Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contending Decision-Making Dynamics within the European Commission

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Studies of executive institutions have largely dealt separately with national and international executive institutions (IEIs). This study unpacks and repacks four contending decision-making dynamics that unfold within IEIs: intergovernmental, supranational, departmental and epistemic dynamics. The empirical laboratory utilized is an under-researched segment of the European Commission: seconded national experts. The survey and interview data presented demonstrate that the decision-making behaviour of seconded national experts in the Commission includes a mix of departmental (portfolio), epistemic (expert) and supranational behaviour. An organization theory approach is presented claiming that these three behavioural dynamics may be accounted for by considering (i) the organizational composition of the Commission and domestic government systems, (ii) degrees of organizational compatibility across levels of governance, (iii) recruitment procedures of seconded national officials, and (iv) socialization dynamics within the Commission. Arguably, the decision-making behaviour evoked by seconded national officials is considerably affected by organizational characteristics of the Commission itself and less by the member-state administrations from which the secondees originate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These four behavioural logics may be interlinked differently, notably nested, cross-cutting, separate or fused (Marks and Steenbergen, 2004).

  2. The DGs covered by the study are: DG Education and Culture, DG Employment and Social Affairs, DG Enterprise, DG Environment, DG Energy and Transport, Eurostat, DG Fisheries, DG Health and Consumer Affairs, DG Information Society, DG Research, DG Taxation and Customs Union, DG Economic and Financial Affairs, DG Trade, DG Competition, and DG Development.

  3. EU member-states covered: Sweden (N=37), Denmark (N=3), Ireland (N=2), Germany (N=4) and France (N=1). EEA countries covered: Norway (N=20) and Iceland (N=2). Three respondents did not report their country of origin.

  4. Similar observations are done in the Council of Europe (MacMullen, 2004, 418).

  5. The SNEs were also asked if they put forward proposals on the basis of their political convictions. Eighty-six percent of the SNEs strongly disagreed on this point, illustrating the low degree of party political consideration among SNEs in the Commission. Egeberg (2006a) also observes that Commissioners emphasize their ‘party role’ significantly lower than their ‘Commission role’, their ‘portfolio role’ and their ‘country role’.

  6. Additional financial allowances are granted by the Commission. They include a daily allowance and either removals costs or an extra monthly allowance.

References

  • Andersen, S.S. (2003) ‘On a clear day you can see the EU. Case study methodology in EU Research’, ARENA Working Paper 16.

  • Ansell, C.K. (2004) ‘Territoriality, Authority, and Democracy’, in C.K. Ansell and G. Di Palma (eds.) Restructuring Territoriality. Europe and the United States Compared, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 225–245.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (1999) ‘The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations’, International Organization 53 (4): 699–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M. (2004) Rules for the World. International Organizations in Global Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartkowski, M. (2005) Impact of Leadership and Professional Culture on Institutional Change in International Administrations of the UN Organizations, Unpublished manuscript, Central European University, Budapest.

  • Bekke, H.A.G.M and Van der Meer, F.M. (eds.) (2000) Civil Service Systems in Western Europe, Cheltenham: UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. (2001) ‘Constructing European Institutions’, in G. Schneider and M. Aspinwall (eds.) The Rules of Integration. Institutionalist Approaches to the Study of Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. (2005) ‘International institutions and socialization in Europe: introduction and framework’, International Organization 59 (4): 801–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cini, M. (1996) The European Commission. Leadership, Organisation and Culture in the EU Administration, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CLENAD (2002) An Unofficial Guide for UK National Experts, Brussels: The Liaison Committee for National Experts.

  • CLENAD (2003) Report of the Working Group ‘Life after SNE?’, Brussels: The Liaison Committee for National Experts.

  • Coombes, D. (1970) Politics and Bureaucracy of the European Union, London: Georg Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R.W. (1969) ‘The executive head. An essay on leadership in international organization’, International Organization 23 (2): 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R.W. and Jacobson, H.K. (1973) The Anatomy of Influence. Decision Making in International Organizations, New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrakopoulos, D.G. and Kassim, H. (2005) ‘The European Commission and the debate on the future of Europe’, Paper presented at the CONNEX workshop, 27–28 May, Oslo.

  • Duchêne, F. (1994) Jean Monnet. The First Statesman of Interdependence, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2002) ‘Guidelines for Secondment of EEA EFTA National Experts to the European Commission’, 4/00/W/031, 1 Annex, Brussels.

  • EFTA Secretariat (2000) ‘Evaluation of Arrangements with Secondments’, 4/FE/W/008, 2 Annexes, Brussels.

  • Egeberg, M. (1996) ‘Organization and nationality in the European Commission services’, Public Administration 74 (4): 721–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (1999) ‘The impact of bureaucratic structure on policy making’, Public Administration 77 (1): 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (2006a) ‘Executive politics as usual: role behaviour and conflict dimensions in the college of European commissioners’, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. (ed.) (2006b) The Multilevel Union Administration: On the Transformation of Executive Politics Within the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan, (forthcoming).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., Schaefer, G.F. and Trondal, J. (2003) ‘The many faces of EU committee governance’, West European Politics 26 (3): 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. and Trondal, J. (1999) ‘Differentiated integration in Europe: the case of the EEA country Norway’, Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (1): 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, E.O. and Fossum, J.E. (eds.) (2000) Democracy in the European Union. Integration through Deliberation?, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2001) ‘European Governance’, White Paper, Com (2001) 428 final, Brussels.

