Bachelor thesis 'The end of the information society as European coordinative policy discourse A case study on the role of coordinative discourse in integration by stealth theory

8/12/2019 Bachelor thesis 'The end of the information society as European coordinative policy discourse A case study on the

1/42

FACULTY OF SOCIAL ANDBEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES

Department of Political Science

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

The end of the information society as European

coordinative policy discourse

A case study on the role of coordinative discourse in integration by stealth theory

Student: Harm Hoksbergen ([email protected])

Student number: 10125191

Bachelor Thesis: Final versionStudy: Bachelor Political Science, 3rdyear

Course: Bachelor project Citizens in Europe

Supervisor: Dr. Rosa Sanchez Salgado ([email protected])

Second reader: Dr. Jurgen van der Heijden ([email protected])

Submission date: February 4, 2013

Word count: 9398 (without abstract, references, appendix and footnotes)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/42

UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM 2

Abstract

Since the 1990s the promotion of the information society has been an important all-

encompassing strategy by the European Union, until in more recent years the term vanishedin European public policy making. This study employs a case-study on information society

use by the European Commission, to refine a leading theory on European integration; the

integration by stealth theory. By analysing a coordinative discourse transformation in an

empirical case, that possesses many characteristics of integration by stealth theory, the role of

a coordinative discourse in integration by stealth theory is inductively examined. This study

is set in a framework of discursive institutionalism. A total of 55 documents from the

European Commission are analysed, using an adapted form of discourse tracing. This

analysis shows a changing coordinative discourse of information society in the timeframe of

2005 2011. From 2008 onwards an economic crisis coordinative discourse becomes

apparent. At the same time the Commission is pursuing the same information society

objectives which are adapted to the new coordinative policy discourse. The results of the

analysis can be interpreted as evidence that the practice of integration by stealth continues

under a new coordinative discourse. Future research needs to focus on the role of a

coordinative discourse in integration by stealth theory, in order to refine theoretical

knowledge on European integration.

Keywords: information society, integration by stealth, coordinative discourse, European

Union, European Commission, discourse tracing, discursive institutionalism.


3/42


List of abbreviations

DI Discursive Institutionalism

DG Directorate General

DG CONNECT Directorate General Information Society and Media

DG INFSO Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and

Technology

EC European Commission

EU European Union

ICT Information and Communication Technology

OMC Open Method of Coordination


4/42


Table of contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5

1. Integration by stealth theory and European integration studies ............................................. 8

1.1 The European Union as a regulatory state .................................................................... 10

1.2 Integration by stealth as a specific theory on European integration ............................. 11

2. Contextualizing the discursive institutionalism framework ................................................ 12

2.1 Defining a coordinative discourse ................................................................................. 13

3. What is the information society? ......................................................................................... 14

3.1 Integration by stealth characteristics in the information society programme ............... 15

4. Analytical framework .......................................................................................................... 17

4.1 The transformation of the coordinative discourse of information society ..................... 19

4.2 The objectives of the i2010 initiative in the new coordinative discourse....................... 19

5. Methodological use of discourse tracing and data gathering ............................................... 19

5.1 Data gathering ............................................................................................................... 20

5.2 Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 21

5.3 Structured questions ....................................................................................................... 21

6. The transformation of a coordinative discourse................................................................... 23

6.1 Facing the threat ............................................................................................................ 24

6.2 Defining the ultimate goal .............................................................................................. 25

6.3 What about the information society? ............................................................................. 25

6.4 Linking the dots of a coordinative discourse transformation ........................................ 26

7. Information society objectives in a renewed coordinative discourse .................................. 26

8. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 27

8.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 28

8.2 Future research agenda ................................................................................................. 28

9. References ............................................................................................................................ 30

10. Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 33

Table 1. Chronological ordering of analysed documents .................................................... 33

Table 2. Dataset of the analysed documents ........................................................................ 35


5/42


Introduction

During the 1990s the term information society became a popular rhetoric phrase in

European public policy making. Although there is no consensus in the academic communityor by policy makers what exactly an information society entails. The European Union

launched different initiatives to prepare the Union for this upcoming new chapter in human

history. The dawn of a new society where the economy revolves around information as a

commodity was perceived as inevitable. In order to stay ahead of global competitors like the

United States and Japan, the European Union believed stimulating and kick starting this new

information society was essential. The so-called Bangemann Report published in 1994 by the

special High Level Expert Group on the Information Society, marked the start of the

European Unions focus on the information society and described the dawning transformation

as follows:

Throughout the world, information and communication technologies are generating a

new industrial revolution already as significant and far-reaching as those of the past.

This revolution adds huge new capacities to human intelligence and constitutes a

resource which changes the way we both work and live together. [] Europe is

already participating in this revolution but with an approach which is still too

fragmentary and which could reduce expected benefits. An information society is a

means to achieve so many of the Union s objectives. We have to get it right, and get it

right now (High Level Group on the Information Society ('Bangemann Group'), 1994,

p. 10).

It is striking that in recent years there has been a disappearance in the use of the term

information society by the European institutions. Most manifest in the abandonment of the

term is the renaming of one of the larger Directorate Generals of the European Commission

responsible for information society policies. The Directorate General Information Society

and Media (DG INFSO) dropped the title Information Society and changed its name in 2012

to the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG

CONNECT). Is there no longer a need to stimulate an information society, or are there other

explanations that can give us insight on why the EU uses the term information society in a

particular way?


6/42


In this bachelor thesis the use of the term information society by the European

Commission (EC) is investigated. The focus on this subject derived from a simple empirical

observation. The information society from the 1990s onwards has been an important part of

the policy agenda by the Commission until in recent years the term seems to be consciously

avoided. This study attempts to find an explanation for this empirical observation. In addition

it seems this case provides an interesting opportunity to inductively refine a leading theory on

European integration, which is the integration by stealth theory by Giandomenico Majone.

This theory in sum assumes the European Commissions main aim is to extend its

competences in new policy fields and consolidate existing authority. Deepening and widening

European integration is the most important aspiration of the Commission.

The theory of Majone is rooted in the new institutionalism approach. This approach

argues institutions, which can be for example formal institution or certain operating

procedures, shape political outcomes (Marsh & Stoker, 2010, p. 62). Within new

institutionalism there are sub approaches like rational choice and historical institutionalism.

These sub approaches focus on the historical development of institutions and the formation of

interests within these institutions. Majones integration by stealth theory is built on rational

choice and historical institutionalism. But Majone does not take into account the role of ideas

in the integration by stealth theory. In this study the explanatory power of a coordinative

discourse in integration by stealth theory is examined.

The case of how the Commission uses the term information society as a policy

programme seems to have characteristics of the integration by stealth theory, which will later

be addressed in detail. While at the same time information society is used as a coordinative

public policy discourse. Different studies state the EC uses the term information society as a

public policy discourse (Garnham, 2000) (Goodwin & Spittle, 2002) (Servaes, 2003). More

specifically, the information society discourse frames and sets the policy debate, in what can

be regarded as a coordinative policy discourse. A coordinative discourse is at the centre ofpolicy construction and is used to create, elaborate and justify policy and programmatic

ideas (Schmidt, 2008, p. 310). In sum a coordinative discourse serves different policy actors

to seek and coordinate agreement among themselves. In this study the role of a coordinative

discourse is linked to the integration by stealth theory. The case-study of information society

is chosen since it shows many characteristics of integration by stealth theory, and seems to

harbour a transformation of coordinative discourses. An empirical study on this case brings

clarification in how the coordinative discourse of information society is transformed and


7/42


shows whether the practice of integration by stealth continues under a new coordinative

discourse.

