Abstract
An organisational approach to European integration
focuses on individual actors� organisational context in order to
account for their behaviour, interests and identities. Intergovernmentalists
usually preclude any profound impact of EU institutions and organisations.
Institutionalists (other than rational choice institutionalists),
on the other hand, claim that EU institutions are
able to shape and reshape individual actors� preferences and sense
of belonging. Seen from an organisational perspective, however,
institutionalists often fail to specify (and theorise) the organisational
components that EU institutions contain. By focusing on organisational
factors, it becomes evident that parts of the EU�s institutional
set-up, e.g. its huge system of advisory committees, can not be
expected to affect participants strongly. These structures simply
impose too few demands on decision makers. However, other institutions,
like the COREPER, even if it is highly present in the lives of policy
makers, is organised in a way that makes it more likely that diplomats�
basic ways of thinking and acting are sustained rather than seriously
challenged.
![endif]>![if>
The need for a complementary perspective
The purpose of this
paper is to present an organisational approach to European integration.
Although such a perspective may sometimes challenge ideas and insights
advocated by other approaches,
I find it more fruitful to consider it mainly as a complementary
way to increase our understanding of what it is going on in the
European Union, since I do not believe that any single theory is
able to account adequately for everything. For example, liberal
intergovernmentalism may be better equipped to explain �major turning
points� in European integration (Moravcsik 1998:1) than how the
system works on a daily basis (Peterson 1995; Krasner 1999:210).
Different kinds of institutionalism ( cf. Aspinwall and Schneider
2000) may, on the other hand, do better in this respect. An organisational
approach could increase our understanding of politics, policies
and identity formation in settings that are organisationally well
developed, but would have difficulties in explaining outcomes of�
processes that take place in relatively �organisation-free�
arenas. Even in highly structured contexts it would have difficulties
in accounting for more specific outcomes, since that would presuppose detailed knowledge
of actor intentions.����
![endif]>![if>
Whereas Moravscik (1998)
himself explicitly focuses on what he believes to be formative events
in the history of European integration, the intergovernmental argument
has been applied more generally on European integration for a long
time (cf. Puchala 1999). From this perspective, policy-making at
the European level is, in general, dominated by national governments
whose interests and preferences are shaped and reshaped at the national
level. Institutions, like the Commission and the Court, are managing
co-operation �among
states by reducing transaction costs. Member countries are treated
as unitary actors, thus, conflicts and cleavages at the European
level are organised along (national) territorial lines. This intergovernmental
view has been challenged by neo-functionalists (Haas 1958), various
institutionalists (Bulmer 1994; Pierson 1996; Olsen 2000) and constructivists
(Checkel 1999). According to these critics, institutions at the
European level might play a much more significant role in the policy
process, and they may be able to furnish participants with interests,
preferences and identities, and even recast those already acquired
at the national level. �Deliberationists� and constructivists would
in particular highlight the role that arguing and persuasion might
play in this respect (Eriksen and Fossum 2000; Risse 2000; Checkel,
forthcoming). The extent to which member states actually comply
with Community decisions was also put on the institutionalist research
agenda. From an institutional perspective, implementation of EU
legislation is seen as highly contingent upon national administrative
traditions (Knill 1998; Sverdrup 2000).
![endif]>![if>
From an organisational
perspective, the extent to which institutions might impinge profoundly
on people�s pre-established mind-sets and loyalties has to depend on how these institutions are
organised. Settings that impose only relatively modest demands
on decision-makers� attention, such as, for example, some Commission
or Council groups, can not be expected to have the same impact as
institutions to which individuals devote most of their present and
future energy, like for example national ministries or Commission
directorates. Some institutions may, however, involve policy-makers
extensively without challenging
their fundamental images and interests. It could, for example, be
argued that COREPER is organised in a way that sustains and underpins
rather than basically challenges the typical diplomat�s conception
of the international society as one organised along territorial
lines of cleavage. Diplomats in Commission settings would, on the
other hand, become exposed to ways of thinking and expectations
that are less compatible with their established belief systems,
due to organisational characteristics of this particular setting.
EU institutions like the Commission and the Parliament, both contain
salient organisational components that may transform intergovernmental
conflicts into sectoral, economic or social conflicts, thus eventually
redistributing power in the system. Accordingly, an organisational
focus may also provide a yardstick for assessing system transformation
more accurately than what is offered by other approaches (Egeberg
2001).
![endif]>![if>
�Organisationists� would
also take a closer look at how governments hammer out and co-ordinate
their national positions. Rather than taking for granted that member
states are unitary actors, co-ordination should be seen as partly
dependent upon how the process is organised at the national level
(Kassim et al. 2000). Arguably, well co-ordinated positions that
have emerged only after involving several institutions and procedures
could be expected to be more �robust� at the European level than
positions on which it is up to only one or two organisational units
to decide. Furthermore, from an organisational point of view, it
is far from obvious that an �authorised� national position is hammered
out prior to European decision-making at all. This may be due to
shortage of attention among those at the top who are supposed to
endorse the policy position, or to unresolvable conflicts within
national governments.
![endif]>![if>
I proceed from here
by presenting the approach�s key variables: organisational
structure, organisational demography, organisational locus,
and institutionalisation. The approach basically
treats these variables as independent variables. However, we may
also be interested in explaining and understanding organisational
(re)structuring, recruitment, (re)locating and institutionalisation
processes themselves. In that case, they are also
treated as dependent variables. As will be seen, an organisational
perspective focuses more on general
features of organisations than on highly concrete legal procedures,
like co-operation, co-decision, comitology, or QMV, as often focused
upon in legal and rational choice institutionalism (cf. Aspinwall
and Schneider 2000). Furthermore, an organisational approach offers
an account of individual preference formation and change. Political
analysis can not rely extensively on models that do not accommodate
this vital aspect of political life. I then try to show how the
organisational argument could be applied in the EU context. My illustrations
are mainly drawn from the Commission and Council settings since
these are the institutions with which I am myself most familiar.
