Does civil society mobilisation reduce socioeconomic bias in EU policy debate? A study by Evelien Willems, Iskander De Bruycker, and Marcel Hanegraaff reveals that active engagement by civil society organisations narrows the representation gap for people of low socioeconomic status. This offers a promising path toward more inclusive EU policy-making
A persistent challenge in Western democracies is the unequal political representation of citizens from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Research shows consistently that policies tend to align more closely with the preferences of individuals from higher socioeconomic status (SES) groups than those from lower SES groups. Researchers have proposed several explanations for this bias. These include information and participation asymmetries among citizens, and the overrepresentation of privileged groups in parliaments.
Such bias is well documented at the national level. We know much less, however, about how it manifests in EU policy-making — and whether civil society mobilisation can help address these inequalities. Many factors contributing to unequal political representation at the national level are also present in the EU context, yet their effects may be even more pronounced.
A major challenge in EU policy-making is the substantial information gap between high- and low-SES citizens. Understanding the EU’s complex multi-level institutional structure and policy-making processes requires substantial political knowledge. Limited time, resources, or access to information all mean that low-SES citizens are less likely to possess such knowledge. Meanwhile, individuals from higher-SES backgrounds are overrepresented in EU institutions, from political leadership to expert advisory roles. The result is that the priorities of wealthier, more politically engaged citizens are much more likely to shape EU policy debates. The concerns of low-SES groups, meanwhile, receive less attention.
People from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are overrepresented in EU institutions, so the priorities of wealthier, more politically engaged citizens are much more likely to shape EU policy debates
To address this, our study published in West European Politics investigates whether citizens from lower SES groups are underrepresented in EU policy debates. It also examines whether civil society mobilisation can help bridge the gap.
CSOs are groups with political interests that operate outside the political system and the market. They include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), social movement organisations, labour unions, and grassroots activist groups, but exclude business associations and individual firms. CSOs act as a ‘transmission belt’ between elected officials and citizens. Studies show that they can help strengthen the connection between elected representatives, political decision-making, and the concerns of the broader public. However, certain scholars have contested the role of civil society in cultivating political (in)equality.
Some studies show that CSOs often align with the preferences of higher-SES citizens, partly because they tend to mobilise around post-materialist issues, such as the environment and human rights. Additionally, higher-SES individuals are more politically active, and likely to become CSO members. CSOs also tend to prioritise the preferences of privileged groups, because these groups are crucial for their long-term survival. These patterns suggest that civil society mobilisation may reinforce, rather than reduce, socioeconomic biases in representation.
Civil society organisations can give a voice to citizens with low socioeconomic status, and make it harder for elected officials to ignore their concerns
However, CSO mobilisation can also reduce information asymmetries by informing politicians about the concerns of citizens, including those from disadvantaged groups. CSOs can give a voice to low-SES citizens and make it harder for elected officials to ignore their concerns. This makes CSOs essential in reducing socioeconomic biases in EU policy debates. Given these opposing dynamics, our study analysed whether CSOs contribute to better representation for low-SES groups in EU policy debates.
We analysed 368 statements from elected officials in eight European news outlets on 13 EU policy issues, and combined this with data from expert surveys and Eurobarometer polls. Socioeconomic status we defined as a multidimensional concept reflecting an individual’s position within a social hierarchy. Our definition included factors like education, income, occupation, and access to resources.
We measured socioeconomic biases in representation by ‘congruence,’ or the positional alignment between elected officials’ statements and citizens’ preferences for each issue. First, we calculated the congruence between a politician’s position in media statements and those of high-, middle-, and low-SES groups. We then assessed the difference between high- and low-SES groups for each statement. We tracked CSO mobilisation through media analyses and expert surveys.
Citizens from lower SES groups are underrepresented by elected officials in EU policy debates
On average, a significant congruence gap exists between the positions of low-SES citizens and those of elected officials. A median gap of 8% indicates that lower-SES groups are underrepresented in EU policy debates. As the graph below shows, citizens from lower SES groups are underrepresented by elected officials in EU policy debates. Interestingly, the percentage is higher for representatives from Eurosceptic parties.
However, when CSOs mobilise, the congruence gap narrows, improving alignment between elected officials and the preferences of low-SES citizens. The second graph shows how CSOs align more closely with low-SES preferences than with those of high-SES groups. This underscores their role in reducing socioeconomic bias.
Predictive margins resulting from our regression analyses in the third graph reveal that without CSO activity, predicted bias stands at 14.3% when no CSOs were active. However, this percentage gap drops sharply to 3.6% when 65 CSOs were mobilised. This effect occurs across various policy areas, including environment, economy, trade, energy, and migration. And it remained consistent regardless of elected representatives’ left- or right-wing political leanings. Moreover, we cross-validated these results using data on EP plenary votes instead of positions expressed in the news, and included alternative measures of SES and CSO mobilisation, as detailed in our article's supplementary material, which further confirmed our findings.
Our research highlights how civil society mobilisation can reduce socioeconomic biases in EU policy debates. The results show that greater CSO engagement leads to better alignment between elected representatives and the preferences of low-SES citizens. This suggests that CSOs can help counterbalance the overrepresentation of high-SES groups in EU policy-making.
Our findings may focus on the EU, but they are relevant to other political systems. CSOs are crucial in connecting disadvantaged citizens with their elected representatives, and ensuring their voices are heard in policy debates.
