chapter 18+19 decisionmaking Flashcards
EU policy actors
- those associated with the EU institutions
- those associated with the gov. of the member states
- those with Euro-level and national-level non-institutional and non-gov. interests
!EU policy process is variable and fluid -> nature responsibilities/roles can differ acc to circumstances
EMU major policy actors
- Ecofin Council of Ministers = outlines EU macroeconomic policy + some EMU responsibilities
- Eurogroup: Ministers of Finance, convenes monthly to discuss eurozone interests (euro crisis -> Eurogroup main crisis management institution)
- European Council: Heads of Gov and state makes broad outlines
- Euro Summit: twice annually, but usually when necessary = Eurozone leaders
- ECB: manage eurozone monetary policy, has strayed into fiscal policy
- European Commission: policy reports and recommendations + eco surveillance
- Economic and Financial Committee of the Council: all aspects EU eco. and monetary policies
- EP: few powers in relation to EMU, range of consultation and information-receiving rights
EU policy channels vary in:
- complexity and exhaustiveness
- relative importance of EU, MS, and subnational processes and in the links between these levels
- in their levels of seniority
- in their degree of formality and structure
factors determining EU policy processes
- the treaty base
- proposed status of the matter under consideration (procedures more fixed when EU law is envisaged than when it is not)
- Council + Council and EP legislation = full legislative procedure
- Commission legislation = less review and discussion (bc legislation is normally administrative V amendments/applications/updates)
- no law making => often: Council resolutions, declarations, agreements, conclusions (no legal instruments, big political/policy impact) - degree of generality or specificity of the policy issue (EU policy-making may consist of little more than exchanges of ideas + seeing if there is common ground)
- newness, importance, controversiality, or political sensitivity of the issue in question
- balance of policy responsibilities between the EU and national levels (determines the scope of activity at the EU level)
- (perceptions of) circumstances
- e.g. AFSJ (area of freedom, security and justice): in the 80s intergov. -> now more powers: EU enlargement (-> more concerns border controls) + increase threat of internatoinal terrorism = communitarisation AFSJ
four frameworks of EU policy processes
- The Community method
- intensive transgovernmentalism
- open coordination
- centralised decision-making
based on (Paul Magnette):
- degree of involvement of institutions independent of gov.
- decision-making rules in the Council
- legal character of many decisional outcomes
the Community Method
1950s
!now declining importance (other frameworks have come into use + enlargement (-> more flexible policy processes) + MS suspicion that supranational institution over-used the method as it works in their favor)
“Commission proposes, Parliament advises (on a restricted range of matters), Council disposes (decides), and the Court adjudicates’’
- to avoid paralysing effects intergov. decision-making + to ensure national ultimate control
two important changes:
- extension EP powers since the mid-1980s: now a co-decision-maker with the Council where the Community method is used (90% EU law)
-> Commission-Council-EP triangle - extension QMV ability Council
key features:
- Commission takes policy lead + has monopolistic power over the drafting and tabling of legislative proposals
- Council is always final decision-maker, by itself or with the EP + QMV is often but not always available for decision-making
- EP normally has co-decision-making powers with the Council (ordinary legislative procedure), when this power is absent the EP still needs to be consulted before final decision
- EU’s courts have final jurisdiction over all EU legislation
intensive transgovernmentalism
= national gov. are key actors + decisions require unanimity + many decisional outcomes don’t involve making laws
- European Council and/or Council of Minsiters are the sole decision-makers
first used in the early 70s: EC foreign policy cooperation (sovereignty sensitivity -> community method not suitable: cooperation rather than integration)
use has grown: intergov. cooperation -> intensive transgovernmentalism (constantly ongoing interactions)
*use e.g. in ‘history-making’ decisions + foreign policy
key features:
- right of policy initiation also by MS gov (so not exclusive to the Commission)
- EP weak consultative position
- focus on cooperation govs rather than on law-making
- gov. interact intensive
- decisions are made by European Council or the Council of Ministers by unanimity
open method of coordination
= OMC (Open Method of Coordination)
- 90s, somewhere in between community method and intergov. cooperation