Discourse analysis is often rooted in postmodern traditions. Because the aim of this

study is to inductively further develop an existing theory, a more positivist approach is

rendered to be more appropriate. Therefore the approach of discursive institutionalism (DI)

provides a good theoretical framework for this study. Discursive institutionalism is rooted in

new institutionalism and is complementary to the older new institutionalisms (rational-

choice, historical, sociological). Insights from the other new institutionalisms are not ignored

but form a baseline in DI. The new aspect of discursive institutionalism is the role of ideas

and discourse in relation to interests, institutions or culture. Discursive institutionalism does

not assume discourse has isolated explanatory power, but depending on the case discourse

can influence the way interests, institutions or culture are shaped. This way discursive

institutionalism can add a new dimension to the integration by stealth theory. And at the same

time DI allows us to keep using the explanatory power of existing factors (interests and

institutions) in integration by stealth theory.

The empirical data which is analysed in this study are 55 written documents by the

European Commission with a time span of 2005 2011. In this time frame the transformation

of information society discourse took place. Different key policy documents and written

speeches are analysed using an adaptive form of discourse tracing. The methodology of

discourse tracing is used to explore how the coordinative discourse of information society is

transformed, and simultaneously whether the same objectives in the information society

coordinative discourse are adopted in a new coordinative discourse. This leads to the

following research question:

How does the European Commission maintain its information society objectives in a

new coordinative policy discourse?

It has to be noted that this study will not provide an exclusive answer to this complex

question. Neither is the aim of this study to investigate any causal relation. This study merely

serves as a first step in investigating whether the role of a coordinative discourse in the

integration by stealth theory, needs to be taken into account in future research.


8/42


Academic and social relevance

It has to be remarked the objective of this study is explicitly not to influence any discussion

on the European Union outside the academic community. Often discourse analysis, and

especially critical discourse analysis, tries to uncover power structures and give society

insight in the working of these power structures in order to address them. The intention of

this study is not to bring any change in society or provide general knowledge to the public,

while it is not neglected that the outcome of this study can resonance in society. It would be

fruitful for society if any of the results of this study, in case they are sensible for society, are

discussed in society. But as a social scientist my main aim with this study is to improve

theoretical academic knowledge on the working of European integration, my aim is not to

participate or influence a normative discussion in society on European integration. I am

performing solely a thoroughly conducted study as best one can, and the results of this study

should therefore solely be judged on academic criteria.

In the following parts of this study the theoretical framework is delineated. First the

existing theories of European integration are briefly explored and the role of integration by

stealth theory within this field is pictured. Second the theoretical framework of discursive

institutionalism is further explained. Third the case of information society is explored and

characteristics of integration by stealth theory in this case are examined. In the fourth and

fifth part the analytic framework and used methodology is outlined. The findings of this study

are presented in the sixth and seventh part, each part as an answer to one of the sub research

questions. Finally a concluding remark follows in part eight were also potential focus for

future research is sketched out.

1. Integration by stealth theory and European integration studies

In the academic literature there are different theoretical positions on European integration. In

order to clearly understand the integration by stealth theory, some of these most important

positions on European integration need to be outlined. The classical debate is divided

between neo-functionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism which are briefly described.

The core concept of neo-functionalism as formulated by Ernst Haas (1958) is the

functional and political spillover effect. Integration in one policy field automatically presses

for integration in another policy field. Integration in the economic domain leads eventually to

unavoidable integration in the political domain. This spillover effect leads to incremental


9/42


and steadily deepening European integration and the creation and expansion of supranational

institutions (Cini, 2007, pp. 86-92). The integration process is pushed by different self-

interested groups in society, as a mean to resolve problems they encounter. Ultimately

created supranational institutions create their own political agenda over time, because of

elite socialisation and changing loyalties. This elite tends to support a permissive

consensus of advancing further European integration (Cini, 2007, p. 87). The early

propagators of neo-functionalism had a clear aim; steadily building a federal Europe.

The counterpart of neo-functionalism is the theory of liberal intergovernmentalism by

Andrew Moravcsik (1998). Liberal intergovernmentalism is state-centred and assumes

European member states are in control over the European integration process. In the national

domain preferences are formulated which are negotiated in an interstate bargaining process in

Brussels. A supranational European institution exists merely by the grace of the European

member states. So the principals in liberal intergovernmentalism theory are still in control

over its agent.

The classic debate between neo-functionalists and liberal intergovernmentalists has

been dominant over the years but also received a lot of critique. Both theories have been

criticized on different empirical and theoretical grounds.1 In general both theories try to

provide an all-encompassing theory of European integration while the empirical practice

often seems to be more complex than the models suggests. This led to an adaption of existing

theories and an introduction of new theories to explain European integration.

Multi-level governance (where policy making is considered to take place on different

levels or policy arenas) for example entered the European integration studies. No longer

was the European integration process perceived as a sui generis or unique phenomenon. But

existing grand theories from the field of international relations were used to explain European

integration (Cini, 2007, pp. 119-121). Other scholars still perceived European integration

process as a unique phenomenon and adapted existing middle-range theories. Stone Sweetand Sandholtz (1997) for example point out the effect of social cross-border transactions in

neo-functionalist theory. The increasing level of transnational exchange, which is for

example intra-state trade or communication, pushes for a European sphere. This emerging

European sphere demands supranational governance. The role of nation states in this

approach is primarily a facilitator of this process.

1The book of Ben Rosamon Theories of European Integration gives an extensive overview of the differenttheories on European integration and the status of these theories in the academic debate (Rosamond, 2000).


10/42


1.1 The European Union as a regulatory state

Before the integration by stealth theory is set out, it is necessary to focus on the broader work

of Majone. The integration by stealth theory serves as a middle range theory but is part of a

broader theoretical framework. For reasons of limited space the integration by stealth theory

is treated as an isolated theory, detached from broader theoretical and normative assumptions.

To understand Majones thinking clearly, it is indispensable to first briefly describe his grand

theoryon the regulatory state.

Majone claims that the EU essentially is a regulatory state (Majone, 1994). A

regulatory state tries to regulate markets and prospers negative integration. The main task is

to address market failures. In contrast to an interventionist welfare state that actively

redistributes resources. The EU seems to focus on negative integration which comes with

regulating the internal market, as for example removing import barriers or unifying product

standards. In general, the EU lacks the ability to prosper positive integration which entails

redistribution issues. These questions largely remain in the sphere of the individual welfare

state (Cini, 2007, pp. 127-128). Regulation is a form of governance which addresses

problems of market imperfection that cant be solved on a member state level. Therefore new

supranational institutions are set up to create Pareto-efficient outcomes (the benefits are

shared but no one is made worse off). What follows from this approach is the question

whether there is a democratic deficit in the working of the European Union. Majone argues

when a supranational institution is created to provide Pareto-efficient outcomes only the

efficiency of the outcome counts. Politicizing the policy making process in this sense is

counterproductive.

