Policy making
WEEK 1:
Europe’s history
Esablished in the Maastricht Treaty (1993)
European Coal and Steel Community (Treaty of Paris, 1951) > European Economic
Community (Treaty of Rome, 1957)
Inner-six > BE, FR, IT, LX, NL, West-Germany. First of the EU. President of France
Empty chaired away during the meeting of making the EU.
Latest EU amendment by Lisbon Treaty (2009).
Currently 28 members (incl. Brexitteers!)
Can only act within its competences.
Member States transfer their sovereignty to the EU by becoming member.
European Council: guiding role for policy. Other states outside of EU can be member of this
(Russia).
Branches (trias politika):
,European integration: policy for its member states.
The process putting together political, legal, economic, social and cultural and
industrial integration States in the EU, in whole or in part.
Different theories:
1. Neo-functionalism
Roots for regional integration and “functional spill-over” concept. Refers to situations when
an initial decision by gov’ts to place a certain sector under the authority of central
institutions, creates pressures to extend its authority over the institutions to neighbouring
areas, like policy (tax, employment). Process can be very slow and fast (glass of water).
In other words, it triggers economic and political cooperation (Haas, 1950s).
Both supranational actors (Commission) and sub-national actors (interest groups or others
within the MS) create additional pressures for further integration.
Krietiek: > Declared obsolete later on by Haas by the ”empty-chairing” that paralyzed
politics. When 1 state leaves the discussing table, no one can go further.
2.
Intergovernmentalism (Realist)
Built on Realist thoughts, highlights national interests and the will of States to cooperate as
central to regional integration.
National governments played the central role in the historical development of the EU and
were strengthened as a result of the integration process.
It suggests that national governments control the level and speed of European integration.
Any increase in power at supranational level, he argues, results from a direct decision by
governments. He also rejects the idea that supranational organisations are on an equal level
(in terms of political influence) as national governments
Hard way.
Liberal intergovernmentalism
Sets out role of domestic interests in helping define national state preferences, while
arguing that States have ultimate control over the process and direction of integration
(Moravcsik, 1960s).
Soft way. What does the states want.
Emphasised domestic rather than national interests.
Three-step model:
1. a liberal theory of national preference formation with (national chiefs of governments
aggregate the interests of their domestic constituencies, as well as their own interests and
articulate their respective national preferences towards the EU. So national interests and not
shaped by participation in the EU.
2. an intergovernmental model of EU-level bargaining, (agreements reflect the relative
power of each member state)
3. and a model of institutional choice emphasizing the role of international institutions in
providing ‘credible commitments’ for member governments.
-> Maravcsik argues that the EU’s historic intergovernmental agreements (treaty of Rome,
TEU) were not driven primarily by supranational entrepreneurs, unintended spill-overs from
,earlier integration, but rather by a gradual process of preference convergence among the
most powerful member states.
> Both focus on inter-state bargains and on decision-making of the Council of Ministers (are
advising but can stop a policy making), rather than the role of the EC, EP or societal actors.
3. Institutionalism
Comprises of different theories, such as Functionalisn, Neo-Functionalist and Regime Theory.
We will focus on Rational, Sociological and Historial Theories, according to Pollack’s view.
In Pollack’s view, institutions are either absent or in charge of it all.
3a. Rational-choice
Origin in American-political sciencists;
Simple-majority votes shape legislative outcomes and make these durable.
Equilibrium institutions: how actors choose to design institutions to secure mutual gains and
how these change over time.
Positive or negative? Design political institutions to minimize transaction costs in making of
public policy. If is not alive. It is not changing.
i.e. institution-free.
, 3b. Sociological (Marxism)
Institutions should incorporate informal norms, conventions and formal rules. All interests,
rules that incaderd states interests.
Such institution will constitute an actor; hence by shaping their identity and preferences
(unlike Rational-choice).
Institutions are defined broader than Rational-choice.
i.e. institution-dominant.
3c. Historical (old school)
Focus lies on the effects institutions have over time and on the ways how these institutions
can influence or constrain behaviour of the actors who established them (Hall 1986).
Incentives created for actors to stick with the institution and only adapt them in response to
changing circumstances.
In the middle of rational and sociological.
3a 3c 3b
4. Constructivism
Institutions are understood broadly to include formal and informal norms, and these rules
constitute actors, so they can shape the identities and preferences. Same as sociological?
No.
Actor models are thus influenced by instutitions and are not fixed (like Rational). Individual’s
identities are then shaped by their social environment.
Constructivists reject the Rational theory of actors as utility-maximizers that operate
according to logic consequentiality.
Look in the past and works on that for the future.
ONLY THESE 4 LEARN
Current integration theory:
No consesus on on future direction of integration process.
Perhaps EU as equilibrium polity, where institutional and policy integration is not likely to
change in the near future (Moravcsik, 2001).
EU: balance of all the theories. -> any policy will not change because that will disturb the
balance.
Separation of powers:
Two differences way of
Vertical:
The principle of conferral delineates the limits of the EU’s involvement in policy-making.
Whereas subsidiarity and proportionality underpin or else frame the implementation of
those competences.
= EU as a federal system. Federal system: an institutional arrangement in which:
a) public authority is divided between state governments and a central government;
b) each level of government has some issues on which it makes final decisions;
c) a federal high court adjudicates disputes concerning federalism.
