The European Commission’s Expert Groups: Adapting to the Contestation of Expertise

Considering the growing contestation of expertise in the public sphere, this chapter explores the institutionalisation of expert groups and how the european commission (ec) has adapted its use of expertise. Drawing on established conceptualisations about the functions of expertise during the policy-making process, our analysis is two-fold. Firstly, we consider macro level changes and broader trends in the entire expert groups (egs) system. Secondly, we examine the micro level changes of expert advice use in two case studies. Based on new data from the commission’s register of egs, as well as on interviews, primary and secondary sources, we find improvements with regard to transparency, conceptualised as improved access to the register. The ec has also specified better the classification of different types of experts. Furthermore, the two case studies of egs—focusing on financial sustainability and lowering limits of industrial pollution—show that the use of expertise is both instrumental and strategic. Concretely, the strategic (consensus-building) use of expertise helped to narrow down the range of viewpoints. Eventually, this facilitated the identification of compromises and acceptable policy solutions in the policy shaping stage of the eu legislative process

Get Your Money’s Worth from Investment Advice: Analysing the Clash over the Knowledge and Competence Requirements in the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II)

This special issue aims to examine whether there is an enduring politicization in the European Union (EU) “Better Regulation” agenda despite the emphasis on neutral evidence-based policy making. Our article addresses this overarching research question by focusing on the use of stakeholder consultations in the case of financial sector governance, particularly, the amended Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II). We show that calibrating key provisions in MiFID II, such as those concerning knowledge and expertise, is not a simple exercise in rational problem definition and policy design. The provisions examined in this article have important repercussions for financial sector firms’ business strategies and operations. Thus, investment firms, banks, training institutes and public organizations have mobilized and actively sought to assert their views on the appropriate requirements for professional knowledge and experience in MiFID II. We found that, following the stakeholder consultation, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) opted for a minimum harmonization approach at the EU level. At the same time, ESMA also supported giving the respective national competent authorities sufficient remit to issue additional requirements in accordance with national laws and regulatory practices. Our article demonstrates that while public consultations provide rich evidence for the policy making process, they also contribute to the lasting politicization of regulatory decisions

The macroeconomic imbalance procedure as European integration: a legalisation perspective

The Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure seeks to prevent and correct destabilising economic imbalances in the European Union. Scholars are divided as to whether this instrument of economic policy coordination relies on the same intergovernmental modes of decision-making as the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines or reflects supranational institutions more significant role in EU economic policy following the euro crisis. Such diametrically opposed interpretations are symptomatic of longstanding concerns over the lack of a clear-cut definition of European integration. To address these definitional difficulties, this paper turns to the concept of legalisation. Taking account of the design and early implementation of the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure and using the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines as a point of comparison, it shows that the former can be understood as a modest but clear-cut increase in legalisation compared to the latter. On this basis, it considers whether legalisation, in spite of its own conceptual limitations, can contribute to a more rigorous definition of European integration