Governing has become an increasingly complex enterprise. Technological, social and demographic developments have put pressures on governments to search for new modes of governance in order to increase the ' governability ' of their societies. There has therefore emerged a need to ' explore the possibilities of developing conceptual frameworks for analysis and practical applications of new ways of interaction between government and society in terms of patterns of governance and governing ' (Kooiman 1993, p. 3). This citation is taken from an edited volume that appeared almost 15 years ago. Times go by rapidly. The main focus and the contributions in that particular volume were aiming at improving governance within and at the level of national states. Now, 14 years after Kooiman ' s publication, the same questions are asked again, but now they are addressed to the multilevel system of the EU.Jordan and Schout ' s Coordination of the European Union: Exploring the Capacities of Networked Governance , is perhaps one of the most ambitious scholarly studies that has recently appeared within the fi eld of EU studies. Its principal aim, fi rstly, is no less than to explore the ' real and potential ' capacities of the new modes of governance for addressing the complexities involved with the management of horizontal and vertical networks within the EU. And secondly to develop conceptual tools and practical applications for policy-makers within the EU for coordinating policies effectively at all levels of the multilevel policy-making system. Networked governance forms the real challenge for both the institutions of the EU (Parliament and the Commission) and the member states, since policy-making within the EU boils down to effective coordination and management of interdependent vertical and horizontal policy networks. To answer the question of how

This article introduces this special issue by contextualizing learning theory within European integration studies. There are important empirical and theoretical gaps in the study of European integration which necessitate a greater attention to learning theory. This article deploys a number of conceptual distinctions about learning and non-learning processes, drawing from political science, international relations, public administration and sociological/organizational studies. It traces 'learning' in its political science context and how learning has been inserted into EU integration studies. In relating this evolution, the article examines the conditions that define the type and likelihood of learning and surveys the special issue. The article argues that studying learning in the EU is difficult, but integration requires an understanding of the micro policy processes that learning seeks to address.

Now that it is widely accepted that the European Union (EU) constitutes a system of governance, analysts need actively to explore precisely how it may affect the continuing struggle better to coordinate national and European administrations. In its 2001 White Paper on governance, the European Commission interpreted governance to mean less central control and more network‐led steering. Its interpretation of such networks is that they are self‐organizing. Drawing upon an empirical study of environmental policy integration (EPI) in the EU, this article shows that this vision may not adequately fit the multi‐actor, multi‐level coordination challenges associated with some EU problems. By studying the administrative capacities that the European Commission and three member states have created to achieve better environmental coordination, this article shows significant administrative weaknesses. It concludes that the coordination challenges now troubling the EU require a more thoughtful discussion of network management than the White Paper suggests.

Judging presidencies is easy, evaluating them is not. Evaluations are rare and often superficial. This article provides a theoretical framework for such evaluations. Using contingency theory, it develops hypotheses about the demand for, and supply of, presidency roles. It offers a structured analysis by linking behaviour to the specificities of the actual negotiations. The framework is then applied to the performance of the French presidency during the IGC in 2000. The analysis shows, that apart from the complaints relating to some embarrassing failures, not all the criticism levelled at the French was justified. Copyright 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

As the traditional mode of coordinating — essentially issuing regulation — no longer commands sufficient political support, the EU has turned to what are increasingly termed soft or ‘new’ modes of governance, which rely upon different actors working together in relatively non-hierarchical networks. New modes of governance are in vogue because they appear to provide the EU with a new way to add value to national level activities without the slow process of agreeing new legislation or the cost associated with building new administrative capacities in Brussels. This analysis provides the first book-length account of the effectiveness of network-based modes at addressing problems that simultaneously demand greater horizontal and vertical coordination. Taking as an example the thirty-year struggle to build environmental thinking into all areas and levels of EU policy making, it systematically explores the steps that two major EU institutions (the European Commission and the European Parliament), and three member states (Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK) have (not) taken to build effective networked governance. By blending state of the art theories with new empirical findings, it offers a stark reminder that networked governance is not and has never been a panacea. Coordinating networks do not spontaneously ‘self organize’ in the EU; they have to be carefully designed as part of a repertoire of different coordinating instruments. The book concludes that the EU urgently needs to devote more of its time to the more mundane but important task of auditing and managing networks, which, paradoxically, is an exercise in hierarchy. In so doing, this book helps to strip away some of the rhetorical claims made about the novelty and appeal of new modes, to reveal a much more sober and realistic appraisal of their coordinating potential.