Initiating the European Communities-Theories

Initiating the European Communities-Theories

Liberal Inter-Governmentalism• Reassertion of the national states’ prerogatives.

• but with recognition of multi-level sources of preferences.• Drawn from realist tradition but with large dose of neo-liberal

institutionalism introduced.• Putnam’s two-level framework is an example of preference

origination, and national constraints to international agreements.• Breaks from realist traditions (like Grieco) in that it cracks open the

shell of the state.• But, it retains a predominant role for inter-governmental bargaining

in the midst of other institutions.• the Treaties of the European Union are treaties after all.


Liberal Inter-Governmentalism• Assumptions of Liberal intergovernmentalism

• The national governments and the prerogatives are dominant• Sub-national actors provide input into demands for policy,

shape national interest• EU serves as an arena for intergovernmental bargaining.

• Entry into the arena is voluntary as is participation and bargaining is non-coercive.

• Major decisions are made unanimously, not in QMV.• Bargaining environment is information rich, that institutional

actors don’t have advantaged positions.


Liberal Inter-Governmentalism• Modifies Intergovernmentalism’s Rejection of Institution’s as players

• Institutions are still arenas but they reduce transaction costs, foster issue-linkage (logrolling);

• Nations pool sovereignty in institutions to constrain actions of their partners;

• gain legitimacy and independence for policy vis-e-vis domestic actors.

• Outcomes are reflective of power relationships between states.• power mediated by salience of particular issues for each state.• threat of withdrawal by important states;• threat of abandonment by partners;• linkages to effect side-payments and bargains.


Liberal Inter-Governmentalism• Other breaks from Realism;

• Liberalism’s pluralist model of national interest formation.• domestic sectors establish preferences;• relative strength of domestic sectors dictate salience of issues

and scope for negotiations. (Putnam.)• Rejects strong role for institutional actors, or institutional

constraints anticipated by neo-liberal institutionalists and other liberal theories.• Limited or no policy entrepreneurship by institution;• no information advantage for institutional actors;• no development of shared self-interest;• connection between society and institution is mediated by the

state.


Liberal Inter-Governmentalism• Critiques;

• Neglects power of institutions• information advantages• diffuse reciprocity of partners

• Neglects direct connections between social actors or sectors and institutions, and actors in other states.

• Neglects the role of supragovernmental branches- commission, parliament, ECJ.

• Neglects bargaining between institutional actors.• General critiques of rational-actor based models;

• specifying preferences, preference invariance, satisficing, information management


Liberal Inter-Governmentalism

Belgie/Belgique

FRANCE

Deutschland

Nederl

ands

ENG

LAN

D

E.U.

Ag

Indus.

Serv


Institutionalism and Governance models of integration through policy.

• Abandons the grand-theory debates of integration as a phenomenon of IR. Policy-making, and implementation.

• Brings us back to something neo-functionalists would recognize.• More eclectic theories of integration. Focusing on interaction of

interests, actors, and institutions.• Assert the importance of institutions and rules as structuring

choices.



• Multi-level, multi-actor models of preference formation and venue shopping.

• That there can be a “Governance” approach to integration implies agency and independence in the institutions;

• There is an overlapping, interacting, poly-centric nature of governance in the E.U., like other polities



• Rational-actor, and Constructivist versions of policy process• Some focus on rational actor models in which groups seek utility

maximization within rules and information offered by institutions.• Others see the creation of norms, and shared values within the

institutions as shaping policy and integration.• Others see a central role for policy-entrepreneurs in institutions.• Some models combine features

• Advocacy Coalitions Framework• March and Olsen’s New Institutionalism.

• institutions provide rules, but also values, norms, and established practices.



• Side-step questions of inter-governmental vs. supranational by focusing on policy and regulatory functions.• but doesn’t this presume some polity and power in the

institutions even if they don’t have a big budget.• Solves the n of one problem that integration studies suffers with

the E.U. being a unique phenomenon.• Can compare policy process with other polities.