Organisational
key variables
Organisational structure. An
organisational structure is a normative structure composed of rules
and roles specifying, more or less clearly, who are expected to
do what, and how (Scott 1981). Thus, the structure defines the interests
and goals that are to be pursued, and the concerns that should be
emphasised. The �relevance criteria� embedded in role expectations
guide search processes, and bias information exposure. Thus, normative
structures forge information networks for the development of agendas,
alternatives and learning. Since a decision-maker is unable to attend
to everything at the same time, and to consider all possible alternatives
and their consequences (cf. �bounded rationality�), it seems to
be a perfect match between her/his need for simplification on the
one hand and the selection and filter that organisation provides
on the other (Simon1965). The structure can therefore never be neutral,
it always represents a mobilisation of bias in preparation for action
(Schattschneider 1975:30).
![endif]>![if>
What reasons then do
we have to expect that people will comply with organisational norms
from the moment they enter an organisation? First, they may feel
a moral obligation to do so. Modern cultures, emphasising impersonal
relationships and �rationalised� codes of conduct in organisational
life, assist individuals at separating their private interests from
those that should be catered for in their capacity as employees
or representatives. Second, they may find compliance to be in accordance
with their self-interest. Organisations are incentive systems that
inform members at lower levels of their potential career prospects,
thus inducing them to adopt autonomously to role expectations and
codes of conduct. And managers may apply rewards and punishments
in order to achieve obedience. Finally, and third, social control
and �peer review� by colleagues are supposed to make deviant behaviour
less likely. Thus, these mechanisms do not imply that organisational
members give up their private interests from the moment they enter
an organisation. However, personal preferences are put aside and
are thus supposed to be of minor importance in explaining organisational behaviour. Even if the mechanisms fail, it could be
argued that participants would be unable to define and operationalise
their genuine private interests in any meaningful and coherent way
in most issue areas. One obvious exception to this could, however,
be decision processes that might impact more directly on their career
prospects, for example, reorganisation processes (Egeberg 1995).
![endif]>![if>
I now turn to various
dimensions of organisational structure. The size,
the sheer number of roles that are to be filled, may indicate its
capacity to initiate policies, develop alternatives, or to implement
final decisions. Horizontal specialisation expresses how
different issues and policy areas, for example transport and environmental
protection,� are supposed
to be linked together or de-coupled from each other. Those areas
that are encompassed by the same organisational unit are more likely
to be co-ordinated than those that belong to different units (Gulick
1937). However, in a hierarchy (i.e. a horizontally and
vertically specialised organisation), separation of issues at
lower levels only means that co-ordination responsibility is moved
up to higher echelons, thus making it more likely that a process
becomes politicised (Egeberg 1999a). According to Gulick (1937)
there are four fundamental ways in which tasks may be distributed
horizontally among units, namely in relation to territory, purpose
(sector), function, or clientele served. If, for example, an organisation
is internally specialised according to the geographical area served,
it is expected to induce spatial perspectives and encourage policy-makers
to pay attention primarily to particular territorial concerns and
need for �intra-local� policy coherence. In this case, the structure
reflects the territorial composition of the system and focuses attention
along territorial lines of cleavage. Organisations based on a purpose
principle, on the other hand, are supposed to foster sectoral horizons
among decision-makers and policy standardisation across territorial
units.
![endif]>![if>
The structure may express
whether co-ordination
is supposed to be hierarchical,
as within national ministries and Commission directorates, or �collegial�, as in many national cabinets
and the College of Commissioners. The structure may be more or less
centralised or decentralised, as found in unitary versus federal state systems. It
may be more ambiguous
or loosely coupled than other structures,
thus facilitating innovative behaviour and extensive policy dynamics
(March and Olsen 1976; Richardson 1996; Heritier 1999; Hood 1999).
Enduring tensions and unresolvable conflicts may also be dealt with
more intelligently through ambiguous designs (Olsen 1997).�
![endif]>![if>
Overlapping structures designate a situation in which
a person who occupies a particular role in one organisation is expected
to fill a particular role also in another organisation. For example,
ministers are affiliated to particular ministries and the cabinet
as such at the same time, and parliamentarians have to play party
roles as well as committee member roles. Multiple roles of this
kind may entail serious cross pressure on the incumbents. In overlapping
structures one of the structures may be more dominant than the other(s).
A primary structure is
a much more �demanding� structure than a secondary structure. Affiliation to a primary structure means that
a person is expected to use most of her or his time in a particular
organisation. The organisation is her/his main employer. Secondary
structures, on the other hand, usually engage people only on a part-time
basis. The typical setting is a committee system. Modern systems
of governance co-ordinate policies extensively across levels and
sectors in committees. Thus, participants become exposed to new
agendas, alternatives, actors, obligations and rewards. We therefore
expect that committees, like other organisational arrangements,
might affect the perspectives, interests and identities of those
who attend. However, the impact will be less profound than in organisations
to which persons have a primary affiliation. If overlapping structures
contain the same or compatible
principles of specialisation, conceptions and mind-sets will
be underpinned and sustained when decision-makers move from one
role to another. Are, however, these principles different and incompatible,
we could expect perspectives and beliefs to be challenged when participants
move from on setting to another.
