The concepts of governance have the advantage of including the informal aspect of decision-making into their scope of analysis. The intention of this paper is the application of a fitting conceptual derivative of governance on the decision making process inside the institutional framework of the Commission of the European Union. The notion to be tested is the one of the Commission being by its institutional heritage inclined to promulgation of consensus among its principal actors, the members of the college of Commissioners. So what kind of governance might be characteristic for the Commission?
The political setting is that of the European Union, which is on the one hand an intergovernmental organization of member states on equal terms, but on the other hand a political institution. Apart from partly being established on a supra-national echelon, which is rationally designed and controlled for the purpose action and intervention to foster economic prosperity and integration in accordance with the concepts of functional and rational-choice institutionalism characteristic for social and political institutions of modernity. As the EU is itself an extension of the mostly politically pluralistic and socially fragmented Member States (MS), certain elements and processes influencing the promulgation of the political will on all legislative governmental echelons are present in the context of governance in the European Union as well.
The hypothesis of this paper consists of the following notions:
Due to the “sui generis”-character the EU,1 employing decisions by consensus even on intergovernmental as well as on supranational level is most effective politics possible.
Applying concepts of governance to the Commission‟s competences, institutional framework and formal as well as , if perceptible, informal decision-making procedures and customs, will show that although the Commission matches no distinct concept currently present in academia, it very well fulfils basic requirements of „good‟ governance.
Even as the supra-national institution per se, the Commission acts according to these notions.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. A Scale for Decision-Making: Consensus and Effectiveness
a. Theoretical and functional aspects of Consensus
b. The Struggle to define ‘Effectiveness’ as a Normative Category
2. Governance
a. Concepts of Governance
i. Multi-Level Governance
ii. Open Method of Coordination
iii. Principal-Agent Model
b. ‘Good’ Governance
3. Formal and Informal Aspects of Decision-Making
a. One-of-a-Kind: The European Commission as a formal Institution
b. Identifying Informal Means of in the Commission’s Decision-Making
c. Contestation and the Commission.
Conclusions
References
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines how governance concepts apply to the European Commission, testing the hypothesis that the Commission's institutional heritage inclines it toward consensus-based decision-making. It aims to determine if this consensus approach serves as an effective form of governance despite the Commission's lack of a traditional governmental structure.
- Analysis of consensus-building as a functional and normative tool in EU decision-making.
- Evaluation of 'Good Governance' principles within the European Commission.
- Distinction and interaction between formal institutional frameworks and informal decision-making processes.
- Examination of the European Commission's role as a supranational agenda-setter and the impact of politicization.
Excerpt from the Book
3. Formal and Informal Aspects of Decision-Making
In the public eye the Commission, quite understandably so, is perceived as a quasi-government of the EU, but it is more precise to see this institutions as the agenda-setting and executive organ of the union. Nevertheless, it has a mandate to steer the process of decision-making and execution within its responsibilities in the public sphere, a mandate for governance. But while the President of the Commission is seen for that reason as head of the EU institution most similar to a classical executive branch or government, he or she still is de facto a primus inter pares.
The changes implemented in the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the role of the President indicate an intermediate peak in the development from spokesperson to chairman the post of President of the Commission has undergone. The President now is in charge of laying down the political guidelines by which the Commission executes its responsibilities. Nevertheless, the recent decision amending the Commission’s Rules of Procedure according to the Treaty of Lisbon maintains the principle of collective responsibility of the college. This is in line with the institutional traditions of the Commission, and those in combination with the given structural incentives are the cause for the specific brand of governance the Commission employs by preparing decision on most issues for the consent of all stakeholders, therefore agreement is the prime modus of decision-making.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter outlines the paper's aim to apply governance concepts to the European Commission, positing that its decision-making is characterized by a drive for consensus.
1. A Scale for Decision-Making: Consensus and Effectiveness: This section develops a conceptual scale by analyzing consensus as a communication-based tool and effectiveness as a normative category linked to legitimacy.
2. Governance: This chapter explores various governance theories, including Multi-Level Governance, the Open Method of Coordination, and the Principal-Agent model, to frame the Commission's operational environment.
3. Formal and Informal Aspects of Decision-Making: This part investigates the Commission's role as an agenda-setter, the interplay between formal procedures and informal practices, and the challenges of political contestation.
Conclusions: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that the Commission's success depends on acknowledging the distinction between informal consensus-building and formal decision-making.
Keywords
European Commission, Governance, Consensus, Effectiveness, Decision-making, Multi-Level Governance, Open Method of Coordination, Principal-Agent Model, Legitimacy, Supranational, EU Institutions, Formal and Informal Practices, Policy-making, Integration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the decision-making processes within the European Commission, specifically analyzing the role of consensus and informal practices in its governance structure.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in the work?
Key areas include the theoretical underpinnings of consensus, the definition of effectiveness in EU politics, governance models (like Multi-Level Governance and OMC), and the institutional framework of the Commission.
What is the main objective or research question?
The research asks what kind of governance is characteristic of the Commission and tests the hypothesis that it is institutionally inclined toward consensus to achieve effectiveness.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author employs a theoretical analysis of governance concepts and institutional research, combined with an assessment of the Commission's formal and informal decision-making procedures.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines the definitions of consensus and effectiveness, evaluates different governance models, and details the formal and informal aspects of the Commission's internal and external operations.
How would you characterize this work with keywords?
The work is characterized by terms such as European Commission, Governance, Consensus, Effectiveness, Legitimacy, and Supranational integration.
Why does the Commission prioritize consensus over other methods?
According to the paper, the Commission acts as a consensus-seeker to manage the diverse interests of member states and stakeholders, which acts as a "lubricant" for the legislative process.
How does the author view the "neutrality" of the Commission?
The author argues that the Commission's officially declared "neutrality" cannot be taken literally, as the individuals within the institution are often influenced by their respective national political backgrounds.
What is the role of informal practices according to the text?
Informal practices, such as lobbying and networking, are seen as essential for lubricating formal processes and keeping the complex decision-making mechanism of the EU functioning.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Johannes Wiedemann (Autor:in), 2010, Governance in EU Institutions: The Commission or Consensus as Effectiveness, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/175479