WEEK 1:
Europe’s history
Esablished in the Maastricht Treaty (1993)
European Coal and Steel Community (Treaty of Paris, 1951) > European Economic
Community (Treaty of Rome, 1957)
Inner-six > BE, FR, IT, LX, NL, West-Germany. First of the EU. President of France
Empty chaired away during the meeting of making the EU.
Latest EU amendment by Lisbon Treaty (2009).
Currently 28 members (incl. Brexitteers!)
Can only act within its competences.
Member States transfer their sovereignty to the EU by becoming member.
European Council: guiding role for policy. Other states outside of EU can be member of this
(Russia).
Branches (trias politika):
,European integration: policy for its member states.
The process putting together political, legal, economic, social and cultural and
industrial integration States in the EU, in whole or in part.
Different theories:
1. Neo-functionalism
Roots for regional integration and “functional spill-over” concept. Refers to situations when
an initial decision by gov’ts to place a certain sector under the authority of central
institutions, creates pressures to extend its authority over the institutions to neighbouring
areas, like policy (tax, employment). Process can be very slow and fast (glass of water).
In other words, it triggers economic and political cooperation (Haas, 1950s).
Both supranational actors (Commission) and sub-national actors (interest groups or others
within the MS) create additional pressures for further integration.
Krietiek: > Declared obsolete later on by Haas by the ”empty-chairing” that paralyzed
politics. When 1 state leaves the discussing table, no one can go further.
2.
Intergovernmentalism (Realist)
Built on Realist thoughts, highlights national interests and the will of States to cooperate as
central to regional integration.
National governments played the central role in the historical development of the EU and
were strengthened as a result of the integration process.
It suggests that national governments control the level and speed of European integration.
Any increase in power at supranational level, he argues, results from a direct decision by
governments. He also rejects the idea that supranational organisations are on an equal level
(in terms of political influence) as national governments
Hard way.
Liberal intergovernmentalism
Sets out role of domestic interests in helping define national state preferences, while
arguing that States have ultimate control over the process and direction of integration
(Moravcsik, 1960s).
Soft way. What does the states want.
Emphasised domestic rather than national interests.
Three-step model:
1. a liberal theory of national preference formation with (national chiefs of governments
aggregate the interests of their domestic constituencies, as well as their own interests and
articulate their respective national preferences towards the EU. So national interests and not
shaped by participation in the EU.
2. an intergovernmental model of EU-level bargaining, (agreements reflect the relative
power of each member state)
3. and a model of institutional choice emphasizing the role of international institutions in
providing ‘credible commitments’ for member governments.
-> Maravcsik argues that the EU’s historic intergovernmental agreements (treaty of Rome,
TEU) were not driven primarily by supranational entrepreneurs, unintended spill-overs from
,earlier integration, but rather by a gradual process of preference convergence among the
most powerful member states.
> Both focus on inter-state bargains and on decision-making of the Council of Ministers (are
advising but can stop a policy making), rather than the role of the EC, EP or societal actors.
3. Institutionalism
Comprises of different theories, such as Functionalisn, Neo-Functionalist and Regime Theory.
We will focus on Rational, Sociological and Historial Theories, according to Pollack’s view.
In Pollack’s view, institutions are either absent or in charge of it all.
3a. Rational-choice
Origin in American-political sciencists;
Simple-majority votes shape legislative outcomes and make these durable.
Equilibrium institutions: how actors choose to design institutions to secure mutual gains and
how these change over time.
Positive or negative? Design political institutions to minimize transaction costs in making of
public policy. If is not alive. It is not changing.
i.e. institution-free.
, 3b. Sociological (Marxism)
Institutions should incorporate informal norms, conventions and formal rules. All interests,
rules that incaderd states interests.
Such institution will constitute an actor; hence by shaping their identity and preferences
(unlike Rational-choice).
Institutions are defined broader than Rational-choice.
i.e. institution-dominant.
3c. Historical (old school)
Focus lies on the effects institutions have over time and on the ways how these institutions
can influence or constrain behaviour of the actors who established them (Hall 1986).
Incentives created for actors to stick with the institution and only adapt them in response to
changing circumstances.
In the middle of rational and sociological.
3a 3c 3b
4. Constructivism
Institutions are understood broadly to include formal and informal norms, and these rules
constitute actors, so they can shape the identities and preferences. Same as sociological?
No.
Actor models are thus influenced by instutitions and are not fixed (like Rational). Individual’s
identities are then shaped by their social environment.
Constructivists reject the Rational theory of actors as utility-maximizers that operate
according to logic consequentiality.
Look in the past and works on that for the future.
ONLY THESE 4 LEARN
Current integration theory:
No consesus on on future direction of integration process.
Perhaps EU as equilibrium polity, where institutional and policy integration is not likely to
change in the near future (Moravcsik, 2001).
EU: balance of all the theories. -> any policy will not change because that will disturb the
balance.
Separation of powers:
Two differences way of
Vertical:
The principle of conferral delineates the limits of the EU’s involvement in policy-making.
Whereas subsidiarity and proportionality underpin or else frame the implementation of
those competences.
= EU as a federal system. Federal system: an institutional arrangement in which:
a) public authority is divided between state governments and a central government;
b) each level of government has some issues on which it makes final decisions;
c) a federal high court adjudicates disputes concerning federalism.
