The European Commission after Enlargement

Does More Add Up to Less?

Sebastian Kurpas

Centre for European Policy Studies

Recent CEPS Study Central research question: How has the European

Commission developed since the 2004 enlargement?

=> Enlargement as one (important) factor for change/continuity, but not the only one

Study based on Extensive data on Commission ‘output’ (PreLex) 29 expert interviews (Commission officials, diplomats) Sample of College minutes Analysis of press coverage (factiva)

Main Result: Continuity in Output Unlike predictions, the Commission has not

been ‘grid-locked’ Total output (legislative and non-legislative)

has been stable in terms of quantity Even an increase (+18.1%) in non-legislative

output (e.g. Green Papers, Communications)

Comparison of acts adopted by the Prodi and the Barroso Commission

1152

669

1120

790

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Prodi Commission Barroso Commission

Legislative output

Hard law

Soft law

Continuity explainedContinuity is mainly due to 2 factors: More streamlined internal management of the

Commission Avoidance of controversial matters

Avoiding Controversy Fewer entirely “new” proposals (more

amending legislation) A larger and more diverse College (less

collegiality and no voting) A trend towards “output legitimacy” (“Europe

of results”) A change in the institutional balance (towards

the EP, away from the Commission)

Fewer new proposalsProdi Barroso Change in

numberof new

proposalsNew Amending % New New Amending % New

Regulations 180 311 36.7% 121 332 26.1% -32.8%

Directives 56 81 40.9% 40 112 26.3% -28.6%

Framework decisions

7 0 100% 7 0 100% 0%

Decisions 183 324 35.4% 111 397 21.9% -39.3%

TOTAL 426 726 37.0% 279 841 24.9% -34.5%

A larger College of Commissioners…

…with shorter meetings

Delors II (90-95)

Santer (95-99)

Prodi (99-04)

Barroso (04-09)

Average length of meetings

4 hrs 15 min 3 hrs 38 min 2 hrs 59 min 2 hrs 51 min

Size of the College

17(EU-12)

20(EU-15)

20(EU-15)

25 (EU-25)

More streamlined internal management A more presidential Commission:

Changed role of president (“primus super pares”) Increased use of informal coordination

mechanisms A Stronger Secretariat General Planning as a policy-tool Impact assessments No major impact of increased linguistic diversity No major impact of new staff (so far...)

Summary 1 May 2004 has not been the watershed that many had

predicted No ‘breakdown’, but continuity comes at a price:

Less collegiality Less controversial proposals

Avoidance of controversy: Certainly partly owed to difficult treaty reform process; BUT: problematic if persistent change (Who will ‘rock the boat’, if

the Commission does not do it anymore?) Too early to make a ‘final verdict’: Consequences of the fall

of the Santer Commission (financial controls, Kinnock Reforms) also only showed full impact in 2003/2004

Future Perspectives and Trends Legislative Action: Subsidiarity? Alternatives to legislation: Effectiveness &

Accountability? Implementation: Compliance? Legitimacy: Politisation vs. Expertise? Treaty of Lisbon: Consequences for

Commission (e.g.‘double hat’)?

Thank youFull report The European Commission after Enlargement: Does more add up to less?is available at http://shop.ceps.eu/BookDetail.php?item_id=1620