More than an add-on? The Europeanization of the Dutch civil service

[From the introduction]. European integration does not stop to fascinate political scientists. Many of us are excited about this institution that transcends national interests, overcomes collective action problems, and presents member states with such a durable and authoritative framework that they slowly but unrecognizably loose authority to model their own policies as desired. But does it? Despite our excitement, many of us have troubles escaping the reflexes caused by the years of international relations hegemony in studying the EU. Does the EU really have the clout to force member states to adopt unwanted policies? Then how about the never-ending stories about non-compliance, the European Commission’s hesitance in adopting a tough stance on reluctant member states, the difficulties of monitoring actual application and enforcement on the ground? The tension between member state dominance and supranational control continues to offer a well of fascinating research topics. In order to demonstrate the success of the EU in transcending member states’ institutions and policies, or even the domestic interests underlying them, we are advised to answer at least three questions. First, we should answer the question of the extent to which Europe matters for the member states. Because even if we can identify compliance by initially reluctant member states, this may not be very meaningful if the EU’s share in national matters is only minimal. Even though interesting from a theoretical viewpoint, the societal relevance of massive research attempts to explain the fate of EU intervention in member states is slight when it affects only a minimal terrain of national policy making. Second, we should try to answer the question to what extent any processes of Europeanization we observe are truly affecting the core of what member states are doing or are just added on to existing structures and policies. That is, if we believe that the EU really is capable of overriding member state concerns, the adaptations made by member states should be far from ‘easy’. The adoption of coordination structures, for instance, is an interesting phenomenon, but it does not constitute evidence of the EU’s transformative effect as coordination structures may simply be added on to existing organizational arrangements and can perfectly well co-exist with domestic institutions that were already out there. Finally, we should answer the question of how the European Union impacts on member states. Under what conditions does the EU succeed in bringing about domestic change, and when do member states carry on their business as usual

Tussen Brussel en de Polder De Europeanisering van Politiek en Bestuur in Nederland

Session 1: Governance in the European Unio

Differentiated policy implementation in the European Union

This special issue analyses the patterns, causes and consequences of Differentiated Policy Implementation (DPI) in the European Union (EU). DPI is an umbrella term for the diversity in the presence and use of discretion during legal and practical policy implementation processes and outcomes in the EU. The emergent DPI research agenda emphasises differentiation in EU policy implementation beyond mere legal compliance, which is more widespread, and its role in the broader political and policy processes of EU multilevel governance. The contributions highlight anticipated implementation as one dimension of DPI, as well as legal and practical implementation. DPI serves as an alternative to differentiated integration (DI), accommodating heterogeneous national preferences, capacities and conditions, and feeding back into EU policy-making. The impact of DPI on the EU’s output legitimacy and effectiveness depends on scope conditions that require more scholarly attention.</p

Alternative forms of differentiation

Within the EU, differentiation is seen as a way to cope with diversity among member states. Among the various possible ways to differentiate between member states, most attention has gone to forms of differentiated integration, in which some member states are excluded from an EU-level arrangement (through opt-outs) or a subset of member states moves forward without participation of all (enhanced cooperation). This, however, is only one form of differentiation in the EU. This brief paper discusses two alternatives which have attracted less attention but are potentially valuable alternatives or complements to differentiated integration: flexible implementation and experimentalist governance. Under flexible implementation, member states are given room to make their own choices during the implementation of EU law and policy arrangement. Experimentalist governance is an arrangement in which policies are developed in an iterative process in which both the policy itself and its implementation are gradually improved through ‘learning from difference.

Assessing the role of the European Council and the European Commission during the migration and COVID-19 crises

Over the past decades, ‘emergency politics’ has become a quasi-permanent feature of the European Union (EU). According to some, this has reinforced the trend towards a greater role for the European Council (EUCO) in EU agenda-setting, to the detriment of the European Commission (Commission). In this article, this claim is critically assessed by analysing two major crises: the 2015-2016 migration crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. By systematically tracing the various agenda-setting roles played by EU actors in these crises, two claims are made. First, using a more fine-grained typology of agenda-setting roles, the relationship between EUCO and the Commission is shown to be more nuanced than is often suggested. Second, EUCO and the Commission cannot be considered monolithic players. Instead, actors within these institutions operate outside of formal channels to purse their own policy goals. This puts in doubt the usefulness of focussing on the EUCO-Commission relationship in a purely inter-institutional sense

The New Eurocrats

Policies in the EU are largely made by national civil servants who prepare and implement decisions in Brussels as well as at home. Despite their important role, these national civil servants form a relatively hidden world that has received little attention from both the media and academics. This volume considers a wide variety of sources and research methods to answer such questions as: how many civil servants are actually involved in EU-related activities? What do these civil servants do when they engage with the EU? And how do they negotiate their dual roles? The New Eurocrats offers unique and invaluable insights into these civil servants and their working practices-and uncovers some secrets in the world of EU governance along the way

Mapping the legal scope for flexible implementation in EU directives

This paper analyses the extent to which EU directives allow for variation in the way that member states implement them. Such room for ‘flexible implementation’ may be used to overcome conflict during decision-making or to accommodate diversity in conditions within member states. The analysis is based on an original dataset of 164 directives adopted between 2006 and 2015, which are coded for the discretion they offer to member states. In addition to the overall level of discretion in directives, the paper also zooms in on five specific types of discretion. Based on these data, patterns of discretion across policy areas and different types of directives are explored.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

Patterns of Coordination in the European Commission: An Analysis of Interservice Consultations around Climate Change Adaptation Policy (2007-2018)

Organising effective policy coordination has become a key principle of EU policymaking in recent decades. Within the European Commission, interservice consultations (ISCs) play an important role to coordinate between the different directorate-generals. In spite of this importance, ISCs have so far not been analysed in a systematic way. This paper addresses this gap by systematically analysing the numbers, types and content of comments made in ISCs around climate change adaptation. Our analysis shows that ISCs were primarily used to provide substantive comments, related to problem analyses, objectives or instruments, as well as to strengthen or weaken connections with policy efforts in adjacent domains. Institutional comments, related to mandates or resources, proved rare. Moreover, we find that the types of comments given in ISCs are mediated by institutional factors that shape the temporal dynamics of policy processes. Rather than reflecting the ideal types of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ coordination, the overall pattern of policy coordination in the ISCs typifies an in-between form of ‘incremental policy coordination.