  • European Commission (2002) ‘Reforming the Commission. An Administration at the Service of Half a Billion Europeans’, Brussels.

  • European Commission (2004) ‘Commission Decision of 27 February 2004’, C(2004) 577, Brussels.

  • Gehring, T. (2003) ‘International institutions as decision-making systems. Lessons from the European Union’, Paper presented at the 8th Biennial International Conference of the European Studies Association; 27–29 March 2003; Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

  • Gould, D.J. and Kelman, H.C. (1970) ‘Horizons of research on the international civil service’, Public Administration Review 30 (3): 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulick, L. (1937) ‘Notes on The Theory of Organizations. With Special References to Government in the United States’, in L. Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.) Papers on the Science of Administration, New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, E. (1958) The Uniting of Europe, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. (1992) ‘Epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organization 46: 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P.M. (2004) ‘When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process’, Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 569–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, R. and Brewer, M.B. (2004) ‘Identities and Institutions: Becoming European in the EU’, in R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.) Transnational Identities. Becoming European in the EU, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, K.J. (2004) Taming the Sovereigns. Institutional Change in International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe. Images of Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. (2005) ‘Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization. A case study of the European commission’, International Organization 59 (4): 861–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingraham, P.W. (1995) The Foundation of Merit. Public Service in American Democracy, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jachtenfuchs, M. (1997) ‘Democracy and Governance in the European Union’, European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 1 (2): http://eiop/texte/1997-002a.htm.

  • Johnston, A.I. (2003) ‘Conclusions and Extensions: Beyond Europe and Towards Mid-Range Theorizing’, Unpublished paper, Harvard University.

  • Kerr Jr, H.H. (1973) ‘Changing attitudes through international participation: European parliamentarians and integration’, International Organization 27 (1): 45–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch, B. (2005) ‘European governance and system integration’, Eurogov, C-05-01.

  • Lewis, J. (2000) ‘The methods of community in EU decision-making and administrative rivalry in the council's intrastructure’, Journal of European Public Policy 7 (2): 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C.E. and Woodhouse, E.J. (1993) The Policy-Making Process, (3rd edn), New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMullen, A. (2004) ‘Intergovernmental functionalism? The council of Europe in European integration’, European Integration 26 (4): 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maor, M. and Lane, J.-E. (eds.) (1999) Comparative Public Administration, Vol. I, Dartmouth: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1965) Handbook of Organizations, Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1994) A Primer on Decision Making. How Decisions Happen, New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (2005) ‘Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”’, ARENA Working Paper 11.

  • Marks, G. and Steenbergen, M.R. (eds.) (2004) European Integration and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Michelmann, H.J. (1978) ‘Multinational staffing and organizational functioning in the commission of the European communities’, International Organization 32 (2): 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouritzen, H. (1990) The International Civil Service. A Study of Bureaucracy: International Organisations, Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, N. (ed.) (1997) At the Heart of the Union. Studies of the European Commission, Houndmills: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J.P. (2005) ‘Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy?’, ARENA Working Paper 10.

  • Page, E.C. (1997) People Who Run Europe, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B.G. (1995) The Politics of Bureaucracy, London: Longman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prantl, J. (2005) ‘Informal groups of states and the UN security council’, International Organization 59 (3): 559–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C.M. (2001) ‘Democratising expertise in the European Union?’, Paper presented at ARENA; 13 November 2001; Oslo.

  • Reinalda, B. and Verbeek, B. (eds.) (2004) Decision Making within International Organizations, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D. and Smith, M.J. (2004) ‘Interpreting the world of political elites’, Public Administration 82 (4): 777–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, M.J. (1989) ‘The rise and fall of international organization as a field of study’, International Organization 40 (4): 777–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E.E. (1975) The Semisovereign People. A Realist's View of Democracy in America, Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C. (2000) Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1957) Administrative Behavior, (2nd edn), New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, B.A. and Martin, L.L. (2003) ‘International Organizations and Institutions’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations, London: SAGE, pp. 192–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2003) ‘Why European commissioners matter’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (1): 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (ed.) (2004) Politics and the European Commission. Actors, Interdependence, Legitimacy, London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (2001) ‘Cultural aspects of Europeanization: the case of the Scottish office’, Public Administration 79 (1): 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K.A. (1973) ‘The European Economic Community and national civil servants of the member states — a comment’, International Organization 27: 563–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statskontoret (2001) ‘Svenska nationella exporter i EU-tjänst. En uträrdering’, Vol.17, Stockholm.

  • Stevens, A. and Stevens, H. (2001) Brussels Bureaucrats? The Administration of the European Union, Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. (2004a) ‘Political Dynamics of the Parallel Administration of the European Commission’, in A. Smith (ed.) Politics and the European Commission. Actors, Interdependence, Legitimacy, London: Routledge, pp. 67–82.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. (2004b) ‘Re-socialising civil servants: the transformative powers of EU institutions’, Acta Politica 39 (1): 4–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., Marcussen, M. and Veggeland, F. (2005) ‘Re-discovering international executive institutions’, Comparative European Politics 3 (3): 232–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2004) ‘National and Transnational Identities: European and Other Identities Constructed in Interviews with EU Officials’, in R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.) Transnational Identities. Becoming European in the EU, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 97–128.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for European Studies, Agder University College, Servicebox 422, Kristiansand, N-4604, Norway

    Jarle Trondal

Authors
  1. Jarle Trondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trondal, J. Contending Decision-Making Dynamics within the European Commission. Comp Eur Polit 5, 158–178 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110090

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110090

Keywords

Search

Navigation