Resource dependence theory 38

The theoretical framework that is evolved for this research project is based on the resource dependence theory developed by Aldrich and Pfeffer (1976: 83-85), Pfeffer and Salancik (1978: 40-42), and White (1974: 367-69). Their studies are the first works which deal with the dependency of organisations on their environment. With their analyses, they wanted to shed light on the interrelation of American interest groups and the US government. The scientists were interested in how and why organisations choose a particular actor for cooperation. In this section, first of all, Aldrich’s, Pfeffer’s, and Salanciks’ conception of a resource dependence model is depicted followed by more recent adaptations of the model.

According to Aldrich, Pfeffer, White, and Salancik, organisations are not capable of generating all the resources needed for the maintenance of their duties. To overcome their shortcomings, they have to co-operate with private actors that control the demanded resources. The more resources they require, the more receptive they are towards their environment. Resource providers, in turn, can respond to the demand of the organisations. Referring to White (1974: 367), these resources include skills, knowledge, materials, equipment, and customers. Sticking to the language of the dependence theory, both terms, resources and access goods, are used synonymously in the following analysis.

The demand of resources and the provision of resources determine whether cooperation between the organisation and an actor from the environment takes place and, consequently, affects the influence of an actor. In other words, a resource provider is more likely to co- operate with an organisation that is receptive to the offered access good. In this context, the authors claim that the more an organisation is reliant on the resources and the less actors within the environment provide this particular access good, the more durable the relationship between both actors will be. In that case the authors speak of a reciprocal interdependence. If, on the contrary, an organisation can select a suitable access good provider from a pool of suppliers, the relationship is dependent on the organisation’s perception and, consequently, less durable.

3.3.2 Previous adaptations to the EU system

Bouwen (2002), Greenwood et al. (1992), and Princen and Kerremans (2008) have adapted the original resource dependence theory to the political system of the EU – transforming the organisations to EU institutions and replacing the former environment of the organisations by interest groups. Against this background, Greenwood et al. (1992) depict the relation between the institutions and interest groups as follows. The more authority an EU institution possesses in a certain field, the more interest groups try to access it. At the same time, they argue that institutions with a high degree of authority do strongly depend on the external provision with resources. With regards to the interest group’s opportunity structures, Princen and Kerremans (2008: 1131) suggest that they are exogenous because the group which provides a certain access good has no influence on the kind of resources the institution requires and it is not guaranteed that policy-makers make use of the provided resources. Nevertheless, the authors admit that an interest group that is able to generate essential expertise about a certain issue becomes less replaceable.

Translating this in relation to the resource dependence theory, one can say that the interdependence between a certain EU institution and a particular interest group determines the exchange conditions for both actors and, thus, affects the influence of an interest group. The more dependent an institution is on the access good an interest group provides, the more likely it is that this institution takes into consideration the recommendation of the respective group. Hence, the quality of the resource and the responsiveness of the respective EU institution determine the interrelation between institution and resource supplier. It is most durable if both actors offer something of value to each other (Princen and Kerremans 2008: 1134). However, the benefits are not necessarily equally distributed.

Bouwen (2002: 369) describes access goods as informative and classifies them into expert knowledge, information about European encompassing interests, and information about domestic encompassing interests. Expert knowledge, thereby, comprises expertise and know- how about which legislation is most suitable in a certain policy area. Information about European and domestic encompassing interests inform about issues in certain European or domestic sectors. Those access goods are critical in EU policy-making. Taking into consideration information about encompassing interests fosters the EU’s input legitimacy, whereas expert knowledge increases the EU’s ability to encounter problems efficiently and effectively and, thus, fosters its output legitimacy.

What kind of information is required differs among the various institutions and between the stages of the decision-making process. Bouwen (2002: 379-81; 2004: 476-78) argues that while the Commission is dependent on additional expertise from private actors, the Parliament needs information on European interests, whereas the Council, in turn, requires information on domestic interests. Princen and Kerremans (2008: 1134) reply to this suggestion that all institutions require all kinds of information at some point. They are dependent on expert knowledge during the drafting stage and require information about encompassing interests during the decision-making stage because the decisions need to be legitimised by the public.

To summarise, it can be said that the EU institutions, rather than being self-sufficient bodies, are dependent on information resources from interest groups. But only if an interest group is able to produce the information required by the policy-makers, will they be open for collaboration. However, which institution requires what form of information at what time has not been conclusively clarified yet. Following up these recent adaptations of the resource

dependence theory, in the next sections a framework is conceptualised that fits the shaping process of the EU asylum and migration policy.

3.4 Adapting the theory to the research purpose: Resource interdependence between EU