![endif]>![if>
Organisational demography. According
to Pfeffer (1982:277) demography refers to the composition, in terms
of basic attributes such as age, sex, ethnicity, education and length
of service of the social entity under study. Such factors are supposed
to impact on decision behaviour, although the strength of potential
effects have to depend on characteristics of the organisational
structure, for example how �demanding� it is (Meier and Nigro 1976;
L�greid and Olsen 1984). Even more, a wide variety of socialisation
experiences are not relevant to policy disputes and thus are unlikely
to reveal a representational linkage (Selden 1997:65). One may say
that the demographic perspective emphasises the effects that flows
of personnel (where people come from, their present and future careers)
might have on their decision behaviour. Whereas the effects of organisational
structure are thought to occur without any socialisation of personnel,
the impacts of demographic factors are closely related to socialisation. Socialisation usually means that values, norms and
role expectations have become internalised in individuals. New recruits
arrive �pre-packed� with images and attitudes acquired over the
years in particular social, geographical and educational settings.
With increasing length of service in a particular organisation,
they may, however, become resocialised. Socialised organisational
members identify themselves
strongly with a particular organisation, and are supposed to
advocate its interests �automatically� in the sense that these interests
are taken for granted and legitimate without further consideration.
Arguably, the extent to which an organisation has to rely on external
control mechanisms (incentives and sanctions) depends on the extent
to which decision-makers have become socialised within that same
organisation.
![endif]>![if>
�Considered as individual attributes, only length
of service can, in a strict sense, qualify as a real organisational factor among the demographic
variables mentioned. However, this becomes different if we instead
deal with proportions
of a given organisational �population� that come from, for example,
different regions or professions. Clusters, or �enclaves�, seem
to make it more likely that particular group interests might be
pursued (Selden 1997).��
![endif]>![if>
Organisational locus. The
physical dimension of organisational life has not been emphasised
very much in the literature (Pfeffer 1982:260-71). However, most
organisations are located in particular places and buildings. First,
features of location and physical space segregate personal lives
and their associated role conceptions and identities from organisational
roles and identities. Second, overlapping organisational structures
that are separated in space (and then often time) provide cues for
evoking different roles and identities, while concentration in space
(and then often time) makes it more probable that role perceptions
and identities are carried over from one unit into another (March
1994:70-73). Third, physical distance within and between government
buildings seems to affect contact patters and co-ordination behaviour
(Egeberg 1994). In short, organisational locus, like organisational
structure, creates boundaries that focus decision maker�s attention
and assist them in coping with a complex reality. Processes involving
considerable uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise require
information exchange via face-to-face contacts and group conversation.
Thus, such processes are in a sense highly locus dependent (J�nsson
et al. 2000:186).
![endif]>![if>
Institutionalisation. From
an organisational point of view all institutions are organisations,
not all organisations are, however, institutions. Institutionalisation
is a dimension of organisations that adds important characteristics.
Thus, the present tendency to classify all kinds of rules, regimes
and organisations as institutional phenomena has given us a poorer
concept of institution. According to Selznick (1957), institutionalisation
necessarily takes time. It means that organisations are growing
increasingly complex by adding informal norms and practices. This
increased complexity stems from the organisation�s continuous interaction
with its environments (e.g. information exchange, recruitment),
and provides it with a broader repertoire for handling major challenges.
These informal norms and role expectations are impersonal
in the sense that they exist independently of the concrete individuals
who happen to be in the organisation at different points in time.
Thus, the informal structure should not be mixed with norms and
role expectations associated with the organisational demography.
![endif]>![if>
To become a real institution,
however, Selznick (1957:17-22) argued that the �grown-up� and complex
organisation also had to be infused
with value beyond the technical requirements of the task at
hand. By this he meant that an organisation acquires a self, a distinctive
identity, involving the taking on of�
values, ways of acting and believing that are deemed important
for their own sake. For the individuals who participate directly
in it, an organisation may acquire much institutional value, yet
in the eyes of the larger community the organisation may be readily
expendable. Thus, arguably, from a political perspective, organisations become real institutions as they come to symbolise the community�s aspirations, its sense of identity. Real institutions
embody societal values,
and strive to impose those same values on society. Institutionalisation
could mean that not only particular organisational structures and
informal norms become infused with value and meaning, but also a
particular demographic composition of the organisation, for example
as regards professional groups, and also the place and building
associated with the organisation (Goodsell 1988). Thus, it is probably
no coincidence that revolting groups often occupy the presidential
palace or the parliamentary building. Such action may be interpreted
primarily as symbolic action; it doesn�t aim at making political
decisions in the first place.
![endif]>![if>
A broad context of�
�understood� meanings may represent a considerable aid to
communication in institutions. It may create energy that increases
performance and co-ordination, and be of special importance in times
of crisis or threat (Selznick 1957:18; Brunsson and Olsen 1993:5).
Thus, compared to an organisation, an institution probably does
not have to rely on external control mechanisms (rewards and punishments)
to the same extent. An other implication of institutionalisation
deals with the possibilities for deliberate reform and reorganisation.
�An organization that does take on this symbolic meaning has some
claim on the community to avoid liquidation or transformation on
purely technical or economic grounds� (Selznick 1957:19). The inherent
robustness of institutions now seems widely acknowledged in the
literature. Changes which accord with the institutional identity
are supposed to be carried out as a matter of routine. However,
sudden big changes which violate this identity are rare, and when
they do occur they are assumed to be the result of serious performance
crises (Brunsson and Olsen 1993:5-6; March and Olsen 1989). An alternative
interpretation is that identity-challenging reforms are indeed implemented,
but only in a highly history-, path-dependent and distorted way
(Christensen og L�greid 2001).
![endif]>![if>
Quasi-institutionalisation. There
may exist an alternative to the historical path to institutionalisation.
All organisations and institutions find themselves within �institutionalised
environments�, that is environments composed of legitimate models
of what is seen as good and modern organisation, procedures and
recruitment practices (Meyer and Rowan 1977). So, maybe then, young
organisations could institutionalise faster by adopting already
historically developed forms that are seen as highly appropriate
for equivalent organisations. There certainly are models �out there�
of how executives, legislatures, courts and central banks could
be properly structured, staffed and housed.
