that groups representing the professions have a higher proportion of organisations with a turnover of less than 50,000 ECU (43 per cent – nine organisations), and less than two staff members (27 per cent – eight), than any other type of interest. This context partly helps explain the lower response rate. Groups representing the professions formed later, and came to Brussels later, than did business groups; and they are less likely to have a Brussels base than are any other category of interest. Unlike the rest of the constituency of Euro groups, the UK, after Brussels, is the most important base for European-level professional associations, accounting for 25 per cent (seventeen) of all of those listed in the 1995 European Public Affairs Directory (Landmarks Publications, 1994), and the 1992 Commission Directory (European Commission, 1991a). Taken together, these factors indicate a lack of strength of European-level organisation for interests representing the professions. There are a number of explanations for this weakness: the limited demand for use of the single market by the service based professions, including professional mobility across member states; the difficulties of finding common issues which impact across the variety of professional interests; the lower level of EU competencies over professional life in comparison with other fields; the relative lack of institutional incentives upon professional interests to organise and develop at the European level, particularly in comparison with other domains such as social and citizen interests; and extreme differences in the relationship between the state and the professions between member states; and, relatedly, differences of national traditions of organisation and development of the professions. These factors deeply influence the pattern and logic of collective action issues at the European level, and in comparison with other interests analysed in this book, make the professions something of an exception. Collective action amongst professional interests displays greater difficulties than for any other interest domain we analyse in this collection. Indeed, perhaps an alternative starting point to observing the weakness of interest representation for the professions at the European level is to register surprise that European-level groups in this domain number more than a handful.