Gradually Majone changed his grand theory of a regulatory state into the integration

by stealth theory. The European project might de facto work like a regulatory state, but the

integration process leading towards the European supranational institutions makes theEuropean project a special case of a regulatory state. Majone argues the European integration

process is characterized by the Monnet method which entails a set of quasi-constitutional

principles derived from the founding treaties and from neo-functionalism (Majone, 2009, pp.

74-76). Basically the Monnet method entails gradually and not clearly defined integration

without a common or clearly defined goal. This he calls integration by stealth or

cryptofederalism. In this method the processof integration triumphs over the outcome. This

means European institutions seek in a neo-functionalist tradition to extent or enhance existingcompetences. But the difference with the neo-functionalist approach is the lack of focus on an


11/42


ultimate goal. The institutional system is essentially not designed for effective policy but

largely to pursue objectives of negative integration. This stealthy integration process provides

a legitimatization problem for the European project. Much of Majones work addresses the

question how this legitimization problem could be solved (Majone, 2010), by limiting

supranational competences and clearly defining integration objectives. Bus as mentioned

before the focus of this study solely rests on the integration by stealth theory, detached from

Majones broader normative and theoretical thinking.

1.2 Integration by stealth as a specific theory on European integration

During the mid-1950s the credibility of the Federalist vision lost popularity under European

elitists and the general public. It seemed impossible a truly Federal Europe was feasible. Inthis light the turn towards a strategy of integration by stealth by the European founding

fathers should be viewed (Majone, 2009, p. 72). The operational principle says that

integration has priority over all other competing values including democracy. This means

pushing for European integration is the raison dtre of the European Union. Hence

policymaking in the EU is less to find a feasible solution to a concrete problem than to drive

forward the integration process, and a relative indifference to actual policy outcomes

(Majone, 2005, pp. 143-144).The core principle of the integration by stealth strategy is the fait accompli or the

accomplished facts. This means EU decision-makers push for European integration without

informing the public what is happening. When the results of European integration become

clear it is already an accomplished fact which makes public debate and opposition useless. A

striking application of this strategy is the decision to proceed with a monetary union before

there was any agreement on a political union (Majone, 2009, pp. 1-2). In recent years the

resistance on the monetary union increased, but pulling the plug out of the Euro-project

inclines suicidal tendencies. This makes the monetary union an accomplished fact according

to Majone.

Another principle of the stealthy integration is the unclear ultimate goal of the

integration project. European integration as such is no longer a mean but an end. The focus is

on the process and not the outcome. This mechanism is called goal displacement and was

first explored by Michels (1962). Goal displacement is the danger that the original objectives

of an organisation are snowed under by a preoccupation with institutional problems. When an

institution is created the leaders wants to assure its survival and build a strong institution. But


12/42


the preoccupation with institutional problems leads to a surrender of the very goals by which

an institution is created. After which the mean becomes a goal, and the goal becomes a

mean (Majone, 2009, p. 77).

Goal displacement according to Majone is so important in the political culture of the

EU that it is manifest in many European practices as for example the Common Fishery

Policy. This policy is not solely used to manage the problem of overfishing. Rather the policy

serves as a mean to pursue a variety of objectives including promoting European integration

and redistribute income across member states (Majone, 2009, p. 77). Measuring success no

longer entails whether the goal is achieved but whether the process heads into a certain

direction. Additionally several objectives are pursued using one policy instruments. This way

accountability is reduced to a vanishing point. When a policy instrument serves different

goals, the failure of one goal can always be compensated with another (Majone, 2010, p.

185). For the same reason the EU can set extremely ambitious objectives. The goal after all is

not to achieve these objectives (in which accountability can be avoided), but to use these

objectives to foster European integration.

A final aspect of the integration by stealth strategy is the exclusive focus on the

European dimension in policy issues. In some cases a narrower perspective could be more

appropriate but the Commission often eagerly strives to find a European dimension. Thus

policies are often not initiated to solve concrete problems but merely to contribute European

integration. This makes clear why the role of the Commission in the stealth theory is so

important. The Commission is granted solely the right of legislative initiative and for this

reason has a great influence on the European agenda. This explains the exclusive focus on the

Commission in this study.

2. Contextualizing the discursive institutionalism framework

Discursive institutionalism originated to supplement other new institutionalism traditions in

political science (rational choice, historical and sociological institutionalism). DI is set up as

a framework with the same epistemological status as the other new institutionalisms but

focuses on the role of ideas and discourse which is manifest through language. The focus on

discourse is stripped of its postmodern baggage (Schmidt, 2008, p. 305). A more positivist

(and tangible) approach is used, instead of the postmodernist approach in which reality is

only discursively constructed. Because of the positivist character of integration by stealth


13/42


theory, DI serves as a suitable framework to link integration by stealth theory and the role of

ideas.

Discourse is set in an institutional context where a discourse is one of many factors

that can affect policy making (Schmidt & Radaelli, 2004, pp. 186-188). Discourse can never

be the independent variable that explains change; discourse rather serves as an interaction

variable. At the same time interests, institutions and culture build a discourse and are

influenced by a discourse. This means that insights from the other new institutionalism

approaches give useful background information. Discourse helps create an opening to policy

change by altering actors perceptions of the policy problem, policy legacies and fit,

influencing their preferences, and, thereby, enhancing their political institutional capacity to

change (Schmidt & Radaelli, 2004, p. 188). The turn towards the role of discourse can

therefore explain why change happens. DI focuses on the role of ideas and agency, while not

ignoring structural factors. By doing this DI forms a bridge in the structure agency debate.

2.1 Defining a coordinative discourse

Two dimensions of a discourse can be contextualized. The first dimension is the role of ideas

and values in creating meaning. This is based on cognitive arguments, which demonstrate the

policy programmes relevance, applicability and coherence, and is based on normativearguments, which resonate with the long-standing or newly-emerging values (Schmidt &

Radaelli, 2004, p. 201). The second dimension of a discourse is about the interactive aspect

of policy formulation and communication. In this study only the latter interactive dimension

of a discourse is studied in depth.

The interactive dimension of a discourse is about to who you say it (Schmidt, 2005,

p. 10). In public policy making the interactive dimension of a discourse consists of two

spheres; a political sphere and a policy sphere. Both spheres have a different type of

discourse. The political sphere is the domain of the communicative discourse. Politicians

have to communicate political programmes to the general public to legitimize decisions. In

the public policy sphere a different coordinative discourse exists. Policy makers seek to

coordinate agreement on policies and to a lesser extent communicate with the general public.

The focus is on reaching agreement among themselves and persuading their own

constituencies (Schmidt & Radaelli, 2004, p. 198). In European policy the focus is on the

coordinative discourse which is shared in an epistemic community or discourse coalition

of loosely connected individuals and groups. In practice most of the communication


14/42


discourse with the general public is left to the national domain of individual member states

(Schmidt & Radaelli, 2004, p. 199).

A coordinative discourse tends to be more focussed on cognitive arguments, as policy

actors debate policies often on technical and scientific merits (Schmidt, 2005, p. 11). And a

coordinative discourse may contain entrepreneurial actors that articulate and draw on new

ideas. These entrepreneurial actors can serve as a catalyst for change (Schmidt, 2008, p. 310).