- originally: macroecon. (Broad Ecnomic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) + employment policy
- Lisbon Treaty: OMC for Lisbon Strategy (make econ. more competitive, dynamic and knowledge based)
*main disadvantage: voluntary nature -> gov. not legally bound -> might not implement
*advantage: policy remains national responsibility, national diversity respected, gov. may agree to commit (would not accept stricter/mandatory policy instruments)
key features:
- Council (unanimity) sets out broad policy goals and guidelines (don’t have legal status, have voluntary nature)
- MS draw up national action plans on how they will achieve the goals
- MS submit reports on progress to the Commission and the Council
(reporting can be burdensome, esp. for small member states) - Commission: important role assisting with and monitoring OMC activities (reports that encourage/pressure achterlopers)
centralised decision-making
= supranational institutions extermely strong + relatively independent powers
areas where de-politicization was deemed necessary
in two main policy areas:
- competition: Commission big powers, is always lobbied
- eurozone monetary policy: ECB important role interest and exchange rate
Recurring Characteristics of EU Policy Processes
6
- variable institutional roles and powers
- compromises and linkages
- inter-institutoinal cooperation
- difficulties in effecting radical change
- tactical manoeuvring
- different speeds
variable institutional roles and powers
roles and powers EU institutions and political actors varies between policy processes and policy areas
- making legislation: institutional triangle Commission-Council-EP
precise distribution of powers differs with what is proposed and what procedure applies
compromises and linkages
competing interests -> success policy dev. depends on willingness to compromise
- Linking issues in ‘package deals’ = ensures that there are prices and costs for everybody, rather than just for a few
!European Council crucial role in constructing overarching deals, bc EU as a whole is ill-adapted to linking diff. policy areas and construction complex package deals
much EU policy-making and decision-making tends to be compartmentalised
inter-institutional cooperation
three crucial types of cooperation:
- intra-institutional cooperation
- inter-institutional cooperation
- inter-level cooperation between EU and member state actors
functioning EU is highly reliant on inter-institutional cooperation
- there are also disagreements between EU institution, but this should not be over-exaggerated
inter-institutional cooperation has grown as policy activities have grown + policy processes have become more complex and numerous
- more informal contact officials Commission, Council and EP
- more formal tripartite meetings (meetings between representatives
- even more formal: inter-institutional agreements to regularise, clarify, and generally facilitate inter-institutional relations
ordinary legislative procedure = stimulus ‘cultural change’ relations EP-Council-Commission: they must work closely together
- encourage compromise text at early legislative stage
- Council increased need to be sensitive to EP views
- trialogue meetings vital feature EU law-making
- promoted informal exchanges
!figures on proportions of final legislation that are ‘attributable’ to each of the Commission, Council, EP should be treated with care: they can’t measure dynamics of inter-institutionalism
difficulties in effecting radical change
EU policy- and decision-making often displays gradualism and incrementalism
- partly bc compromises
ambitious proposals can’t be expected to be adopted without significant modification
some obstacles to innovation and radical change have increased over the years
- way forward not as clear as in the 60s (then: specific treaty obligations were honoured + ‘negative integration’ (dismantling barriers and encouraging trade liberalisation))
- EU has become more politically and ideologically heterogeneous (enlargement + Keynesian consensus no longer exists)
- policy dev. has created/attached interests that have a stake in the status quo
!!still: change does occur, obstacles to change ensure that policy innovation is likely to meet resistance
tactical manoeuvring
EU multiplicity of actors + diversity of interests -> tactical manoeuvring and jovkeying for position especially apparent in the EU
e.g. national representatives need to consider tactical options:
- can a coalition be built to create a positive majority or a negative minority? should it be done via bilateral pre-meetings or in an EU forum?
- is it necessary for domestic political purposes , to formally note dissent on a proposal to which the gov. is opposed?
- where is the balance between being seen to tough in defence of national interest and being seen to European-minded