Coalitions will probably become an increasingly important theme in European Union (EU) politics. The spread of decision making by majority voting promotes coalition-building behaviour. The impending enlargement is predicted to di¡erentiate and polarize policy standpoints within the EU. Increasing levels of policy con£ict imply increased propensities for coalition building. Still, the role and nature of coalitions in EU negotiations are obscure. This article raises important research questions: What characterizes coalition building in the EU? How important are coalitions? What coalition patterns are discernible?Using data from a questionnaire to Swedish participants on EU committees, it is shown that coalitions are more frequent when majority voting occurs than when unanimity rules. Coalition behaviour is, however, important also under unanimity. The existence of consensus norms diminishes the propensity to form coalitions. As regards coalition patterns, there is a prevalence of coalitions based on policy interests and/or on cultural a¤nity. Contrary to conventional wisdom, consistent and durable coalition patterns seem to exist. The north^south divide is one such persistent pattern. The Swedish respondents thus reveal a close cooperation between the Nordic member states and Great Britain, whereas France and Spain are seldom approached for coalition-building purposes. As to future research, evidence from other member states and from case studies is needed in order to learn more about the bases for coalition building in EU negotiations.

No abstract

In this essay we discuss effects of growing interdependence and internationalization upon national political institutions. More exactly we address the question of how these processes are reflected in matters handled by the Standing Committees of the Swedish Parliament. Generally speaking, the proportion of international issues has increased continuously during the 1970s and the early 1980s. The internationalization of parliamentary work has mainly taken place outside the area of ‘traditional’ foreign policy. Even though internationalization is a general phenomenon in the Swedish parliament, the enhancement of international issues is particularly evident in subject areas linked to economic life in general, but issues concerning environmental policy, communications and energy policy also bear the stamp of internationalization. In spite of this internationalization of domestic politics the pattern of relations with actors on the international scene seems to be rather stable. The picture is dominated by international organizations in the Scandinavian region and Western Europe. Traditionally, the principle of consensus has governed Swedish security and defence policy. Our data support this notion. However, international issues outside the area of ‘traditional’ foreign policy do not bear the hallmark of consensus. The level of conflict is considerably higher and has risen, especially during the 1980s. Generally speaking, patterns of conflict in international issues do not deviate from those in ‘pure’ domestic policy. Thus, internationalization has also involved domestication regarding the level of conflict.

Multi-level governance is a term that is commonly used to characterize the nature of the European Union. In this article we argue that multi-level governance requires a research focus on negotiations and networks. Our focus is on day-to-day negotiations rather than ``history-making'' decisions, and we proceed from the assumption that negotiations vary in character across issue areas. After discussing the distinctive features of EU negotiations and applying the multidimensional network concept to the EU, we formulate a number of hypotheses as to why network patterns vary across issue areas and how network characteristics affect negotiations. Some illustrative cases are briefly presented, and some tentative observations are proffered concerning the role of networks in EU negotiations.

Over the last decades, many liberal democracies have experienced a tension between the education system's expressed requirement to foster citizenship norms and the liberal (sub-)ideal of norm neutrality. This dilemma has been accentuated by, on the one hand, increased ethnical and cultural diversity and, on the other hand, liberalization of society in general and the schooling system in particular. This article provides a 'state of the debate' of this tension in France, Sweden, and England, through a media analysis of the period 2001-2010. Citizenship education was most prominent in the Swedish debate. The Swedish and English positions were most alike, arguing for 'objective civics' and promoting freedom of choice in the school system. In contrast, the French debate argued for a common, integrative state-managed school system that provides equal opportunities to all socioeconomic groups while inculcating loyalty to the State.