1. The Commission
Slides to support Chapter 8 of The Government and Politics of the European Union, 7th ed., by Neill Nugent

2. The College (the political arm)
Under the Lisbon Treaty:
- One Commissioner per member state
- Five year term
- Each Commissioner is nominated by his/her member state, but must be acceptable to the President-designate
- The College as a whole must be approved by the EP after individual ‘hearings’
Commissioners are not national ‘representatives’.
Each Commissioner has a portfolio.

3. The Bureaucracy (the administrative arm)
Less than 30,000
Organised into Directorates General and other services
Subject to major internal reforms in the 2000s:
- much tighter internal financial management;
- virtual elimination of parachutage;
- a new internal grading structure;
- improve gender balance, especially at senior levels

4. The Commission President
The President-designate is appointed before other Commissioners-designate
The perceived importance of the position is testified by the nomination struggles
The powers of the President over the College have gradually been increased by treaty reform
He is the main ‘public face’ of the EU

5. Roles and Function Initiator and proposer (with some exceptions)
Executive functions: a few are direct (notably competition), but most involve overseeing national agencies
Guardian of the legal framework
Mediating and brokerage functions

6. Power Resources of the Commission
Its powers of initiative: exclusive and non exclusive
Its neutrality
Its access to information: in the services; it is present in virtually all decision-making forums; it is surrounded by expert and advisory committees
Smaller states look to the Commission for leadership – and most EU states are small

7. Commission Leadership
Leadership offered by the Commission takes different forms:
- agenda setting
- proposing
- mobilising
- building consensus
- brokering compromises
But to what extent is this leadership provided ‘independently or ‘under instruction’?

8. The Academic Debate
There is an extensive academic debate regarding the extent to which the Commission undertakes its leadership and other roles in an independent manner. Broadly speaking, there are two ‘polar’ views, with variations stretched out in between:
- The ‘intergovernmentalist’ view (Moravcsik, Magnette): the Commission is essentially an ‘agent’.
- The ‘supranationalist’ view (Beach, Schmidt, Sandholtz and Stone Sweet, Pollack): the ‘agent’ is not controlled completely by its ‘principal’; the focus should be on decision-making and not just on decision taking.

9. Circumstances Favourable to the Exercise of Commission Leadership
Case studies by those who take a ‘supranational’ perspective show that the Commission’s potential for influential and independent action is normally greatest when:
- it has strong and clear powers
- QMV applies in the Council
- control mechanisms are weak
- there is uncertainty of information amongst the member states
- there is the possibility of exploiting differences between member states

10. But, is the Influence of the Commission Declining?
The ‘pioneering’ days are arguably over
The increasing influence of the European Council
The increasing influence of the European Parliament
Loss of status: the 1999 crisis, internal divisions, the 2004 EP ‘hearings’
It has suffered some ‘defeats’ and failures in recent years: little influence in IGCs; SGP; liberalisation programme
The growing importance of ‘non Community’ policy areas and of new modes of governance

11. But the Decline Should Not be Exaggerated
The Commission still commands extensive power resources and has key duties to undertake.
The Commission is still a central player in major EU initiatives, for example:
Enlargement
The SEM programme
The Lisbon Process

12. Current Debates About the Commission
Should it concentrate more on management and less on policy?
Has it become too ‘political’?
Should so much power be exercised by an unelected body?