Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:05:46.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Union governance in the shadow of contradicting ideas: the decoupling of policy ideas and policy instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2012

Eva G. Heidbreder
Eva G. Heidbreder*
Affiliation:
Hertie School of Governance, Friedrichstraße, Berlin, Germany
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The institutional architecture of the European Union is based on two fundamentally competing ideas: supranational rule and national sovereignty. These two underlying ideas are not reconcilable and work at different levels in the background of the policy debate. While on the normative level public sentiments remain strongly linked to the idea of state autonomy, on the cognitive level the paradigm of a functional necessity to cooperate is decisive for actual policy making. Only in some policy domains, such as the single market program, have policy-makers attempted to re-couple normative and cognitive ideas. In contrast to this, the central argument is that policy-makers mostly adhere to an alternative strategy: the systematic decoupling of normative and cognitive ideas. Focusing on public administration, it is shown how deft policy instrumentation allows actors to realize program ideas that satisfy demands for increased supranational governance. At the same time, however, these instruments are in dissonance with how policies are framed against the background of public sentiments that assume domestic bureaucratic independence.

Keywords

European administrative spaceEU integrationpolicy ideaspolicy instrumentspublic administration
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 133 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bignami, F. (2004), ‘Foreword’, Law and Contemporary Problems 68(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Brunsson, N. (1989), The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organisations, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.L. (1998), ‘Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy’, Theory and Society 27(3): 377–409.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.L. (2002), ‘Ideas, politics, and public policy’, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 21–38.Google Scholar
Cassese, S. (2004), ‘European administrative proceedings’, Law and Contemporary Problems 68(1): 21–36.Google Scholar
Chiti, E. (2004), ‘Administrative proceedings involving European agencies’, Law and Contemporary Problems 68(1): 219–236.Google Scholar
Commission européénne (2010), ‘L'opinione publique dans l'Unione européenne’. Eurobarometre 72. Rapport: Automne 2009.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2007), ‘Presidency conclusions’. Brussels European Council 21/22 June. 11177/07: CONCL 2.Google Scholar
Dehousse, R. (1998), The European Court of Justice, Houndsmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Demmke, C.Bossaert, D. (2006), ‘Europeanisation through informal cooperation: the case of EPAN’, Eipascope (Special Issue): 53–56. Retrieved from http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/eipascope/Scopo6_2e_10.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dimitrova, A.L. (2002), ‘Enlargement, institution-building and the EU's administrative capacity requirement’, West European Politics 25(4): 171–190.Google Scholar
Dimitrova, A.L. (2005), ‘Europeanization and civil service reform in Central and Eastern Europe’, in F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier (eds), The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Egeberg, M.Trondal, J. (2011), ‘National agencies in the European administrative space: government driven, commission driven or networked?’, Public Administration 87(4): 779–790.Google Scholar
European Council (1995), ‘Presidency Conclusions’. European Council Meeting in Madrid, December 15 and 16, SN0040095EN.Google Scholar
European Council (2007), ‘Treaty of Lisbon: Amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community’. Official Journal of the European 50: C306.Google Scholar
European Council (2008), ‘50th meeting of Directors-General Responsible for Public Administration: conclusions on the future of EUPAN’. Slovenian Presidency, May 28 and 29, Brdo.Google Scholar
European Union Public Administration Network (EUPAN) (2008), ‘Final report of the task force on the future of EUPAN’. French Presidency of the European Council, Retrieved 30 November 2008 from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2601900/TASK-FORCE-ON-THE-FURTHER-OF-EUPANGoogle Scholar
Farrell, H.Héritier, A. (2007), ‘Conclusion: evaluating the forces of interstitial institutional change’, West European Politics 30(2): 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N.Mara-Drita, I. (1996), ‘How to make a market: reflections on the attempt to create a single market in the European Union’, American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Galetta, D.-U. (2010), Procedural Autonomy of EU Member States: Paradise Lost?, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Heidbreder, E.G. (2011a), The Impact of Expansion on EU Institutions, New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
Heidbreder, E.G. (2011b), ‘Structuring the European administrative space: policy instruments of multi-level administration’, Journal of European Public Policy 18(5): 709–726.Google Scholar
Heidbreder, E.G. (forthcoming), ‘Why Money Can't Buy Democracy: On the Detachment of the Euro from EU Citizenship’, in G. Moro (ed.), The Other Side of the Coin: The Single Currency and European Citizenship, London: Continum publishers, Chapter 8.Google Scholar
Héritier, A. (1999), Policy-Making and Diversity in Europe: Escape from Deadlock (Theories of Institutional Design), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hix, S. (2008), ‘The EU as a New Political System’, in D. Caramani (ed.) Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 573–601.Google Scholar
Hix, S.Noury, A.G. (2009), ‘After enlargement: voting patterns in the sixth European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(2): 159–174.Google Scholar
