European Union Policy-making Research Articles

Clinton, Europe and Economic Diplomacy: What Makes the EU Different?

The Clinton administration's economic diplomacy has been more aggressive, politicized and controversial than that of any recent US administration. We examine its application to the European Union (EU) and seek to answer the question: what makes Europe different? Put another way, why has the US pursued cooperation on “behind‐the‐border” issues such as competition policy, standards and investment rules, and eschewed export promotion?We offer three explanations. First, the EU's market is unique: it is a mature, but lucrative one for large US‐owned firms concerned more with behind‐the‐border issues than with market access issues. Second, American companies who have invested heavily in Europe have developed their own political links to the EU, particularly through the EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce. Third, these same companies have a powerful influence over US policy towards Europe as well as EU policymaking. Our analysis develops these three hypotheses, and also offers an assessment of the progress and meaning of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue.

Who Gets What, When, and How? The Contested Conceptual and Disciplinary Nature of Governance and Policy-Making in the European Union

The present essay seeks to review state of the art literature in the field of European Union (EU) policy-making and governance. In studying the nature of governance in the contemporary Union disciplinary parsimony is of limited utility. Increasingly, disparate disciplines employ different models in order to describe, explain, and hopefully understand the nature of governance and policy-making in the EU. To arrive at ‘one’ model for studying the EU implies both disciplinary formalism and the fruition of an intellectual ‘endgame’. Alternative ‘views’ of EU governance – in the form of disparate models – are presented and critiqued. The essay begins with an assessment of policy networks, garbage can models, advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities. It sets out the main components of each model; then goes on to critique each model, and finally, makes a considered conclusion on the utility of each model as a tool for understanding the EU's policy process.

The European Union, expansion of policy-making, and defense industrial policy

While the Treaty of Rome allowed member states to establish policies governing the trade in and production of armaments at the national level, the European Union (EU) has gradually been expanding its influence in defense industry matters. This article traces the history of EU involvement in defense industrial policy, with an emphasis on events over the past decade. One significant finding is that the European Commission and Parliament have played key roles in expanding the EU's policy-making machinery to include defense industrial matters, while the Council of Ministers has tried to resist such actions. A second important conclusion is that the concept of spillover is particularly appropriate in describing how and why the EU's policy-making has expanded to include defense industrial policies.

The Committee of the Regions: an advisory body's tortuous path to influence

This analysis of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) sets out to assess the CoR's external impact and its internal impact since it began to function in 1994. The article addresses these questions in two parts. The first and main part focuses on the external impact of the CoR with particular emphasis on inter-institutional relations and its impact on European Union (EU) policy-making. This part is mainly based on empirical evidence from interviews with European Commission officials. The second part analyses the CoR's internal impact in terms of the interplay between its heterogeneous membership, its diverse political cultures and socialization among its members. The article concludes that while CoR's formal impact on EU policy outputs has been minimal, its real added-value lies in its unique resources which could have potentially important implications for both the subnational and supranational levels.

Partisanship and Party Formation in European Union Politics

The European Union (EU) will review its institutions during 1996 in the course of an intergovernmental conference. This conference will emphasize more explicitly than in the past the EU's political identity.' In light of the negative public fallout from the Maastricht Treaty ratification, concerns of political legitimacy, notably the issue of more power for the European parliament, will undoubtedly attract attention. This conference takes on added significance as the EU, having expanded its policy scope into areas once reserved for national governments, exhibits traits resembling those of state. Questions of legitimacy, on the one hand, and growing state-like properties, on the other, require an analysis that links these two political developments. Research on political development and regime legitimation has emphasized the role of political parties.2 Might there be connection between future EU integration and the organizational development of transnational parties? As calls for enhanced participation and legitimacy in the EU are raised, do transnational parties acquire greater salience than since their establishment in the 1970s? This article argues that the role of transnational parties in EU politics should be rethought. Although present party development may be seen as dependent variable of European integration,3 evidence of organizational innovation among transnational, notably Socialist and Christian Democratic, parties points to its growing relevance in the EU. Partisan perspectives in EU policymaking can both influence and legitimate further integration. Transnational party development has reached stage where it may begin to shift from being dependent to an independent variable in European integration. Analysis of European party politics requires attention to the institutional environment. A European political system has emerged, even if it is a partial polity, without an independent legitimacy or direct political authority.4 This Europolity does not operate along the lines of generic parliamentary system, nor is it clearly federal territorial entity. Nevertheless, EU institutions have developed logic and relationship to national actors that are more than epiphenomenal and in fact are part of an emerging system of European governance.5 Much as the institutional map of this system is unique, so too will be the role of transnational parties, which will approximate network coordinators within the institutional complexity of this Europolity.

European integration and democracy: the differences among member states

This article explores the impact of European integration on member states' particular formulae for democracy. It examines the differential responses of member states to the European Union (EU) institutional structures that, in being more federal than unitary and more a confusion of powers than a separation of such, have altered the balance of power among national institutions and weakened national governmental autonomy and control over national constituencies; and to the EU policy-making processes that, in being more pluralist than statist or corporatist, often clash with member state approaches to policy formulation and implementation and have served to alter the state-society relationship and even to reduce citizen participation in decision-making.

Industrial restructuring and EU-wide social measures: broader lessons of the ECSC experience

This article examines the lessons from the experience of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with regard to debates about managing the social consequences of industrial restructuring within the European Union (EU). In particular it looks at the implications for moves from sectoral to regional forms of intervention, and from short-term social palliatives to a long-term proactive approach. It suggests that these developments may produce new tensions and in some ways hamper attempts to address the social consequences of restructuring. It is pointed out that the need to address sectoral considerations continues implicitly to inform EU policy-making, not least - as the ECSC case illustrates - as a consequence of the social and political symbolism of sectoral readjustment.

Freedom of Movement vs. Exclusion: A Reinterpretation of the ‘Insider'-‘Outsider’ Divide in the European Union

"This article argues that the question of free movement vs. exclusion within the European Union (EU) can be addressed satisfactorily only if we move away from the narrow state-centrism inherent in the current debate. What is required is to 'open' the state concept and examine the implications of state-society relations for EU policy making. Once this is done, it can be seen that the exclusionist stance of the immigration policy and the essentially intergovernmental nature of the policy making are due to an implicit contract between states and constituents implied by the concepts of nationality and citizenship. According to this perspective, the focus on the state or the political elite alone is too one-sided and misses the more complex factors bearing upon EU policy making in this area."