Applying
the argument on the European Union - some examples
![endif]>![if>
National co-ordination of EU-related policies. Metcalfe (1994) found that the extent to which member states co-ordinate
their EU-related policies vary considerably. Later, it has been
well documented that this variation in actual co-ordination behaviour
is partly due to how the process is organised. In, for example,
France and the UK the co-ordination process is hierarchically structured
and concentrated at the Prime Minister�s Office, while in, for example,
Austria and Germany, where ministerial autonomy is a key principle
of government, ministers or their representatives can act with considerable
independence in the European arena (Kassim 2000). A decentralised,
federal structure may add to this picture of a more loosely coupled
system (Derlien 2000). However, although a clear distinction emerges
between member states, care should be taken not to overestimate
the extent to which �the best co-ordinated� act coherently on EU-related
matters. In France as well as in the UK other ministries, like the
foreign and finance ministries, may be allowed to hammer out their
positions with considerable autonomy in certain policy fields (Kassim
2000:249). Co-ordination behaviour also seems to vary within
countries dependent upon the structural position of those supposed
to be co-ordinated. Those in government agencies vertically separated
from ministries, who often attend Commission expert committees,
are less involved in co-ordination than their colleagues in the
minsitries who often attend Council working parties (Schaefer et
al. 2000; Trondal 2001a).� In general, from an organisational point of
view, overlapping structures and the ecology of simultaneous decision
processes may create serious shortage of attention, in particular
among those who are expected to guide and instruct others on which
policy positions they should take in external arenas (March and
Olsen 1976). It is not uncommon, therefore, that national representatives
on EU committees themselves have to formulate their instructions
(Lewis 1998; Trondal 2001a). Since these officials may be heavily
involved in EU level committees (Beyers and Dierickx 1998; Schaefer
et al. 2000), it is reason to believe that, when fulfilling this
task, they do not remain unaffected by their EU level roles (Lewis
1998; Kassim 2000:239).� And, finally, it is not necessarily so that
there are national interests
to be pursued in all issue areas. Sometimes they might eventually
be discovered during processes at the EU level.
![endif]>![if>
What difference then
does it make for EU-level decision-making if policies are well or
badly co-ordinated at the national level? Arguably, national positions
that have emerged only after involving several institutions and
procedures could be expected to be more �robust� at the European
level than positions on which it is up to only one or two organisational
units to decide. Those who are badly co-ordinated bring more latitude
to the bargaining (or arguing) table and will probably find it more
convenient to calibrate or even recast their original positions.
However, meagre co-ordination at the national level may have more
far-reaching implications too: it may facilitate the development
of new lines of cleavage at the European level where the dominant
pattern of conflict along national borders becomes increasingly
challenged by sectoral, economic and social divides across territorial boundaries.
![endif]>![if>
The Commission and its personnel. The role that national interests might play in Commission decision-making
is a highly contentious and enduring issue. Most authors assign
some weight to the �national
connection�, in particular at the levels of the cabinets and college
(Coombes 1970; Cini 1996; Nugent 2001). It has, however, also been
stated that the Commission is even permeated
by national interests, and acts as an important forum for competition
between them (Peterson 1999:59). What can be said from an organisational
perspective in this respect? Starting with the Commission services,
they are obviously composed of nationals who are supposed to be
�pre-packed� with national experiences, norms and values. One could
argue that the informal national quota system regulating recruitment
in relation to the population size of the member states (Spence
1994) might serve to legitimate the evocation of national identities
and policy paradigms within the EU administration. Empirical studies
show that Commission officials serve as points of access for their
compatriots (Michelmann 1978; Egeberg 1996). They also seem to bring
with them different administrative styles, associated with, for
example, a southern versus a northern European culture (McDonald
1997). Nationality also impacts on their beliefs and attitudes on
intergovernmentalism versus supranationalism (Hooghe 1999a), on
a Weberian versus a consociational Commission (Hooghe 1999b), and
on socialism versus capitalism in Europe (Hooghe 2000). Although
these personal attitudes may be seen as some sort of paradigms,
belief systems or conceptual lenses that might somehow make a difference
in a given decision situation, they are, nevertheless, of a relatively
general nature. To become relevant in a given decision context,
they have to be operationalised, and they have to pass several potential
organisational filters.
First, considering organisational demography, officials may become
resocialised. For example, it has been shown that the longer an
official stays in the Commission, the more he or she is likely to
become supranationalist (Hooghe 1999a). Routinely, steps are also
taken in order to avoid national clusters or enclaves to develop.
Thus, staff immediately below or above a given senior post should
be of a different nationality (Spence 1994), and the divisions (�units�)
are multi-nationally composed (Egeberg 1996). Second, for most officials
the Commission is their primary organisational affiliation. Most
posts are permanent (Spence 1994), and they are mainly grouped according
to purpose (sector) or function, thus making it less likely that
the incumbents will focus on territorial (national) concerns as
such (Egeberg 1996). Studies do seem to reveal that the structural
(DG) attachment of officials probably is the best predictor of their
decision behaviour (Cram 1994; Egeberg 1996; McDonald 1997; M�rth
2000). Also, interviews and a survey conducted among national officials
who participate in EU-level policy-making show that Commission officials
are seen as acting mainly independently from particular national
interests (Egeberg 1999b, Schaefer et al. 2000; Trondal 2001b).
![endif]>![if>
Concerning the College
of Commissioners there are aspects of its organisational structure
that might be conducive to enhancing the importance of demographic
background factors like nationality. In particular, the fact that
commissioners are nominated by member governments for a limited
number of years may have this effect. In addition, their private
offices (cabinets) have traditionally been mainly staffed by their
compatriots. On the other hand, role expectations are unambiguous;
instructions from outside �the house� should not be taken. Reforms
that have assigned to the President of the Commission and the European
Parliament a more important role in composing the college may further
contribute to �autonomising� the Commission from member state control.
