Transcript Key Features of EU Policy Processes

Key Features of EU Policy
Processes
A straightforward ‘standard’ policy-making
system was set out in the EEC Treaty
• The Commission proposes
• The Parliament advises….(on a restricted range of matters)
• The Council decides….(almost invariably by unanimity)
• The Court adjudicates
A highly complex and varied system now
exists, as witnessed by:
• Its great number of policy- and decision-making
processes
• Its mixture of intergovernmentalism and
supranationalism: with the ‘balance’ constantly disputed.
• Its multi-actor character – EU institutions, national
actors, interests – in which the formal roles and powers
of actors vary between policy areas.
• Its multi-level nature: EU, national, sub-national.
• Its multi-speed and increasingly differentiated character.
Making sense of the complexity
Paul Magnette suggests the use of three criteria helps us
to distinguish between, but also to identify the persistence
of, distinct policy-making patterns:
- the degree of involvement of institutions that are
independent of government;
- the decision-making rules in the Council;
- the legal character of decisional outcomes.
These three criteria are usually related, and result in three
broad policy processes:
The three main policy processes
1: The Community Method
Based on an institutional triangle in which usually:
- the Commission formally takes the policy lead;
- QMV is available in the Council;
- the EP has the power of co-decision.
Where law is being made, decisions are subject to ECJ
jurisdiction.
The EU’s Law Making Procedures
European Council
Court of Justice
Commission
‘Political’ and ‘significant’ legislation
‘Administrative’ legislation
Committees
European
Parliament
Council of
Ministers
Management
Regulatory
Advisory
Direct
action
Legislation is adopted in one of three forms: directives, regulations, decisions.
The three main policy processes
2: Intergovernmental Cooperation
- Commission’s role is less significant eg does not
have exclusive initiation powers;
- decisions are not subject to ECJ jurisdiction;
- applies mainly in those highly sensitive policy
areas in which sovereignty questions arise:
foreign, defence, justice.
The three main policy processes
3: Open Method of Coordination (OMC)
- It has become important in recent years as the EU has sought to find
a middle way in policy areas where intergovernmental cooperation is
seen to be too weak but where preservation of independence is still
desired.
- EU decision-makers identify policy goals, but pursue them not via
compulsive regulation but via a variety of ‘gentler’ methods.
- Essentially, it involves attempts to coordinate national policies with
soft law instruments and mechanisms, such as peer review,
benchmarking, league tables.
- Applies to much of the Lisbon programme.
A fourth policy process?
• To the three ‘standard’ policy processes, a fourth can be
added: central regulation.
• This exists where supranational institutions have not
only independent implementation functions but also strong
decision-making functions: usually because of a perceived
need to ‘de-politicise’ decision-making. The clearest
examples are the Commission’s competition powers and
the ECB’s monetary powers.
• Note, the new independent agencies, such as the EFSA
and the EEA, do not have strong executive powers. They
are mostly concerned with tasks such as informationgathering and promoting coordination.
Differentiation
1: the bases of differentiation
• Differentiation – policy development with not all member states
fully involved – has been much discussed in recent years, not
least because of enlargement and the difficulties with the
Constitutional Treaty.
• However, differentiation has long featured in the EU, most
notably through Schengen, EMU, and defence cooperation.
• The Nice Treaty made differentiation easier to operationalise.
• Enlargement makes increased differentiation likely because
there are now not only more member states but also much
greater variations between states in terms of their objective
requirements, their political preferences, and their economic,
political and administrative capacities.
Differentiation
2: factors favourable to differentiation
• Variations in national preferences
• Variations in national capacities
• Characteristics of policies:
• not part of SEM core
• significant sovereignty implications
• of particular rather than general interest
Differentiation
3: forms of differentiation
• Differentiation can take different forms: multi-speed;
à la carte; overlapping circles; concentric circles. Up
to the present, only mild versions of the first two
have occurred.
• The cross-cutting nature of differences between EU25 states suggests that the concentric circles route –
with semi-permanent inner and outer cores – is most
unlikely.
• However, some further modest development of the
first three versions of differentiation is likely –but the
extent that this is sought or is likely should not be
exaggerated: note, for example, the tight restrictions
on derogations in the accession negotiations.
Differentiation
4: directoires
• In the context of differentiation, much is now
heard of the possible emergence of an EU
directoire or directoires.
• A single directoire is not possible, partly
because ‘outsiders’ would resist it and partly
because of the nature of internal divisions.
• Directoires of a loose sort may, however, be
possible in a few policy areas: EMU ?; JHA?;
CFSP and ESDP?
New Modes of Governance
1: What is the ‘new governance?
• The so-called ‘new governance’ has impacted widely on
national public policy and administration since the mid1980s. It has increasingly impacted on the EU since the
early 1990s. It involves:
• Less emphasis on traditional, ‘top down’, hierarchical,
legislation-based forms of operation.
• Use of more flexible, often network-based, and
essentially voluntary forms of policy development and
practice.
New Modes of Governance
2: Forms of new governance
European agencies: extensively involved
in information gathering and in making
policy recommendations, but have few
executive powers.
The open method of coordination
(discussed above)
New Modes of Governance
3: Advantages and disadvantages of new
governance approaches
• The main advantage is that it permits policy to
be developed in areas where states would be
very reluctant if compulsion and EU law were
involved.
• The main disadvantage is that voluntarism and
non binding mechanisms are not always
effective.
Are EU policy processes efficient?
Arguably, there are too many ‘checks’ in the system:
- the Commission must propose;
- differences around the Council table, and use of unanimity for
many of the most contentious issues;
- the heterogeneity of EU membership, and the need for
support by a majority of the EU’s members on many
important matters;
- majorities in the Council and EP are constructed on
different bases: one ‘national’, the other more ‘ideological.
But, policy processes cannot be too
inefficient:
• Witness the enormous policy advances since the
mid-1980s: the (ongoing) single market
programme, EMU, enlargement, and JHA.
• Many of the so-called policy failures – such as
with CAP reform, the Lisbon Process, and CFSP
– are a consequence not so much of
weaknesses in policy and decision-making
systems as deep differences over what should
be done.
The key characteristic of EU policy
processes: compromise
• Institutional interdependency coupled with the multiplicity of actors
means EU policy-making processes are characterised, perhaps
above all, by compromise.
• Within institutions: witness, for example: a) the reluctance to vote in
the College and in the Council, and the constant searches to get
beyond the bare majority; b) the need for political groups in the EP
to forge deals if majorities are to be obtained.
• Between institutions: witness, for example: a) the Commission
anticipating reactions when it launches initiatives; b) the willingness
of the Council and the EP to be accommodating during legislative
processes – very few proposals completely fail.
• But, compromise can produce weaker policies than are ‘ideally
desirable’.