The Art of Influence: Lobbying in Washington, Brussels, and The Hague
During workshops and lectures I give on lobbying, I’m often asked about the similarities and differences among the places where I have been active as a public affairs professional: Washington, Brussels, and The Hague.
My standard answer to this question is that the greatest similarity is that lobbying enhances democratic decision-making. This holds true no matter the country or continent. I then elaborate on the aspects that contribute to this “enhancement” and discuss the distinct differences in these three democracies. Entire theoretical books could be written on these similarities and differences. However, this contribution is limited to a general comparison in terms of: 1. political systems, 2. culture, 3. the role of financial resources, and 4. the tools employed. Inevitably, this will result in some unintentional generalizations—but that, in turn, provides an excellent basis for further questions…
1. Political Systems and Institutional Context
A fundamental difference between lobbying in Washington, Brussels, and The Hague lies in the structure of the political systems. In the United States, the two-party political system is more personalized and focused on Congress. Lobbyists often target individual members of Congress or their staff. The two-party system makes strategic alliances crucial, and policymaking is often a prolonged process where lobby groups are involved at every stage of legislation. Grassroots lobbying from members’ home states is a standard approach and characteristic of the U.S.
In Brussels, as the political center of the European Union, decision-making is more complex and multilayered. Here, lobbyists interact with multiple institutions, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the EU. Decision-making is less personalized and more consensus-driven among member states and institutions. Lobbyists must convince not only the Commission of their position but also garner support from national governments and Members of the European Parliament.
The Netherlands, with its tradition of the “polder model” and consensus politics, offers yet another dynamic. Lobbying often focuses on parliament, particularly the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer), and ministries. The Dutch political system is pluralistic, with a multitude of parties forming coalitions. This requires an approach aimed at collaboration and bridging ideological differences. Direct contact with MPs and civil servants is crucial, but the civil society also plays an important role. Increasingly, indirect influence, for example through the media, is necessary to shape policy.
2. Cultural Dimensions of Lobbying
Cultural differences play a key role in how lobbying is approached. In the United States, lobbying is a more accepted part of the political landscape. It is seen as an extension of participatory democracy. This openness has led to a professional and highly regulated industry, where transparency—such as public lobbying registries—is a key component. However, the reputation of lobbyists is worse in the U.S. than in the EU or the Netherlands.
In Brussels, the culture surrounding lobbying is more diffuse. While lobbying is recognized as an integral part of policymaking, there is somewhat less trust due to the complex decision-making system and perceived influence of large corporations. Efforts to increase transparency, such as the introduction of the EU Transparency Register, have been inspired by Washington’s example.
In the Netherlands, the culture around lobbying is more pragmatic but less professionally structured compared to the U.S. Lobbyists often operate within informal networks or influence policy along institutionalized lines, such as through the “polder model.” While this makes policymaking more accessible, it can appear less transparent than in Washington or Brussels, occasionally resulting in public distrust.
3. Lobbying and the Role of Money
Financial resources play a crucial role in lobbying practices. In the United States, the sums involved in lobbying activities are immense. Companies and interest groups invest billions in lobbying and election campaigns. Financial resources often determine the effectiveness of lobbying, for example, through political donations to campaigns or large-scale media campaigns.
In Brussels, financial resources are also significant but less directly visible. Companies and organizations invest in experts, research, and events to strengthen their message. Financing is focused on building long-term relationships and creating policy networks.
In the Netherlands, the influence of financial resources is more limited. Here, lobbying effectiveness is not necessarily proportional to an organization’s budget. The Dutch political culture values substance over style and places less emphasis on large-scale campaigns. Persuasion often relies more on arguments and substantive expertise than on financial clout, although changes in this regard have been observed in recent years.
4. Differences in Tools and Approaches
The tools employed by lobbyists vary significantly and are shaped by context. In the United States, political campaigns are key instruments for lobbyists. They use extensive datasets, research, and targeted media campaigns to influence public opinion and policymakers.
In Brussels, the focus is on technical expertise and participation in committees and working groups. Position papers, conferences, and consultations are vital tools. The complex decision-making process requires a strategic and long-term approach.
In the Netherlands, tools are often more personal and informal, with very limited budgets. Lobbyists actively engage in dialogue with politicians and civil servants, organize site visits, write letters to parliamentary committees, and hold discussions with officials. Civil society and interest groups, such as trade unions, also play an active role. Part of this is institutionalized within the polder model, though its importance is diminishing for lobbyists.
All lobby is local!
For organizations and multinational companies lobbying in multiple markets, it is essential to tailor their strategy to the local context. In the United States, this means investing in well-connected lobbyists and extensive media campaigns, supported by substantial budgets. Transparency and compliance with lobbying regulations are crucial for maintaining credibility.
In Brussels, a detailed understanding of the complex EU decision-making system is necessary. Lobbying organizations and companies focus on collaboration with other interest groups and sharing their expertise through technical reports and consultations. Building long-term relationships with policymakers and adhering to the EU Transparency Register are important.
In the Netherlands, the emphasis is generally on direct contact with politicians and civil servants, combined with a strong substantive message. The informal nature of lobbying requires a long-term, personal approach based on a solid understanding of the social context.
Customized Strategy
Internationally operating organizations and companies would benefit from developing a multi-market lobbying strategy if policy issues arise in multiple political markets. Such a strategy should align with the unique characteristics and culture of the policymaking context in each country. This may include:
- Context-specific teams: assemble teams with expertise in the specific political and cultural context of Washington, Brussels, and the Netherlands.
- Investing in relationships: build, secure, and manage sustainable relationships with policymakers at both national and supranational levels.
- Transparency and compliance: ensure compliance with local regulations and maximize transparency to build trust.
- Focus on substance: combine financial resources with strong substantive arguments and technical expertise (“thought leadership”).
- Flexibility and collaboration: work with other organizations and interest groups to amplify influence.
By integrating these approaches across markets, organizations and companies can navigate diverse political systems in parallel, contributing to responsible and sustainable policymaking.
Conclusion
While lobbying in Washington, Brussels, and the Netherlands serves the same goal—shaping policy—the methods and cultures differ significantly. The U.S. model is characterized by systemic integration and financial dominance, whereas Brussels emphasizes complexity and technical expertise. The Netherlands offers a more informal and pragmatic approach that can appear less transparent.
For multinational companies, this means tailoring their strategies to the local context, desired content, and collaboration. A focus on transparency remains central, with consistent messaging across lobbying arenas. Only by doing so can organizations effectively and ethically advocate for their interests in an increasingly complex world.
"All lobby is local!"
Public matters