Multi-national staffing of cabinets probably work in the same direction.
Finally, since the commissioners are embedded in overlapping structures,
namely the college and the directorates general, the relocation
of commissioners over to their respective services may have strengthened
their sectoral identities at the expense of their collegial and
national affiliations (Egeberg 2001).(1)�
However, only careful empirical examination can reveal whose
interests commissioners actually pursue. This topic is highly underresearched
indeed.
![endif]>![if>
Has the Commission become
institutionalised so that the robustness, legitimacy and sense of
mission often associated with institutions are to be reckoned with?
One interpretation is that efforts at quasi-institutionalisation,
thus by-passing the historical path of institutionalisation, have
indeed been made. Administrative jargon and components, like, for
example, cabinets and concours (competitive
examinations), have obviously been borrowed from French administration,
probably the most prestigious bureaucracy found among the early
member states. British and Danish accession may have accelerated
the need for legitimating elements that are seen as integral to
their administrative culture. For example, too much cabinet involvement in the appointment
of top officials are, from their point of view, inappropriate practices.
When the Committee of Independent Experts also unveiled instances
of nepotism in their report (that in fact sacked the Santer Commission),
it seems quite understandable that Vice President Kinnock, in his
reform programme, declared appointments could be made solely
on the basis of merit and experience.(2)
![endif]>![if>
With a history that
goes back to the establishment of the High Authority of the European
Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the Commission has existed long
enough to have become an institution �in the real way�. Obviously,
it is today something more than a formal organisation. It contains
informal norms that are important for the operation of the organisation,
for example the national quota system (Spence 1994). Although several
cultural traits can be traced back to the administrative cultures
of the member states, authors increasingly seem to point out that
a distinguishable Eurocrat-culture is slowly emerging (Abeles et
al. 1993; McDonald 1997). The Commission � �the House� as it is
referred to colloquially and affectionately by its staff � has developed
its own ethos and a strong esprit
de corps (Shore 2000:127). An important part of its mission,
namely to act independently from particular national interests,
is also highly acknowledged by national officials who deal with
Commission officials in expert committees and Council working parties
(Egeberg 1999b; Schaefer et al. 2000; Trondal 2001b). However, since
the Commission more clearly than any of the other EU institutions
symbolises the EU�s departure from the traditional intergovernmental
organisation, its legitimacy in the wider political space may be
more problematic. While EU-sceptics would like to see the Commission
more as a second secretariat for the Council, pro-integrationists
prefer to perceive it as the European government. The Commission�s
somewhat unclarified role is also reflected in some of the scholarly
literature which portrays the EU executive as dual, where the Council
and the Commission share the responsibilities of government (Hix
1999:21). However, although the proper role of the Commission is
still contested, its existence is not on the agenda. Thus, it has
become an institution in the sense that it is taken for granted.��
![endif]>![if>
Governance by committees.
At the EU level we find both primary and secondary organisations.
The Commission, for example, is the primary affiliation of the Commissioners
as well as of the officials in the services. Thus, we would expect
their interests and identities to be shaped mainly by the Commission
setting, and even more so for the officials who hold permanent posts
than for the Commissioners. The committees of different kinds under
the Commission and the Council represent secondary arenas of overlapping
structures for national and Commission officials. Accordingly, preferences
and basic role perceptions are supposed to change only partly, although
additional concerns and loyalties might emerge. The fact that EU
meetings are separated in time and space from the daily activities
of most national officials makes the evocation of new perceptions
more likely. Particular places, buildings and symbols, like the
blue flag with the golden stars, may gradually become associated
with a particular code of conduct. However, since some committees
are more active than others the extent to which change actually
takes place may vary across groups. COREPER, for example, meets
weekly and is composed of national officials who also live in Brussels
for several years. The location facilitates extensive informal interaction
across nationalities, and could be thought to make the COREPER setting
particularly conducive to preference change. A sense of extraordinary
collective responsibility and supranational loyalty seem indeed
to have complemented national allegiances in this case (Lewis 1998;
Trondal 2001a). The working parties at the level below are also
comprised of several people from the Permanent Representations in
Brussels, although they are supplemented considerably by officials
brought in from the national capitals. However, as expected, also
among genuine �part-timers� in Council and Commission committees
one can observe behavioural and attitudinal traits that may be interpreted
as having a supranational flavour (Kerremans 1996; Joerges and Neyer
1997; Beyers and Dierickx 1998; Egeberg 1999b; Trondal and Veggeland
2000; Trondal 2001a; 2001b).
![endif]>![if>
The organising principles underlying EU committees
are more or less compatible with the principles embedded in the
national institutions from which the committee participants originate.
The Council�s basic principle of specialisation is geography (territory)
in the sense that each participant (except the Commission representative)
represents a particular national government. The sectorally specialised
ministerial meetings and working parties modify to a certain extent
the intergovernmental logic of the institution, though. The Commission,
on the other hand, divides its work primarily according to sector
or function. At all levels, including the preparatory expert committees,
participants are not expected to represent their country of origin. The Council structure,
and particularly COREPER, can be said to be compatible with the
organising principle expressed in the existence of a Foreign Ministry
and its Permanent Representations whose mission is to represent
a particular country. Thus, although frequent interaction among
diplomats in the Council may lead to enhanced collective responsibility
and reciprocity, one could argue that their territorial role perceptions
and identities acquired in their primary institutions are sustained
rather than profoundly challenged by the organisational characteristics
of the Council. In the Commission setting, on the other hand, diplomats
would face an incompatible environment that is supposed
to challenge their established
perspectives, for example by focusing attention along sectoral lines
of cleavage rather than territorial ones. Those from national sector
ministries are supposed to make the opposite experiences. Their
beliefs will be further underpinned by the Commission structure
while put under a certain pressure in the Council. For example,
Jacobsson (1999) observed that the Swedish accession to the EU entailed
an increased demand for Swedish policy positions. Thus, through
EU participation sector experts became more aware of their national identities. Thus, we assume the extent to which preferences
and identities may be moved or reshaped depends on the organisational characteristics of the institutional
setting.��
What organisations tells us about
system transformation
There are many proposals out there on how
the transformation of Europe�s political order might be properly portrayed.
