Auswirkungen der Integration auf das Verhältnis von nationalen Parlamenten und Exekutiven

Text: Klaus H. Goetz & Jan-Hinrik Meyer-Sahling (2008). The Europeanisation of national political systems: Parliaments and executives, [http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2008-2]

Referatgruppe: Romana Adam, Vladimir Grudev, Juhani

Turunen, Therese Rekling

Die Autoren

Klaus H. Goetz

studierte Politikwissenschaft und Italianistik an der Universität Tübingen, an der University of Massachusetts und der London School of Economics and Political Science.

1991 promovierte er am Nuffield College in Oxford. 1991-1992 Forschungsreferent an der Deutschen

Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer und am Centre for European Studies in Oxford.

1992 – 2006 lehrte er Europäische Politik an der London School of Economics and Political Science.

Seit 2006 bekleidet er einen Lehrstuhl in Politischer Wissenschaft an der Universität Potsdam.

Jan-Hinrik Meyer Sahling

studierte Politikwissenschaft und Ökonomie in Hamburg

Forschungsreferent für Comparative Administration and Public Policy an der London School of Economics and Political Science

Dozent für Europäische Politik , Birkbeck College

2004 – 2007 Dozent für Europäische Politik an der Universität Nottingham

seit 2007 Max Weber Research Fellow am European University Institute in Florenz

Study of Europeanisation → 3 levels:

The empirical level

The conceptual level

The explanatory-theoretical level

Effects of Integration

de-parlamentarisation vs. re-parlamentarisation

bureaucratisation vs. politicisation

centralisation vs. diffusion

Substantive domestic effects: Contradictory findingsDe-parlamentarisation vs. re-parlamentarisation

Scientists are divided into 2 groups arguing about the impact of EU integration on national parliaments:

Parliaments are «losers» Parliaments are «winners» - they maintained or

even enhanced their position at the domestic and European level

Why parliaments are considered as losers?

National parliaments have lost out due to the transfer of policy-making powers, and here, in particular, legislative powers to the EU level

EU integration has tilted the balance of powers at the domextic level in favopur of national executives

There are 4 causal mechanisms behind growing executive autonomy:

Initiative (shifting of control over domestic agendas) Institutions (changes on desicion-making procedures) Information (magnifying of information asymmetries) Ideas (multiplying of hte potential domestic

ideological justifications for goverment policies)

Parliaments' responses to EU integration

2 aspects that helped parliaments to keep their position: Precedent setting (EU integration involves the

regulation of issues that had previously been neglected at the national level)

Policy transfer (allows national parliaments to learn from other states and to increase the effectiveness of their own regulatory frameworks)

3 types of parliamentary responses: institutional, behavioural and attitudinal

Institutional responses

There are several classifications and systems analysing institutional responses of national parliaments

Systemic (structures and norms) and intra-institutional (internal working mode of the institution) changes (Hansen and Scholl)

Institutional changes that have concrete functions, e.g., to enhance acces to information (Auel)

Parliamentary scrutiny over EU affairs (Raunio) Influence of national parliaments over EU affairs

(Saalfeld) The power of opposition party groups (Holzhacker)

Claffisification of parliaments by Maurer and Wessels paying attention on the influence and power of parliaments:

«national players» (Denmark, Austria) Potential or «latent national players» (Germany) Sham national players (UK, France)

Because of a big amount of different classifications there is no concrete answer if national parliaments are successful or not in their responses. It depends on which aspects are taken into account by scientists in their researches.

Behavioural and attitudinal Europeanisation

• In order to get full picture of EU integration, we must pay attention not only to institutional responses of national parliaments, but behavioural and attitudinal changes too.

• There are 3 strategies, which parliamentarians use to influence goverments:

– Close informal co-operative relations with ministers– Ex ante mechanisms of scrutinising EU legislative

proposals in committee settings– Close direct contacts with MEPs

• To what degree and in what ways formal parliamentary powers are use may depend in part on MPs' role orientations and attitudes toward European integration

Determinants of parliamentary responses to integration

Explanatory methods vary a lot: comparative studies and several different neo-institutionalist methods

Most studies not been very explicit in the theory choices

Domestic variables stressed in all studies:

– the current type of government determines the influence of opposition and governing

party's own MPs EU a catalyst for domestic institutional reforms: the

pressure of opposition parties and backbenchers of governing parties to get access to EU information

Domestic variables

parliamentary power dependent on the type of government:

minority government → stronger parliamentary scrutiny

coalition government → more scrutiny than single-party majority governments

tighter scrutiny → more power for opposition in policy-making

the level of scrutiny only a function of the level of trust between backbenchers of governing parties and government ministers?