Hofmann, A.Türk, A. (2006), ‘Policy implementation’, in A. Hofmann and A. Türk (eds), EU Administrative Governance, Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 74–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, H.C.H. (2009), ‘Seven challenges for EU administrative law’, in K.J. de Graaf, J.H. Jans, A. Prechal and R.J.G.M. Widdershoven (eds), Review of European Administrative Law: Top Down and Bottom-up. Proceedings of the First REALaw Research Forum, Vol. 2. Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L.Marks, G. (2009), ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus’, British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Keeler, J.T.S. (2005), ‘Mapping EU studies: the evolution from boutique to boom field 1960–2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies 43(3): 551–582.Google Scholar
Kumm, M. (2008), ‘Why Europeans will not embrace constitutional patriotism’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 6(1): 117–136.Google Scholar
Lascoumes, P.Le Gales, P. (2007), ‘Introduction: understanding public policy through its instruments – from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation’, Governance 20(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Lipson, M. (2007), ‘Peacekeeping: organized hypocrisy?’, European Journal of International Relations 13(1): 5–34.Google Scholar
Mair, P (2007), ‘Political opposition and the European Union’, Government and Opposition 42(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (2006), ‘Federation, confederation, and mixed government: a EU–US comparison’, in A. Menon and M. Schain (eds), Comparative Federalism: The European Union and the United States in Comparative Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–148.Google Scholar
Mangenot, M. (ed.) (2005), Public Administrations and Services of General Interest: What Kind of Europeanisation?, Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
Maurer, A. (2007), ‘Die Verhandlungen zum Reformvertrag’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 43: 3–8.Google Scholar
Meyer, J.W.Rowan, B. (1977), ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.Google Scholar
Meyer-Sahling, J.-H. (2009), ‘Sustainability of Civil Service Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe Five Years after EU Accession’. SIGMA Paper: No. 44. GOV/SIGMA (2009)1.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2002), ‘In defence of the “democratic deficit”: reassessing legitimacy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 603–624.Google Scholar
Nizzo, C. (2001), ‘National Public Administrations and European Integration’. SIGMA. Retrieved 14 March 2009 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan007286.pdf.Google Scholar
Painter, M.Peters, B.G. (2010), ‘Administrative traditions in comparative perspective: families, groups and hybrids’, in M. Painter and B.G. Peters (eds), Tradition and Public Administration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
Pinder, J. (2007), ‘Altiero Spinelli's European federal odyssey’, The International Spectator 42(4): 571–588.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A.Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1993), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy), Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A.Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1999), ‘The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment’, in P.A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 117–168.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S.K. (2009), ‘When efficiency results in redistribution: the conflict over the single services market’, West European Politics 32(4): 847–865.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2008), ‘Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2010), ‘Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’’, European Political Science Review 2(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P.C. (2003), ‘Neo-neofunctionalism’, in A. Wiener and T. Diez (eds), European Integration Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–74.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (2001), ‘The institutionalization of European administrative space’, in A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz and N. Fligstein (eds), The Institutionalization of Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 94–112.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. (2005), ‘ “Deliberative,” “independent” technocracy v. democratic politics: will the globe echo the E.U.?’, Law and Contemporary Problems 68(3 and 4): 341–356.Google Scholar
Siedentopf, H.Speer, B. (2003), ‘The European administrative space from a German administrative science perspective’, International Review of Administrative Science 89(1): 9–28.Google Scholar
Spinelli, A. (1966), The Eurocrats: Conflict and Crisis in the European Community, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, A.Stevens, H. (2001), Brussels Bureaucrats? The Administration of the European Union. The European Union Series, Houndsmill/Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Tilcsik, A. (2010), ‘From ritual to reality: demography, ideology, and decoupling in a post-communist government agency’, Academy of Management Journal 53(6): 1474–1498.Google Scholar
Tömmel, I. (2007), Das politische System der EU, München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Verheijen, A.J.G. (2000), ‘Administrative capacity development: a race against time?’. Scientific Council for Government Policy (The Hague): W 107. Retrieved 22 November 2007 from http://www.wrr.nl/english/content.jsp?objectid=2892.Google Scholar
Verheijen, A.J.G. (2007), ‘Administrative capacity in the new EU member states: limits of innovation?’. World Bank Working Paper No. 115, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Vos, E. (2009), ‘50 years of European integration, 45 years of comitology’, in A. Ott and E. Vos (eds), Fifty Years of European Integration: Foundations and Perspectives, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 31–56.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1948), ‘The social psychology of the world religions’, in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge, pp. 267–301.Google Scholar
Wessels, W. (1998), ‘Comitology: fusion in action. politico-administrative trends in the EU system’, Journal of European Public Policy 5(2): 209–234.Google Scholar
Wonka, A.Rittberger, B. (2010), ‘Credibility, complexity and uncertainty: explaining the institutional independence of 29 EU agencies’, West European Politics 33(4): 730–752.Google Scholar
Ziller, J. (2006), ‘L'autorité administrative dans l'Union Européenne’, in L. Azoulai and L. Burgorgue-Larsen (eds), L'Autorité de l'Union Européenne, Buxelles: Bruylant, pp. 119–153.Google Scholar