Remarkably Majone does not pay attention to the role of a coordinative discourse in

the integration by stealth theory, while in earlier work he made some contributions to the role

of ideas in public policy making which show similarities with the theory of a coordinative

discourse (Majone, 1989) (Majone, 2001). In Majones thinking the power of ideas ex ante,

which is before a policy decision is taken, is limited. But Majone points out specifically the

ex post influence of ideas in these studies, or the influence of ideas to legitimize decisions

already taken. Ideas serve ex-post to rationalize policy, institutionalize ideas and make

communication among players possible (Majone, 2001, pp. 3-4). Surprisingly this ex post

influence of ideas in policy making is not mentioned by Majone in relation to the integration

by stealth theory. This study can form a bridge between the integration by stealth theory and

this earlier work of Majone.

3. What is the information society?

Critical scholars (who operate in a Marxist tradition) point out the EC uses the term

information society as an ideological policy mantra or great meta narrative (Garnham,

2000) (Goodwin & Spittle, 2002) (Servaes, 2003). These scholars turn towards the role of

discourse and argue the term information society is a myth or just hallow rhetorics which is

used to reinforce the position of the European institutions. The information society indeedbecame a discourse in which it was possible to integrate many of the at first sight disparate

European ambitions: from competition policy over competitiveness to maintaining cultural

diversity and subsidiarity (Servaes, 2003, p. 12). What is important in these studies is the

turn towards information society as a policy discourse. Albeit it has to be noted that these

postmodernist studies are not thoroughly conducted and the conclusions are not firm. This is

indirectly attributable to the post-modernist approach of these studies. By looking more in-

depth it becomes clear the information society policy discourse acts as a coordinative

discourse.


15/42


During the 1990s the term information society migrated from the academic

community into daily European policy making.2Different studies show that although there

are different positions and conception of information society in the literature, the European

Commission embraced the term in a specific manner (Anttiroiko, 2001, p. 33) (Gmez-

Barroso, Feijo, & Karnitis, 2008, pp. 791-793) (Shahin & Finger, 2009, p. 4). A shallow

economic and technological conception of the information society was used to prosper

negative integration into new policy fields. Although the Commission never exactly defined

what an information society is, these observations are hermeneutically based on concrete

policies initiatives as for example in the telecommunication sector. Interference by the

Commission in this new policy field was legitimized under the flag of creating an information

society. So the Commission sees the creation of an information society merely as a

technological project with economic consequences. Hence the developments in the field of

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) transform the economy according to the

EC.

The use of the term information society by the Commission renders to be extremely

ambitious and ambiguous as different studies suggests (Mansell & Steinmueller, 2000)

(Pintr, 2008) (Salajan, 2008) (Shahin & Finger, 2009). These study focus on the use of the

term in a specific manner. The dawning information society is portrayed as inevitable. In

order for the EU to stay competitive with other global economies like the United States the

EU needs to promote an information society. The term provides the Commission with an all-

encompassing meta-narrative or catch-all phrase. Under the umbrella of information society

different policies are introduced, mainly in the field of ICT. This way information society

acts as a coordinative discourse in which mainly cognitive ideas fits. The coordinative

discourse serves to reach agreement among different policy actors in the European public

policy sphere on what has to be done.

3.1 Integration by stealth characteristics in the information society programme

Based on the findings of the studies that examine how the EC uses the term information

society, it seems there is striking resemblance with the integration by stealth theory. The term

as a policy programme is vague but ideal for the Commission to push for integration. The

2For an overview on theories and conceptions of the information society in the academic community the workof Frank Webster is a good starting point.(Webster, 2006).


16/42


next part describes which aspects of the stealth integration theory are manifest in how the

Commission uses information society.

The term information society is multi-faced and has many different interpretations.

But the Commission does not explicitly make clear what exactly their vision of an

information society involves when the term is used, or more specifically what the

Commission concretely wants to achieve with promoting an information society. Instead the

term is used in a highly abstract manner whereby there is no basis for disagreement (Shahin

& Finger, 2009, pp. 13-14). The emerging information society is presented as an

accomplished fact which is irreversible (it cant be stopped but needs promotion in order to

beat global competition). Using this narrative gives the Commission the ability to extend

competences in new policy fields like the telecommunications sector.

Another signal of integration by stealth theory is the one-sided focus on the European

sphere. The information society according to the Commission has to be established on a

European level. It is not mentioned why member states are not able to create an information

society. It seems the EC acts opportunistic, by claiming a new emerging policy field as

being European.

Even more striking is the mechanism of goal displacement in stimulating an

information society. Different objectives ranging from reducing gender inequality to

extending the internal market are linked to the creation of an information society. The goal no

longer is to achieve an information society, but to achieve different goals while stimulating

an information society. The focus shifts from the ultimate goalof creating an information

society, to theprocess of creating an information society. Thus the focus is on the process of

European integration, while it is not clear which ultimate goal it serves. This manifestation of

goal displacement is another eye-catching characteristic of the integration by stealth theory.

Additionally various studies point out difficulties in measuring the achievements of

the information society programme, because there is no consensus on what an informationsociety is (Archibugi & Coco, 2005) (Gmez-Barroso, Feijo, & Karnitis, 2008)

(Heinderyckx & Ricci, 2000) (Kaitatzi-Whitlock, 2000). The Commission often triumphs

successful information society policies, by focusing on economic and moreover technological

progress indicators. But when its not clear what exactly an information society is, different

indicators can render different results. Furthermore the focus is on what can be achieved by

information society policies, which are often a variety of objectives. Thus the advancement of

creating an information society is not measured to what extent the information society is


17/42


developed, but to what extent the means of the information society policy programme are

successful.

This first exploration based on face validity shows many parallels with the integration

by stealth theory. The emerging information society is presented as an accomplished fact, the

EC stands up as the promoter of the information society while it is unclear why this has to be

a European affair, the mechanism of goal displacement seems apparent and finally it is

difficult to measure the achievements of reaching an information society by which

accountability is compromised. In observing this case it seems the Commissions is not

interested whether the extremely ambitious ultimate goal of creating an information society is

reached, but rather uses the goal of information society to prosper European integration in a

new policy sphere; the digital environment.

4. Analytical framework

This study investigates the role of a coordinative discourse in integration by stealth theory.

This is done by inductively studying the case of information society and investigating

whether there are indications present to assume the following hypothesis could be true.

The coordinative discourse of information society is used by the European

Commission to prosper integration by stealth.

To test this hypothesis the continuation of different objectives that were introduced under the

flag of the information society policy programme are inspected in the timeframe of 2005

2011. This time span is chosen because in 2005 the last important initiative to create an

information society was launched (i2010 A European Information Society for growth andemployment, 2005). By 2011 the use of information society by the Commission seems to

have vanished.

The aim of this study is to clarify whether the objectives of the i2010 initiative are still

present in later documents but are accommodated under a new coordinative policy discourse.

Ceteris paribus when the coordinative discourse of information society changes it would be

logical that objectives that focus on creating an information society change. When the same

objectives are maintained but the coordinative discourse under which they operate change, it

can be seen as evidence for the role of discourse in the integration by stealth theory (Figure


18/42


1). Namely the same objectives are preserved in order to push for European integration, but

in a new coordinative policy discourse.

When the findings show that the objectives and the discourse of information society

are abandoned altogether, it can be interpreted as evidence that there must be another

explanation. It could be that there simply is no longer a need to stimulate an information

society. For this alternative explanation the role of interests, institutions and culture are more

important. For example interests change and the information society as a coordinative

discourse altogether with its objectives are regarded as not important anymore.

