Studying the role of lawyers specialising in competition law, this paper shows that they are essential intermediaries between the European administrative field and the private sector. Using both qualitative (interviews and archives) and quantitative (database) methods, it demonstrates that intermediation activities developed in the late 1980s with the arrival of American law firms, which exported their working methods to Europe. This led to a fierce competition between law firms, which tried to recruit from inside the European Commission. Circulation between the European institutions started to be common and slowly became regulated, a process that gave it legitimacy. While new activities developed for a part of the legal profession, most notably lobbying and intermediation activities, lawyers contributed to blurring the border between the public and the private sphere at the European level. The importance of circulation between the administrative sphere and law firms and the embeddedness between the public and the private sector are thus incentives for overcoming institutional frontiers when studying the European field of power. Because circulation facilitates the development of social networks, common practices, and shared representations, it is essential to maintaining coherence within this ‘weak field’.
This article examines the inner workings of a private company’s participation in the European policy game. The qualitative analysis shows that the promotion of a company’s interests and its positioning at the level of the European Union is not self-evident and results from internal battles in which European public affairs employees play a pivotal role. Under what conditions do the European public affairs employees of a leading multinational firm endorse, manage, and promote an active position in the Brussels’ polity sphere? This article highlights the process by which these ‘professionals of Europe’ adapt to the specific requirements of the EU and mobilise an informal network to contribute to European policy-making. These lobbyists appear as ‘double entrepreneurs’: as entrepreneurs on behalf of both their employers’ interests and the European cause as they place themselves as the auxiliaries of EU civil servants. Maintaining a delicate balance, interest representatives occupy a position of dependence, both on their employer and on the polity field in which they valorise their ‘European institutional capital’. This position allows these social agents to serve as a broker between their employer and the European arena. In doing so, they nurture the porosity between (economic) interests and the public sector, which cuts across the field of ‘Eurocracy’.