The emerging system has, for example, been described as multi-level,
interwoven, deliberative, made up of concentric circles, and supranational.
No doubt these labels grasp parts of reality. Many of them are, however,
relatively vague and do not necessarily point to aspects that are
peculiar to the European Union. There are, for example, important
elements of supranationality and �multi-levelness� in other international
organisations as well. My interpretation is that what is taking place
is no less than a transformation of the state system in Europe
as it has been known since the second half of the seventeenth century.
This order was organised along territorial lines so that only interstate
conflicts were brought to the fore at the European
level. The institutional building blocks were the territorial states
and intergovernmental conferences and organisations. These organisations
may have facilitated collective problem-solving among national governments,
however, one could argue that such organisations have sustained
rather than transcended the existing state system and its inherent
pattern of conflict and co-operation. The reason may be found in the
way these organisations have been specialised; their structure reflects
the territorial composition of the system and thus underpins the system�s
basic line of cleavage. In the EU the Council most clearly fills this
role, although its spatial logic is challenged by sectorally and functionally
specialised ministerial meetings and working parties. The fundamental
new thing in post WWII Europe is the appearance of organisations
and institutions at the European level that, due to their specialisation,
focus conflict along non-territorial lines, for example, sectoral,
functional, social and economic lines.�
The European Commission, Parliament, Court of Justice and Central
Bank all allow (and mostly oblige) participants to depart from national
role conceptions. These organisations, arguably, frame politics differently,
emphasising policy makers sense of belonging to directorates, interest
groups, political parties or professions rather than to particular
nation states. Roles, identities and patterns of conflict that are
well known at the national level are thus transmitted�
and expanded to EU arenas. It is a well established insight
from political science that expanding (�socialising�) conflict, or
refocusing lines of cleavage, entails new allocations of power so
that new sets of winners and losers are produced (Schattschneider
1975). This development may be fuelled by national compartmentalisation
and the tendency to let prime ministers play an increasingly central
role in EU matters at the expense of foreign ministries (Kassim 2000:236).
While pursuing national interests are at the core of foreign ministries�
mission, prime ministers are, arguably, more used to launch party
political programmes, for example, on the role of the public sector
in the economy.��
![endif]>![if>
Patterns of conflict in political life are thus
here seen as tightly linked to institutions
and organisations. There are many conflicts and potential conflicts
out there. Some of these are organised into politics, some are organised
out. Institutions discriminate among conflicts, they channel conflict
and do not treat all conflicts impartially. For example, it is not
given from nature that the main line of cleavage at the European
level since the second half of the seventeenth century has been
found among states. It is indeed a result of the organisation of
political power in Europe. Centralised state powers may have, more
or less, tolerated differentiated patterns of conflict and loyalty
at the national level, but have at the same time claimed subordination
of sub-national conflicts and allegiances on the international scene.
Nevertheless, there are instances where political parties, interest
organisations and sub-national regions have tried to ally with their
counterparts across national borders in order to reallocate power
(cf., for example, socialist trade unions and parties). At the European
level, however, conflict and co-operation among nations
have been clearly dominant.�
![endif]>![if>
Based on an organisational understanding we are
now able to formulate more precise criteria according to which the
degree of system transformation might be assessed: The extent to
which sub-territories are politically integrated into a larger system
is reflected in the extent to which the interests of these sub-territories
are expressed organisationally at the centre. Thus, in
a highly integrated political system, non-territorial principles
of organisational specialisation have taken clear precedence over
the territorial principle at the centre (Egeberg 2001). As in
unitary states, the institutional configuration at the centre does
only marginally reflect the territorial composition of the system.
In weakly integrated systems, on the other hand, like traditional
intergovernmental organisations, the overarching governance structure
is geographically specialised at the top level. Similar to the federal
state, but unlike the unitary state and the intergovernmental organisation,
the EU embodies a certain balance between different specialisation
principles. In contrast to the federal state, though, in the EU
non-territorial components do not seem to have take any precedence
over territorial ones so far. However, my interpretation is that,
over time, reform efforts and actual changes have gradually strengthened
non-territorial principles of organisational specialisation at the
EU level (Egeberg 2001).
Conclusion
An organisational approach questions some of the
basic assumptions made by intergovernmentalists. The unitary actor
hypothesis is challenged by emphasising the highly specialised,
horizontally as well as vertically, character of modern national
governance systems. The existence of hierarchical devices for co-ordination
varies across countries, but also across different arenas within
countries. Executive politicians and senior officials, who are supposed
to hammer out national policy positions, are parts of overlapping
structures that tend to cause serious shortage of attention. Badly
co-ordinated preferences (if preferences are formulated at all)
may be more conducive to profound alteration at the EU level than
those that have emerged only after cumbersome clearance processes
involving a huge number of actors.
![endif]>![if>
Like neo-functionalists, institutionalists (other
than rational choice institutionalists) and constructivists, �organisationists�
consider preference formation and change endogenous to their models.
However, organisational analysts would find it necessary to specify
the organisational setting in a much more precise way in order to
clarify the conditions under which preference alteration might take
place, and in what direction changes may occur. This should, however,
be done without having to rely heavily on rather concrete, legal
categories, as is often the case in rational choice institutionalism.