Figure 1. The hypothetical role of discourse transformation in integration by stealth theory


19/42


4.1 The transformation of the coordinative discourse of information society

This study focuses solely on the transformation of the information society as a coordinative

discourse into a new coordinative discourse. Explicitly said, the aim is not to discover how

different factors (interests, institutions, cultural) influence the discourse transformation, or

whether entrepreneurial actors manage to influence a coordinative discourse. As already

stated it is not neglected that these factors affect the discourse transformation, but for reasons

of limited time and space the role of these factors is not explored. The transformation of the

coordinative discourse is an important condition in this study. In what way the coordinative

discourse of information society is transformed will be analysed. This leads to the first sub

question;

How is the coordinative discourse of information society [in which the European

Commission operates] transformed into a new coordinative discourse?

4.2 The objectives of the i2010 initiative in the new coordinative discourse

The i2010 initiative was launched by the Commission in 2005 as part of the renewed Lisbon

strategy. It contained a framework to address the main challenges and developments in theinformation society up to 2010. The i2010 initiative contains three pillars of objectives,

which are explored in detail later. In this study the continuation of these objectives in a new

coordination discourse is examined. It has to become clear whether the same objectives of the

i2010 initiative are accommodated under a new coordinative policy discourse. This leads to

the second sub question;

How are the main objectives of the i2010 initiative maintained by the European

Commission in a new coordinative discourse?

5. Methodological use of discourse tracing and data gathering

Discourse tracing is a qualitative method to analyse the formation, interpretation, and

appropriation of discursive practices across micro, meso and macro levels (LeGreco & Tracy,

2009, p. 1516). At first sight this method does not seem to be very appropriate in this study.


20/42


The method is rooted in a post-modernist tradition of critical discourse analyses. And

discourse tracing focuses essentially on how various levels of discourse (on the micro, meso

and macro level) interact and create or transform a certain phenomenon. In this study the

more positivist approach of discursive institutionalism is used, and only the transformation of

a macro coordinative discourse is investigated. In order to use the method of discourse

tracing in this study some elements which are not relevant are stripped or adapted. A clearly

defined method is used in order to reduce bias, and improve dependability by making it

possible to replicate the findings of this study.

5.1 Data gathering

The first phase of discourse tracing is defining a case and reviewing the relevant literaturewhich already has been done in previous parts. The second phase is data collection. The focus

in this study is not to investigate what role different actors play in a discourse transformation.

Therefore the influence of different actors on the micro, meso and macro level is not taken

into account. The only field of interests is how the discourse transformation takes place on

the macro level and specific within the EC. By studying the discourse transformation on this

specific level it has to become clear how the Commission adapts to a specific discourse in

relation to its objectives.The group of data which is gathered are Communication documents and written

speeches by the EC. For practical reasons and to ensure consistency only documents written

in English are gathered. Although this means some documents are excluded this does not

necessary lead to validity problems. The focus is on key documents in which broad

objectives and strategies are outlined, the expectation is that these documents will be written

in English as one of the lingua franca of the EC.

In Communication documents the Commission sets out its strategy and priorities for

clearing and settlement. The first set of Communication documents which are gathered are

the yearly legislative and work programmes of the Commission. Working programmes give

an outlook on what the Commission thinks is generally important the coming year. These

documents are a good starting point because they are published annually and therefore

provide continuity. The next set of documents are the annual reports on the progress of the

i2010 initiative. These documents contain clear visions and policy direction on information

society policies. By 2010 this annual report is replaced by a digital competitive report and

in 2011 by the annual progress report on the Digital Agenda. Other documents are gathered


21/42


when they are key documents in the field of information society policies. As for example

the Digital Agenda which is part of the Europe 2020 strategy and can be considered the

follow-up of the i2010 initiative. The last group of gathered docuements are written speeches.

Because the focus of this study lays on the transformation of the coordinative discourse of

information society, speeches of DG INFSO / DG CONNECT commissioners (V. Reding &

N. Kroes) are analysed. Speeches are picked on the same criteria as the other documents,

which is when they contain a broad vision on policy direction.3

5.2 Data analysis

The following step of discourse tracing which is used is the chronologically ordering of the

data in a table. By ordering the data chronological it is eventually possible to illustrate whichdiscourse operates in a given situation (see Table 1 in the appendix). This makes it possible to

examine exact how a discourse transforms. The following step is to close read the ordered

data. After this phase of data collection the analysis can take place. The analysis consists of

asking the data structured questions. These structured questions are developed in a

reflexive process and serve to trace the connection in the data. Structured questions are

different from the research question or hypothesis. Merely these questions systematically lift

out certain arguments or patterns in the data. An example of a structured question is what isthe purpose of a policy initiative? or is there a threat presented?. Another aspect in the

analysis is whether objectives as mentioned in the i2010 initiative are mentioned in the

document. This question is related to the research question and is not in line with the

methodology of discourse tracing. Still this aspect is appropriate because this study is not

solely focussing on a discourse transformation but focuses on how the Commission deals

with this transformation.

5.3 Structured questions

The gathered data is asked different structured questions. The first structural question gives

insight whether the objectives of the i2010 initiative are still present in later documents. The

i2010 initiative contains three pillars of objectives, which for simplicity are summarised in

single information space, innovation and inclusion. The first pillar of objectives entail

3

All speeches related to information society are found on a thematic website on information society by the EC(European Commission (1)). The Communication documents are found through the official documentationwebsite of the European Union (European Commission (2)).


22/42


stimulating the Single European Information Space, which means offering affordable and

secure high bandwidth communications, rich and diverse content and digital services. The

second pillar of objectives is innovation and investment in research in ICT. And the third

pillar is making an inclusive information society for all European citizens, which includes

providing high quality public services and promoting the quality of life. These objectives

are broad but can be clearly recognised in a document. When for example the focus in a

document is on creating a digital market, the first objective of creating a single information

space is mentioned. When the document focuses on the need to increase spending of research

and development in the field of ICT the second objective (innovation) is mentioned, etcetera.

All gathered documents are hermeneutically analysed to discover which objectives of the

i2010 initiative (to what extent) is manifest. Using the following structured question;

Are any of the main objectives (single information space, innovation or inclusion) of

the i2010 initiative mentioned?

The following set of questions is used to discover in what way the coordinative discourse has

transformed;

Are there one or more threats presented?

Are there one or more ultimate goals presented? In what frequency is the term 'information society' used?

Is there called upon other policy actors to cooperate?

The first structured question focuses on a threat, for example the threat of losing

competitiveness in a globalised world. The second question focuses on an ultimate goal, for

example creating jobs and economic growth. These threats and goals are part of the

coordinative discourse. It serves to seek agreement among policy actors on what has to be

done. When all policy actors share this idea, action can be taken to combat a threat and

achieve a certain ultimate goal. When these formulated threats and ultimate goals change it is

a sign of a transforming coordinative policy discourse.

The third structured question counts the amount of information society use in a

document. This gives insight whether the information society as coordinative discourse is

transformed. The term is counted without regarding context. Because it is only of interest

whether the term is used in the document, the term is not counted when present in the title

page, references, footnotes, list of definitions or as name for a table or figure.