the more risky the delegation of policy-making discretion from backbenchers to ministers, the stronger scrutiny

Domestic variables

the modes of executive-legislative relations party positions: Euroscepticism etc. conflicts inside a party public opinion: on integration importance of the membership

the stronger parliament and the more Eurosceptic population → the tighter scrutiny

political culture

Domestic variables

historically contingent political constellations EU affairs slowly into the domestic political game the parliamentary control of EU affairs becomes

domesticated critical events: timing of accession

the later the accession → the more disputed the integration

the more powerful EU → the more scrutiny required? sometimes the institutional reforms come much later the temporal political constellations as key

mechanisms of adaptation

Results

Depending on the methods used, the results vary a lot Over time more differentiation in the debate → mirrors

changes (widening, changes, treaty revision, etc.) New governance: the Open Method Coordination → effects

controversial to the relation between governments and parliaments

stronger parliament due to policy transfer more knowledge to national MPs but still privileges executives → marginalization of

parliaments

Results

New revision of arguments about the EU's effect on national parliaments needed

Discussion of Europe as an ”independent variable” would be welcome: what is it about and what are the national parliaments responding to?

The range of parliamentary responses studied should be widened

Bureaucratisation vs. politicisation and centralisation vs. diffusion

A shift in internal national power balance towards governments and administrations because of the European integration – how are the relationships within executives affected?

between the political and administrative parts of the executive

between ministries and the centre of government

Bureaucratisation vs. politicisation

National officials:

an intensive engagement in EU policy-making, better integrated in the multi-level game

”European administrative space” and an emergence of ”a multi-level Union administration” → transformation: more central position of ministerial officials

time pressure and large volume of EU business prevent the officials involving political leadership in every issue

Bureaucratisation vs. politicisation

Political leadership:

more involved in other than EU-related policies loss of political steering and control governing on both national and EU levels, but these

levels less closely connected than for national officials party-based career scarcely affected by Europe

Bureaucrats the winners?

The Council of Ministers strengthens the domestic leadership role of the key ministers

Interaction between the Commission and national ministerial offices benefits the officials

In contrast, other studies suggest, that bureaucracies have been subject to functional politicisation → the capacity of politicians to control officials increased

Cetralisation vs. diffusion

Executive Europeanisation: Dual centralisation:

administrative level: ”EU core executive” political level: heads of government and key ministers supported by the core executive institutions

Centralisation vs. diffusion

Heads of governments' enhanced role due to summitry

key actors in EU affairs need to act coherently in key decisions (the Council)

→ power gained in relation to other ministers due to economic integration domestic power on

economic matters prime ministerialisation has not been uniform in all

member countries

Diffusion?

Officials attendance in the Council's working groups invokes more loyalty to their national governments

But the Commission strengthens civil servants and the ministries instead:

working groups invoke loyalty along sectoral and functional lines

fragmentation and segmentation in national governments

Different responses

No cross-national convergence – diverse domestic responses in executive adaptation

Trend towards uniformity not likely, no common model to deal with the Union matters

flexible enough to meet the needs of the European level ”Transformative power of Europe” however observable on

the executive level in cultural norms, values, assumptions, roles, identities etc.

Generalisation of individual domains problematic, but a slight degree of convergence can be seen in the national coordination units

Determinants of responses

Drivers of the change:

need to prepare for the effective participation in EU decision-making = PROJECTION

the effective implementation of EU policies within the domestic context = RECEPTION

member states need to participate fully in all stages of the EU policy cycle and in all policy-making modes

Determinants

Common time of the Union: e.g. meeting schedules ”squeezed national present” speedy responses needed from national administrations ”fiction of deadlines”: feeling of distinct European

presence strengthening of central coordination units: an active

Secretariat needed, not enough time to achieve a general consensus among all units concerned

Determinants

Pressures for institutional responses classified in several ways: legal, functional, formal, informal and indirect requirements of integration

Mechanisms of change: coercion, imitation, adjustment etc. National political contexts and administrative traditions the

most popular variables explaining diversity and stability Change usually explained with respect to crises

Explaining diversity – Lack of explanation

• Lack of clear definitions

• Too much generalization on limited material

• Lack of bigger comparative studies

The search for patterns

• Domestic patterning

• Cross-country and cross-regional patterns

• Temporal patterns

• 'Methodological nationalism'

A few comments on the text

• A problem of method?

• Wrong procedure?

Open questions & further comments

What are merits of this study for the future research of Europeanisation? What can it give?

Why has the focus in previous Europeanisation literature been on diversity instead of similarities and reaction patterns? To whom and to what purpose does this serve?

How would EU affairs interact with the so-called domestic variables?

Executive adaptation through the new European identity of national officials?