Instead, the focus should be on dimensions of a more abstract and
generic� nature that may
be theoretically linked to particular role perceptions, identities,
patterns of conflict, and decision processes. And, finally, an organisational
approach provides a yardstick for measuring system transformation
in a relatively consistent way across systems of governance.
![endif]>![if>
Notes
1 See also European Voice 8-14 February 2001,
p. 12.
2 Press statement by Vice President Neil Kinnock,
29 September 1999.���������
![endif]>![if>
References
Abeles, M., Bellier, I. and McDonald, M. (1993)
Approche Antropologique de
la Commission Europeenne`. Executive Summary. Brussels: The
European Commission.
�
�Aspinwall, M. and Schneider, G. (2000) �Same menu, separate tables:
The institutionalist turn in political science and the study of
European integration�, European
Journal of Political Research 38: 1-36.�
![endif]>![if>
Beyers, J. and Dierickx, G. (1998) �The working
groups of the Council of the
European Union: supranational
or intergovernmental negotiations?�, Journal of
Common Market Studies 36: 289-317.
![endif]>![if>
Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J.P. (1993) The Reforming Organization. London: Routledge.
![endif]>![if>
Bulmer, S. J. (1994) 'The governance of the European
Union: a new institutional
approach', Journal
of Public Policy 13: 351-380.
![endif]>![if>
Checkel, J. (1999) �Social construction and integration�,
Journal of European Public
Policy 6: 545-60.
![endif]>![if>
Checkel, J. (forthcoming) �Why comply? Social
learning and European identity change�, International
Organization 55:
![endif]>![if>
Christensen, T. and L�greid, P. (2001) �A transformative
perspective on administrative reforms�, in T. Christensen and P.
L�greid (eds), New Public
Management. The Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
![endif]>![if>
Cini, M. (1996) The European Commission. Leadership, Organisation and Culture in the EU
Administration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Coombes, D. (1970) Politics and Bureaucracy in the European Community, London: George
Allen and Unwin.
![endif]>![if>
Cram, L. (1994) �The European Commission as a
multi-organization: social policy and IT policy in the EU�, Journal of European Public Policy 1:195-217.
![endif]>![if>
Derlien, H.-U. (2000) �Co-ordinating German EU
policy. Failing successfully?�, in H. Kassim, G. B. Peters and V.
Wright (eds), National Co-ordination
of EU Policy-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Egeberg, M. (1994) �Bridging the gap between theory
and practice: the case of administrative policy�, Governance 7: 83-98.
![endif]>![if>
Egeberg, M. (1995) �Bureaucrats as public policy-makers
and their self-interests�, Journal
of Theoretical Politics: 7: 157-67.
![endif]>![if>
Egeberg, M. (1996) 'Organization and nationality
in the European Commission
services', Public
Administration 74: 721-735.
![endif]>![if>
Egeberg, M. (1999a) �The impact of bureaucratic
structure on policy-making�, Public
Administration: 77: 155-70.
![endif]>![if>
Egeberg, M. (1999b) �Transcending intergovernmentalism?
Identity and role perceptions of national officials in EU decision-making�,
Journal of European Public
Policy 6: 456-74.
![endif]>![if>
Egeberg, M. (2001) �How federal? The organisational
dimension of integration in the EU (and elsewhere)�, Journal of European Public Policy 8 (Forthcoming)
![endif]>![if>
Eriksen, E.O. and Fossum, J.E. (eds) (2000) Democracy in the European Union. Integration
through Deliberation. London: Routledge.
![endif]>![if>
Goodsell, C.T. (1988) The Social Meaning of Civic Space. Studying Political Authority through
Architecture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. �
![endif]>![if>
Gulick, L. (1937) �Notes on the theory of organization.
With special reference to government�, in L. Gulick and L. Urwich
(eds), Papers on the Science
of Administration, New York: Institute of Public Administration,
Columbia University.
![endif]>![if>
Haas, E.B (1958) The Uniting of Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Heritier, A. (1999) Policy-Making and Diversity in Europe. Escape from Deadlock. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Hix, S. (1999) The Political System of the European Union. Houndmills: Macmillan
Press.
![endif]>![if>
Hood, C. (1999) �The garbage can model of organization:
Describing a condition or a prescriptive design principle?�, in
M. Egeberg and P. L�greid (eds), Organizing
Political Institutions. Essays for Johan P. Olsen, Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Hooghe, L. (1999a) �Supranational activists or
intergovernmental agents? Explaining political orientations of senior
Commission officials to European integration�, Comparative Political Studies 32: 435-63.
![endif]>![if>
Hooghe, L. (1999b) �Consociationalists or Weberians?
Top Commission officials on nationality�, Governance 12: 397-424.�
![endif]>![if>
Hooghe, L. (2000) �Euro-socialists or Euro-Marketeers?
EU top officials on capitalism�, Journal of Politics:
![endif]>![if>
Jacobsson, B. (1999) �Europeiseringen och statens
omvandling�, in K. Goldmann, J. Hallenberg, B. Jacobsson, U. M�rth
and A. Robertson, Politikens
Internationalisering, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
![endif]>![if>
Joerges, C. and Neyer, J. (1997) �Transforming
strategic interaction into deliberative problem-solving: European
comitology in the foodstuffs sector�, Journal
of European Public Policy 4: 609-25.
![endif]>![if>
J�nsson, C., T�gil, S. and T�rnqvist, G. (2000)
Organizing European Space,
London: Sage.
![endif]>![if>
Kassim, H, (2000) �Conclusion: The national co-ordination
of EU policy: Confronting the challenge�, in H. Kassim, B.G. Peters
and V. Wright (eds), The National
Co-ordination of EU Policy. The
Domestic Level, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Kassim, H, Peters, B.G. and Wright, V. (eds) (2000)
The National Co-ordination
of EU Policy. The Domestic Level. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
![endif]>![if>
Kerremans, B. (1996) 'Do institutions make a difference?