23/42


The last structured questions can be regarded as a control question. This question

has to make clear to whom a document is directed. This gives insight whether a document is

truly set in a coordinative discourse and not in a communicative discourse. This is decided by

checking whether there is called upon other policy actors to cooperate. When this is the case

this is a good indication the document is set in a coordinative discourse.

Concretely the analysis takes place by asking the same set of structured questions to

all 55 gathered documents. The answers on these questions are collected using a simple

digital spread sheet application. For reasons of transparency the results of the data analysis

are presented in Table 2 in the appendix. The results are further translated in a coherent and

more accessible narrative structure in the following two parts. Each part resolves around

answering one of the sub questions of this study. For reasons of readability when referring to

an analysed document only the date of publication is used, and quotes are in italic. The

complete description of all documents can be found in Table 1 (appendix).

6. The transformation of a coordinative discourse

Before analysing how the coordinative discourse of information society has transformed, it

has to be clear whether there is a coordinative discourse present. Only two documents

(19/05/2010 and 05/11/2010) show signs of a communicative discourse. These two

documents are generally targeted towards the general public. In all other documents there is

evidence of a coordinative discourse. In these documents there is called upon other policy

actors to cooperate. For example; [...] the Commission proposes to involve the Member

States, the i2010 High Level Group, industry, civil society and other stakeholders more

closely in the development of the different topics (01/03/2007: p16). Or; All actors have a '

role to play' (01/06/2005: p11). And; All of us, business, society, governments, policy

makers and others to work together and shape our future (23/03/2006: p6). Often there is

called to initiate public-private partnership, and special focus is on the role of member states.

Many of the policy initiatives regarding the information society are based on an open method

of coordination (OMC), which means voluntary cooperation by member states. Therefore the

focus is on member states to act in order to reach the targets.


24/42


6.1 Facing the threat

Almost all analysed documents present a clear threat and ultimate goal. It is striking that

these threats and goals are often clearly presented in the first paragraphs of a document. By

presenting these threats and goals the different policy actors are summoned to act. In

presented threat there is a transformation observable from a globalisation threat to a

economic downturn threat. The first years of analysed documents predominantly stress the

importance to innovate in order to stay competitive in a globalised world. [...]Europe is not

operating in a vacuum. It competes with its main trading partners to innovate more quickly

and effectively. If we take our eyes off this ball or we are slow in acting we will lose

possession. We must urgently tackle this issue" (27/06/2006: p5). And; I strongly believe

that in a rapidly globalising world, with increased competition from outside Europe, we

cannot afford to stick to the status quo or to rely on easy options (18/10/2007: p4).

At the end of 2008 a new threat is presented; the economic downturn. The current

financial crisis and economic slowdown presents Europe with one of the most taxing

challenges it has faced. (05/11/2008: p2). At the end of 2009 the threat of economic decline

becomes even more grim; The worst financial and economic crisis in living memory

continues to have devastating effects within our communities and families, with

unemployment in particular continuing to rise" (06/10/2009: p2). When the new threat of

economic downturn is examined in more detail, it becomes clear it is also used as a new

layer on the old threat of globalisation. The last two years have left millions unemployed. It

has brought a burden of debt that will last for many years. It has brought new pressures on

our social cohesion. It has also exposed some fundamental truths about the challenges that

the European economy faces. And in the meantime, the global economy is moving forward.

How Europe responds will determine our future. The crisis is a wake-up call, the moment

where we recognise that "business as usual" would consign us to a gradual decline, to the

second rank of the new global order (03/03/2010: p2). While in most post-2008 documentsthe economic downturn threat is most visible. The new threat of economic downturn is linked

to the old threat of globalisation, and both threats reinforce each other. A last remark is the

clear role of information society policies in this threat; Without proper use of ICTs over the

next decade Europe will become a broken economy; it could unravel into a series of broken

societies (25/05/2010: p3). And finally; Yes, we are in a time of crisis and budget cuts. But

for me this underlines all the more the imperative. At a time of global change, it is not an

option to stay put. If we use ICT effectively the change can be less painful, and more effective.

If we don't invest in the future, we will remain stuck in the past (16/06/2011: p5).


25/42


6.2 Defining the ultimate goal

The ultimate goal of the analysed documents show close resemblance with the presented

threat. In 2005 the ultimate goal is to Prepare the EU for the challenges of the new century

(31/01/2005: p2). Or more specifically; Stimulating knowledge and innovation as the

engines of sustainable growth to build a fully inclusive information (01/06/2005: p12). Thus

the ultimate goal of stimulating an information society is linked to the threat of

globalization. Put differently in order to stay globally competitive the ultimate goal is to

stimulate the information society. Because; We are still in a position where we can and we

must act. ICT, as you know, is instrumental in bringing about the necessary changes to our

economy and society (23/03/2006: p2).

As for the transformation in threats there is also a transformation of ultimate goals

visible, be it less manifest in all documents. In times of economic and financial crisis, it is

important that this key role of ICT is not forgotten. Investments in ICT are 'smart'

investments; helping to create and maintain jobs and growth now, to emerge from the crisis

stronger and more quickly, while at the same time creating the basis for sustainable growth

and jobs in the future (04/08/2009: pp6-7). And; Can Europe make a long-term recovery

from the crisis without the actions in the Digital Agenda? I dont think so (30/05/2010: p2).

Or; Europe needs growth. And in my view ICT investment is the best way to achieve it[]

(17/05/2011: p2). In sum the post-2008 ultimate goal is economic sustainable growth which

can be achieved by using ICT; ICTs have contributed around half of the growth in EU

productivity and they will remain a critical factor in future growth. (22/12/2011: p2). Be it

less manifest than the transformation in threats, the transformation in ultimate goals gradually

changes from staying globally competitive to staying globally competitive while solving

the economic crisis using ICT.

6.3 What about the information society?

With the launch of the i2010 initiative the term information society is still used 25 times.

Since then the use of the term gradually loses popularity. When focussing on speeches the

term is still used 8 times in a speech of 2006 (28-09-2006). In the following years the

popularity of information society in speeches fluctuate but in general descents. After 2009 the

term is hardly used anymore in speeches. For Communication documents it is a different

story. These documents tend to have a lot more pages than speeches, so the change the term

is used is much higher. It is also evident that reports on the i2010 initiative will include much


26/42


more use of the information society because it is the name of the objectives. But the same

transformation in popularity as for the speeches seems to be visible. After 2009 the term loses

popularity significantly. In the Digital Agenda (26/08/2010), which can be considered the

successor of the i2010 initiative, the term information society is only used once. It seems the

term information society gradually left the European public policy coordinative discourse,

with a pivotal moment in 2009.

6.4 Linking the dots of a coordinative discourse transformation

As it is clear there is a coordinative policy discourse present in the analysed documents. By

analysing the perceived threats and ultimate goals it seems there is a shift at the end of 2008

when the economic crisis hits Europe. Prior to 2008 the coordinative discourse is set instaying ahead of global competitors. Doing so means stimulating the information society.

Post 2008 still internalises this goal but the point of departure differs, which is to solve the

economic crisis using ICT.

Thus there are indications of a transformation in the coordinative discourse of

information society. Before 2008 the term information society seems to be used as a feasible

and convincing term among policy actors in a coordinative discourse. With the outbreak of

the economic crisis staying globally competitive no longer is the most urgent goal. Thecoordinative discourse shifts towards first overcoming the economic downturn using ICT.