• Rational-Actor Institutionalism• Pollack examines E.U. using a principal-agent model to test liberal-

intergovernmentalist thesis.• States are principles that delegate their authority to an agent-

E.U.• States enter institutions to solve coordination problems,

realize gains otherwise unattainable. Serve as an arena for states interests.• to that end, states “pooling sovereignty” impose control

structures on their agents.• Finds that liberal intergovernmentalism under-estimates the

room for maneuver of supranational agents. Policy entrepreneurs or shirkers.

• Finds that supranational institutions like the E.P. and ECJ are largely outside the control structures


Institutionalism and Governance rational-actor institutionalism.

European Council

Principal-Agent Relationship

EXTRA O AGENDA

PRINCIPAL

COMMISSION

Agent

Council of Ministers

MonitorsApproves

Ordinary agenda

Policy

Control Structure


Institutionalism and Governance • Rational-Actor Institutionalism

• Pollack finds 4 factors influencing independence of agents:1. Distribution of preferences among principal states and agents

(supranational);2. Decision rules influencing the costs of sanctioning agents, the difficulty in

overturning legislative actions, or changing agent mandates (scope of actions.);

3. Incomplete information or uncertain information available to national policy makers;

4. Influence of transnational interests (Firms, associations, unions, E.P. constituency, national courts).

• Institutions have most room for entrepreneurship when: transnational actors with strong interests, there is disagreement among principals on policy or sanctions; when agents have access to more information.

• Parliament and Courts have institutionalized transnational actor access.



• Historical and Constructivist Institutionalism• Historical institutionalism emphasizes path dependency of

institutional structures.• Muddling along school of policy and institutional formation.• Every round of policy or institution creation is structured by

past decisions and bargains.• Constructivist institutionalism

• Institutions are “normative vessals”• Carriers of beliefs, norms, knowledge and understandings.

• develop this through interactions and overlap of individuals.



• Policy and Advocacy Networks• Networks consist of individuals representing interests and ideas

identitifying problems and proposing policy:• actors in E.U., national, and non-governmental institutions.• e.g. labour unions, Commissioner for Social Policy, national

labour ministers.• Epistemic Communities

• Transnational communities of experts and professionals• may not be directly linked into policy-process but establish

best practices and norms in their professions;• Environmental scientists, business leaders, political

scientists, foresters etc...


Institutionalism and Governance models• Advocacy Coalition Framework- rational actor+ elements of constructivism.

• Introduced in Nedergaard reading• Advocacy Coalition

• Elite group with shared values, knowledge, understanding epistimology about problem-policy sets.

• Shared understanding changes with increase in policy coalition membership (constructivist) or merging of coalitions.

• Members of government or institutions can be part of coalition- especially Commission

• Coalitions venue shop to press policy solutions.• Bargain with other groups in institutional settings in rational-actor process.• Institutional change provides new venues (EP)• Coalitions help identify problems and solutions for public.


Institutionalism and Governance models• Multi-level governance framework

• Analyzes pluralist and institutional interactions in policy process.

Level Decisive Variable

Best Model

Super-Systemic

Change in wider system ‘Macro’ Theories

SystemicInstitutional

ChangeNew

Institutionalism

Meso Level Resource dependence

Policy network analysis

Stage Theoretical Tools

Agenda setting Epistemic communitites

Policy Formulation policy communities/networks

Policy Decision Institutional analysis

Policy Implementationinterorganizational/behavioral analysis


Agenda-setting and Integration

E.U.

European Council

Council of Ministers

Deutsc

hlan

d

Agric

ultu

reIn

dustr

ySe

rvice

s

Fran

ceA

gric

ultu

reIn

dust

rySe

rvic

es

Italy

Agr

icul

ture

Indu

stry

Serv

ices

Commission Commission

Documents

Initiating the European Communities-Theories