Non-institutionalism,
neo-institutionalism, and the logic of common
decision-making in the European Union', Governance
9: 217-40.
![endif]>![if>
Knill, C (1998) �European policies: The impact
of national administrative traditions�, Journal
of Public Policy 18: 1-28.
![endif]>![if>
Krasner, S (1999) �Logics of consequences and
appropriateness in the international system�, in M. Egeberg and
P. L�greid (eds), Organising
Political Institutions, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
![endif]>![if>
Lewis, J. (1998) �Is the �hard bargaining� image
of the Council misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives
and the local elections directive�, Journal
of Common Market Studies 36: 479-504.
![endif]>![if>
L�greid, P. and Olsen, J.P. (1984) �Top civil
servants in Norway: key players - on different teams?� in E.N. Suleiman
(ed.), Bureaucrats and Policy-Making, New York:
Holmes & Meier.
![endif]>![if>
March, J.G. (1994) A Primer on Decision Making. How Decisions Happen, New York: The Free
Press.�
![endif]>![if>
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations,
Bergen: Scandinavian University Press.
![endif]>![if>
March, J. G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational
Basis of Politics, New York: The Free Press.
![endif]>![if>
McDonald, M. (1997) �Identities in the European
Commission�, in N. Nugent (ed), At
the Heart of the Union. Studies of the European Commission,
Houndmills: Macmillan Press.
![endif]>![if>
Meier, K.J. and Nigro, L.G. (1976) �Representative
bureaucracy and policy preferences: a study in the attitudes of
federal executives�, Public
Administration Review 36: 458-69.
![endif]>![if>
Metcalfe, L. (1994) �International policy co-ordination
and public management reform�, International Review of Administrative Sciences 60: 271-90.
![endif]>![if>
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) �Institutionalized
organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony�, American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-63.
![endif]>![if>
Michelmann, H.J. (1978) �Multinational staffing
and organizational functioning in the Commission of the European
Communities, International Organization 32: 477-96.
![endif]>![if>
Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to
Maastricht, London: UCL Press.
![endif]>![if>
M�rth, U. (2000) �Competing frames in the European
Commission � the case of the defence industry and equipment issue�,
Journal of European Public Policy 7: 173-89.
![endif]>![if>
Nugent, N. (2001) The European Commission, Houndmills: Palgrave.
![endif]>![if>
Olsen, J.P. (1997) �Institutional design in democratic
contexts�, Journal of Political
Philosophy 5: 203-29.
![endif]>![if>
Olsen, J.P. (2000) �Organising European institutions
of governance. A prelude to an institutional account of political
integration�, in H. Wallace (ed), Whose
Europe? Interlocking Dimensions of Integration, London: Macmillan.
![endif]>![if>
Peterson, J. (1995) �Decision-making in the European
Union: Towards a framework for analysis�, Journal of European Public Policy 2: 63-93.
![endif]>![if>
Peterson, J. (1999) �The Santer era: the European
Commission in normative, historical and theoretical perspective�,
Journal of European Public Policy 6: 46-65.
![endif]>![if>
Pfeffer, J. (1982) Organizations and Organization Theory, Boston: Pitman.
![endif]>![if>
Pierson, P. (1996) �The path to European integration.
A historical institutionalist analysis�, Comparative Political Studies, 29: 123-63.
![endif]>![if>
Puchala, D.J. (1999) �Institutionalism, intergovernmentalism
and European integration: A review article�, Journal of Common Market Studies 37: 317-31.
![endif]>![if>
Richardson, J. (1996) �Policy-making in the EU.
Interests, ideas and garbage cans of primeval soup�, in J. Richardson
(ed), European Union: Power and Policy-making,
London: Routledge.
![endif]>![if>
Risse, T. (2000) ��Let�s argue!� Communicative
action in world politics�, International
Organization 54:
![endif]>![if>
Schaefer, G.F., Egeberg, M., Korez, S. and Trondal,
J. (2000) �The experience of member state officials in EU committees:
A report on initial findings of an empirical study�, Eipascope 2000/3: 29-35. Maastricht: European Institute of Public
Administration.
![endif]>![if>
Schattschneider, E.E. (1975) The Semisovereign People, Hinsdale: The
Dryden Press.
![endif]>![if>
Scott, W.R. (1981) Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
![endif]>![if>
Selden, S.C. (1997) The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy. Diversity and Responsiveness
in a Government Agency, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
![endif]>![if>
Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in Administration. A Sociological Interpretation, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
![endif]>![if>
Shore, C. (2000) Building Europe. The Cultural Politics of European Integration, London:
Routledge.
![endif]>![if>
Simon, H. A. (1965) Administrative Behavior, New York: The Free Press.
![endif]>![if>
Spence, D. (1994) �Staff and personnel policy
in the Commission�, in G. Edwards and D. Spence (eds), The European Commission, Harlow: Longman.
![endif]>![if>
Sverdrup, U. (2000) Ambiguity and Adaptation. Europeanization of Administrative Instituions
as Loosely Coupled Processes. Ph.D. dissertation, Oslo:ARENA.
![endif]>![if>
Trondal, J. (2001a) Administrative Integration across Levels of Governance. Integration through
Participation in EU Committees. Oslo: Department of Political
Science.
![endif]>![if>
Trondal J. (2001b) �Is there any social constructivist-institutionalist
divide? Unpacking social mechanisms affecting representational roles
among EU decision-makers�, Journal of European Public Policy 8:1-23.
![endif]>![if>
Trondal, J. and Veggeland, F. (2000) �Access,
voice and loyalty. The representation of domestic civil servants
in EU committees�, Oslo: ARENA.