Doing so in a coordinative discourse in which the focus is on stimulating the economy using

ICT. The goal of an information society in this light seems to be less useful. No longer is

there a projection in the future of an ultimate goal to reach; presently there is a hostile

economic environment which needs direct action. This is indicated by the decline in use of

the term information society, documents of 2010 and 2011 seldom use the term anymore.

This concludes to think the answer on the first sub question is simply stated; the information

society coordinative discourse is transformed in an economic crisis coordinative discourse.

7. Information society objectives in a renewed coordinative discourse

So how are the objectives of the i2010 initiative maintained under this new coordinative

discourse? Based on the findings it can be safely stated that these objectives continue to exist

in the new coordinative discourse. At least one of the main objectives of i2010 (creating a

single information space, ICT innovation and digital inclusion), is found in every document.


27/42


Still there are some differences in frequency. First the Commissions annual work

programmes tends to be in a lesser extent focused on the i2010 objectives. In these annual

work programmes the EC formulates broadly their objectives. This broad focus results in a

narrower focus on the i2010 objectives. Most often only some of the objectives are

mentioned in one paragraph. This apparently shows the European Commission in general

does not find the i2010 objectives truly as important as the responsible Directorate General or

commissioner. This could mean the information society coordinative discourse served within

a bigger EC coordination discourse. But this assumption needs to be further researched.

In the other analysed Communication documents and speeches the main i2010

objectives are clearly present throughout the years. The focus on the objectives varies by

document. Some speeches for example are more focused on inclusion while other focuses on

the single information space. But this one-sided focus of some documents is randomly

scattered over all analysed years.

Further it seems some of the objectives changed their name but entail the same

meaning. For example the Single Information Space becomes the Single Digital Market,

and e-inclusion becomes digital inclusion (26/08/2010: pp5-6). Another remarkable

observation is linking of the main objectives with other (new) objectives. For example in

2009 the main objective of ICT innovation is linked with greening the economy. Today

everybody talks about 'Green ICT' and its potential to contribute to Europe's objectives of a

low-carbon economy and society (09/11/2009: p7). This find leads one to suspect the EC is

acting rather opportunistic by linking objectives to the present fashionable rhetorics.

Overall it can be concluded the main objectives of the i2010 initiative are all maintained

under a new coordinative policy discourse, which answers the second sub question.

8. Conclusion

There are clear signs the integration by stealth mechanism operates in the case of information

society use by the European Commission. Information society is used in a way that the focus

is on the process and not on the outcome. The information society is presented as an

accomplished fact, the mechanism of goal displacement seems present, and the European

sphere is chosen while unclear why. Or so it seems information society is used to prosper

European integration in a new policy sphere; the digital environment. Therefore the case

shows sign of a preoccupation by the EC on prospering European integration, rather thanfocussing on the outcome of information society policies.


28/42


The information society as a coordinative discourse contains a clear threat and

ultimate goal, in which it serves to seek agreement among policy actors on what has to be

done. Subsequently this information society coordinative discourse transforms in the

timeframe 2005-2011 in a new coordinative discourse. The pivotal years of transformation

are the end of 2008 and begin of 2009 when Europe is faced with the consequences of the

economic downturn. The coordinative discourse of information society gradually changes in

a coordinative discourse which focuses on the economic crisis. While the coordinative

discourse transforms, the information society objectives of the Commission are maintained,

or more specifically adapted to the new coordinative policy discourse.

The results of this study indicate that there are clear signs that in both the pre-2008

years and post-2008 years the same main objectives are pursued by the Commission, be it

under another coordinative discourse. This gives reason to confirm the hypothesis of this

study. Namely the same information society objectives are preserved in order to push for

European integration, albeit in a new coordinative policy discourse. This can be interpreted as

evidence that the coordinative discourse plays a role in integration by stealth theory.

Objectives which primarily serve European integration, seems to be opportunistically linked

to the dominant coordinative discourse.

8.1 Evaluation

Other explanatory options in this study have to be kept open. The findings of this study do

not imply a direct causal relation between a changing coordinative discourse and adaption of

objectives in a new coordinative discourse. The coordinative discourse merely functions as an

interaction variable, by which other factors (interest, institution, and culture) are influenced.

Nevertheless the findings of this study indicate the practice of integration by stealth continues

under a new coordinative discourse, which can be interpreted as evidence that a coordinative

discourse plays a role in integration by stealth theory. The added value of this study is

thereby clear; this study serves as a first indication the integration by stealth theory needs

refinement.

8.2 Future research agenda

More insight is needed in how a coordinative discourse in European public policy making

transforms, and what role different policy actors play in this transformation. This focus couldclarify whether the EC is acting entrepreneurial in a discourse transformation. Such a role by


29/42


the Commission would strengthen the evidence that a coordinative discourse is an important

element in integration by stealth theory. Another interesting aspect which needs further

research is the apparent difference in coordinative discourses between the Commission in

general and a specific Directorate General.

In order to strengthen the findings of this study, research should be extended to other

cases, whereby a falsification strategy should be adapted on a least-likely case. In addition a

different methodological approach could be useful in strengthening the findings of this study.

Semi-structured interviews with different actors of a discourse coalition for example, could

improve our insight on how and why a coordinative discourse exactly transforms. In general

this study indicates future research should focus on the role of a coordinative discourse in

integration by stealth theory.


30/42


9. References

Anttiroiko, A. V. (2001). Towards the European Information Society. Communications of the

ACM, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 31-35.

Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2005). Is Europe Becoming the Most Dynamic Knowledge

Economy in the World?JCMS, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 433-459.

Cini, M. (2007).European Union Politics.New York: Oxford University Press.

European Commission (1). (n.d.). Speeches - Europe' s Information Society Newsroom.

Retrieved 01 30, 2013, from Europe's Information Society - Thematic portal:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/news.cfm?item_type=speech

European Commission (2). (n.d.).Europe - Official Documents. Retrieved 01 30, 2013, from

http://europa.eu/publications/official-documents/index_en.htm

European Commission. (2005). i2010 A European Information Society for growth and

employment.Brussels: European Commission.

Garnham, N. (2000). 'Information Society' as Theory or Ideology: A Critical Perspective in

Technology, Education and Employment in the Information Age.Information,

Communication & Society, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 139-152.

Gmez-Barroso, J. L., Feijo, C., & Karnitis, E. (2008). The European Policy for the

Development of an Information Society: the Right Path?Journal of Common Market

Studies, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 787-825.

Goodwin, I., & Spittle, S. (2002). The European Union and the information society.New

Media & Society, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 225-249.

Haas, E. (1958). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950-1957.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Heinderyckx, F., & Ricci, A. (2000). Measuring information society, Dynamics of European

data on usage of information and communication technologies in Europe since 1995.Telematics and Informatics, v. 20.01.2000 - FINAL, pp. 1-53.

High Level Group on the Information Society ('Bangemann Group'). (1994).European

Planning for an Information Society.Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the

European Communities .

Kaitatzi-Whitlock, S. (2000). A 'redundant information society' for the European Union?

Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 17, pp. 39-75.

LeGreco, M., & Tracy, S. J. (2009). Discourse Tracing as Qualitative Practice. QualitativeInquiry, Vol. 15(9), pp. 1516-1543.


31/42


Majone, G. (1989).Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process.London: Yale

University Press.

Majone, G. (1994). The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe. West European Politics, Vol.

