Constructive Ambiguity: Comparing the EU’s Energy and Defence Policies

Abstract

This article explores the paradox of constructive ambiguity. Based on a focused, longitudinal comparison of the European Union's energy and defense policies, we analyze the role played by strategies of ambiguity in European integration. Ambiguity is found to be an attractive strategy for political entrepreneurs when member state preferences are heterogeneous and the EU's legal basis is weak. It is likely to be effective, however, only if it is embedded in an institutional opportunity structure -, that is, a formal-legal context -that entrepreneurs can fold into their strategic repertoire of ideas. While ambiguity can be strategic in circumstances where clarity would create strong opposition, it is not sufficient to entrench a European policy if it does not rest on an institutional basis. This suggests that European political entrepreneurs should be wary of relying on coalition building by ambiguity only. Keywords: European Union, energy policy, defense policy, ideas, Stanley HoffmannThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Jegen, Maya, and Frédéric Mérand. 2013 DOI: 10.1080DOI: 10. /01402382.2013. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for This article assesses the role of "constructive ambiguity" in promoting European integration. 1 Henry Kissinger famously defined constructive ambiguity as "the deliberate use of ambiguous language in a sensitive issue in order to advance some political purpose" (Berridge and James 2003). In an early formulation of the argument we explore in this article, Stanley Hoffmann (1995[1966]: 131) wrote: "There has always been most progress when the Europeans were able to preserve a penumbra of ambiguity around their enterprise, so as to keep each one hoping that the final shape would be closest to his own ideal, and to permit broad coalitions to support the next moves." Constructive ambiguity has become a received wisdom among Europeanists, a bit like Henry Kissinger's phone number, Jacques Delors's unidentified political object, Donald Puchala's elephant, or the bicycle that cannot stop. Yet it has not been subject to systematic empirical scrutiny. . « Constructive Ambiguity: Comparing the EU's Energy and Defence Policies ». West European Politics 37(1): 182-203, which has been published in final form 2While the role of ambiguity remains understudied in EU politics, it is enjoying some currency in related fields such as anthropology, public policy, and international relations. For Murray Edelman (2001: 80), " [a]mbiguity (…) is especially conspicuous in political language because by definition politics concerns conflicts of interests." Indeed, ambiguity is often seen as a means to conceal or to postpone conflict. Using the example of the "social responsibility" label in the mutual fund industry, Linda Markowitz and her colleagues (2012) argue that strategic actors frame financial products ambiguously to reduce negative reactions in the market. Looking at "agencification" in public administ...

What “Brussels” means by structural reforms: empty signifier or constructive ambiguity?

“…Furthermore, Jegen and Mérand (2014) argue that ambiguity is not always constructive but it is rather a risky political weapon. By examining the ambiguous framing of both energy policy and defence policy in the EU, two policy fields where geopolitical interests diverge greatly among the EU Member States, they find that ambiguity is efficient in creating agreement within a coalition of actors only if it 'can be embedded in what we call an institutional opportunity structure-that is, a formal-legal context that entrepreneurs can fold into their strategic repertoire of ideas' (2014: 2-3).…”

Resilience as the EU Global Strategy’s new leitmotif: pragmatic, problematic or promising?

“…This echoes what Jegen and Mérand have called 'constructive ambiguity', that is, a communicative strategy to advance a political project when clarity risks opposition. 22 'Resilience' can be understood as a call for more defence spending, or as an upgrade of development policy within a comprehensive, 'joined up' approach, or as a move away from liberal peace-building. In any case, 'resilience' comes across as 'positive', focusing on solutions rather than problems, and as forward-looking, rather than backward-looking and negative like 'fragility'.…”

‘Living by Example?’ The European Union and the Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

“…906–7), others see ‘constructive ambiguity’ as helping actors with different values to at least initially accept the norm and provide it with stability (Best, ; Widmaier and Grube, ). It has been argued frequently that constructive ambiguity has been used as a deliberate strategy to build coalitions on potentially controversial advances in European integration, allowing each actor to hope for the most favourable interpretation of the initial agreement (Jegen and Mérand, ). However, ambiguity of norms can be harmful to norm implementation, particularly at the bureaucratic and operational levels.…”

“…Focusing on the case of human security, Martin and Owen () argue that poor and overly broad conceptualization has hampered its promotion within the UN. Jegen and Mérand () compare the use of constructive ambiguity in the area of EU energy and defence policy and find effectiveness to be dependent on the ability of actors to rely on and exploit pre‐existing institutional opportunity structures.…”