Policy Processes Slides to support Chapter 17 of The Government and Politics of the European Union, 7th ed., by Neill Nugent

Factors determining EU policy processes 1 The treaty base: These lay down the different decision-making procedures and specify the circumstances in which they are to be used. Proposed status: Procedures tend to be more fixed when EU law is envisaged than when it isn’t. Commission legislation, which is usually technical, is subject to less review and discussion that Council/Council and EP legislation. Degree of generality: Policy-making may not necessarily involve a specific procedure but can consist of exchanges of ideas by interested parties to see whether common ground can be found for coordination, setting priorities, or possible legislation.

Factors determining EU policy processes 2 Newness/Controversiality/Sensitivity: The more any of these applies, the more complex policy processes are likely to be. Balance of responsibility: Where the EU’s policy-making role is supplementary to that of the member states, policy activity at EU level is limited. Circumstances and their perception: e.g. AFSJ policies used to be based on intergovernmental principles but changing circumstances – including the deepening of the internal market, intensified concerns about cross-border crime and international terrrorism – have made (most) member states more willing to accept EU legislation in this area.

Frameworks of EU policy processes 1: The Community method This was originally conceived as: ‘The Commission proposes, the Parliament advises, the Council decides, the Court adjudicates’. Now, though, the EP is normally a co-decision maker with the Council. This is the most important policy-making process in respect of law-making. Some member states are reluctant to use it in some circumstances because they see it as working to the advantage of the Commission and as undermining national independence.

Frameworks of EU policy processes 2: Intensive transgovernmentalism Mostly used in the field of foreign and defence policy cooperation. Representatives of the member states initiate policy action themselves. Policy activity is focused on fostering cooperation between governments rather than on law-making Takes away policy initiation impetus from the Commission, and leaves the EP generally in a weak consultative position, with few formal powers other than the power of consent on some types of international agreement

Frameworks of EU policy processes 3: Open method of coordination Developed since the 1990s to strengthen coordination in policy areas where there is a desire to have a sort of ‘half way house’ between the Community Method and intergovernmental cooperation. Mainly used for certain economic and social policies. The Council of Ministers, acting by unanimity, sets broad policy goals and guidelines. Member states draw up national plans, and submit to the Commission yearly reports on their progress. Compliance is essentially voluntary, but the Commission produces reports that encourage/pressurize member states lagging behind.

Frameworks of EU policy processes 4: Centralized decision-making EU supranational authorities have been given decision-making powers in some areas. The areas concerned have been deemed to be in need of ‘de-politicization.’ The two most important areas are: competition: final decisions fall to the Commission alone in respect of proposed company mergers, cartels, state aid, abuse of dominant trading positions; EMU: the ECB controls monetary policy for the whole of the eurozone.

Recurring characteristics of policy processes Roles and powers of institutions and actors vary considerably between policy processes and areas. Successful policy-making is usually highly dependent on give-and-take and compromises. There is close inter-institutional cooperation, which has grown over the years. A tendency towards gradualism and incrementalism.

Efficiency of EU policy processes EU policy processes, notwithstanding their special features, can in some ways be usefully compared to national processes. Policy planning has been strengthened considerably under the Prodi and Barroso Commissions. Although instances of slow and non decision-making can certainly be found, the overall record in terms of volume and speed of policy output is very respectable. Critical judgements ought to be placed in the context of the considerable degree of policy cooperation and integration that has no other counterpart on the globe.