17(3), pp. 77 - 101.

Majone, G. (2001). Ideas, Interests and Institutional Change; The European Commission

Debates the Delegation Problem.Les Cahiers Europens de Sciences Po., Vol. 4, pp.

1-17.

Majone, G. (2005).Dilemmas of European Integration; The Ambiguities & Pitfalls of

Integration by Stealth.New York: Oxford University Press.

Majone, G. (2009).Europe as the would-be world power.Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Majone, G. (2010). Transaction-cost efficiency and the democratic deficit.Journal of

European Public Policy, Vol. 17(2), pp. 150-175.

Mansell, R., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2000).Mobilizing the Information Society.New York:

Oxford University Press.

Marsh, D., & Stoker, G. (. (2010). Theory and Methods in Political Science (3rd edition).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Michels, R. (1962). Political Parties. A Sociological Study of the Oligarchial Tendencies of

Modern Parties.New York: Collier Books.

Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power: From

Messina to Maastricht.London: University College London Press.

Pintr, R. (2008). Popular buzzwords, supernarratives and metanarratives for development:

What does the term "information society"mean? In R. Pintr, & (Eds),Information

Society, From Theory to Political Practice(pp. 212-224). Budapest: j Mandtum.

Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories on European Integration.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Salajan, F. D. (2008). The Rise of the Information Society amongst European Academics.European Journal of Education, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 457-475.

Schmidt, V. A. (2005). The Role of Public Discourse in European Social Democratic Reform

Projects.European Integration Online Papers, Vol. 9(8), pp. 1-20.

Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and

Discourse.Annual Review Political Science, Vol. 11, pp. 303-326.

Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy Change and Discourse in Europe:

Conceptual and Methodological Issues. West European Politics, Vol. 27(2), pp. 183-210.


32/42


Servaes, J. (2003). The European Information Society: A Reality Check.Bristol: Intellect

Books.

Shahin, J., & Finger, M. (2009). The history of a European Information Society: Shifts from

government to governance. In J. Tubtimhin, & R. Pipe,Advancing e-governance

through innovation and leadership (Global e-governance series, 2)(pp. 62-83).

Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Stone Sweet, A., & Sandholtz, W. (1997). European integration and supranational

governance.Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 4(3), pp. 297-317.

Webster, F. (2006). Theories of the Information Society (3rd edition).New York: Routledge.


33/42


10. Appendix

Table 1. Chronological ordering of analysed documents

Date Title Type Pages

26-01-2005 Commission Work Programme for 2005 EC Communication 6131-01-2005 i2010: The European Commissions new

programme to boost competitiveness in the ICTsector

Speech V. Reding 6

01-06-2005 i2010 A European Information Society forgrowth and employment

EC Communication 12

01-06-2005 i2010: Europe Must Seize the Opportunities ofthe Digital Economy

Speech V. Reding 4

06-09-2005 i2010 : a new start for Lisbon and for EuropeanInformation Society and Media policies

Speech V. Reding 7

26-10-2005 Commission Legislative and Work Programme2006 Unlocking Europes full potential

EC Communication 29

26-01-2006 Europe at High Speed: Growth and theInformation Economy

Speech V. Reding 7

23-03-2006 The need for a new impetus to the EuropeanICT research and innovation agenda

Speech V. Reding 6

27-03-2006 Broadband access: The new highways toprosperity

Speech V. Reding 5

19-05-2006 i2010 First Annual Report on the EuropeanInformation Society

EC Communication 12

27-06-2006 The Review 2006 of EU Telecom rules:Strengthening Competition and Completing theInternal Market

Speech V. Reding 10

28-09-2006 Strengthening the European InformationSociety: From Talk to Action

Speech V. Reding 4

24-10-2006 Commission Legislative and Work Programme2007

EC Communication 36

01-03-2007 Annual Information Society Report 2007; AEuropean Information Society for Growth and

employment. (Volume 1)

EC Communication 48

12-07-2007 Europe's telecommunications market ahead ofthe reform of the EU's regulatory framework

Speech V. Reding 8

18-10-2007 The digital dividend: towards a win-winsituation for the media and telecommunicationsectors

Speech V. Reding 5

23-10-2007 Commission Legislative and Work Programme2008

EC Communication 45

17-04-2008 i2010 Annual Information Society Report2008 (Volume 1)

EC Communication 44


34/42


17-04-2008 Preparing Europes digital future i2010 Mid-Term Review

EC Communication 12

17-06-2008 Seizing the Opportunities of the Global InternetEconomy

Speech V. Reding 5

02-09-2008 Towards a True Single Telecoms Market thatDelivers in terms of Competition, Investmentand Consumers

Speech V. Reding 6

01-10-2008 The digital dividend: A unique opportunity forEurope's wireless economy

Speech V. Reding 5

05-11-2008 Commission Legislative and Work Programme2009 Acting now for a better Europe

EC Communication 38

13-11-2008 Digital Europe: the Internet Mega-trends thatwill Shape Tomorrow's Europe

Speech V. Reding 6

11-05-2009 Internet of the Future: What policies to make ithappen?

Speech V. Reding 6

09-07-2009 Digital Europe Europe's Fast Track toEconomic Recovery

Speech V. Reding 10

04-08-2009 i2010 Annual Information Society Report2009 (Excluding country report (pp. 78-88)).

EC Communication 111

04-09-2009 Europes Digital Competitiveness Report; Mainachievements of the i2010 strategy 2005-2009(Excluding country profiles)

EC Communication 134

01-10-2009 The Digital Single Market: a key to unlock thepotential of the knowledge based economy

Speech V. Reding 7

06-10-2009 The Future of the Internet and Europe's DigitalAgenda

Speech V. Reding 8

16-10-2009 The Need for a European Social MarketEconomy and a Re-Launch of the Single MarketProject

Speech V. Reding 5

09-11-2009 Bringing down walls and barriers in the digitalworld priorities for the European DigitalAgenda

Speech V. Reding 8

12-11-2009 A European Digital Agenda for the New DigitalConsumer

Speech V. Reding 6

03-03-2010 Europe 2020; A strategy for smart, sustainable

and inclusive growth

EC Communication 35

12-03-2010 Economic growth in Europe Speech N. Kroes 531-03-2010 Commission Legislative and Work Programme

2010 Time to actEC Communication 13

04-05-2010 A Digital Agenda for Europe Speech N. Kroes 517-05-2010 Europes Digital Competitiveness Report 2010,

Volume 1EC Communication 132

19-05-2010 A Digital Agenda for Europe Speech N. Kroes 325-05-2010 Why Europe needs the Digital Agenda Speech N. Kroes 530-06-2010 Working together to implement the Digital

AgendaSpeech N. Kroes 5


35/42


36/42


26-10-2005 Predominantlysingle informationspace and to someextent innovation.

"The challenges facing Europe areclear, and urgent. Globalisation hasbrought opportunities, and newdemands." (p2)

"[] a policy mix which allowsEurope to pursue competitivenessand social justice, to protect itscitizens and promote theirfreedoms, to work inside Europeand to promote its values in theworld beyond." (p2)

1 time Mainly member states.(p2)

26-01-2006 Predominantly

innovation and tosome extent thesingle informationspace.

"The worrying news is that Europe

is faced with many challenges: slowgrowth,budget deficits, highunemployment, an ageingpopul