Everyday cosmopolitanism in the European Commission

Abstract

There is a rich body of literature on the functioning of the European Commission and the profile of its officials in the 1990s and early 2000s. Yet, the empirical evidence on the new generation Commission officials operating in the post-reform Commission bureaucracy is scarce. What kind of individuals end up working for the Commission? How do they think and behave on a daily basis? This article provides an insight into a crucial aspect of the everyday behaviour of Commission officials and whether national identity and categorizations play a role in the Commission. The analysis of the functions and meanings of nationality in a multinational context and the ways in which officials deal with nationality provides evidence of cosmopolitan dispositions and practices. In contrast to what has been previously argued in the literature, the empirical findings point to the effect of self-selection, selection and organizational socialization in establishing cosmopolitanism in the Commission.

How Denationalization Divides Elites and Citizens

“…The recruitment patterns in their field of activity (e. g., apprenticeships) and the function held by elites are assumed to shape their opinions (Putnam 1976). This postrecruitment socialization is expected to build a certain degree of cohesion among leaders within institutions (see Suvarierol 2011 for the case of the EU commission). It would also imply that elites working in institutions or fields with conflicting interests would hold divergent opinions compared to elites representing institutions with overlapping interests.…”

European Commission Officials' Policy Attitudes

“…The survey does not ask Commission officials whether their responses reflect their personal opinions or the position of their DG. Moreover, length of service may not accurately gauge the effect of supranational socialization (Suvarierol, ).…”

Working for Europe? Socialization in the European Commission and Agencies of the European Union

“…There is evidence that officials who have direct experience with the EU institutions and their norms on a daily basis adopt supranational norms (Laffan ; Risse ). More recently, Suvarierol () has shown that Commission officials' identities undergo a transformation, as a result of which they embrace supranational norms. This evidence points to internalization , officials embracing the idea of working for Europe to the extent that it may become a part of their identity.…”

“…Aspiring permanent Commission officials start investing in their future career by speaking European languages well, and building up an international curriculum vitae (CV) through EU studies and work experience in Brussels (Suvarierol , ). The selection process, the concours organized by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), is a long one with strong self‐selective and selective effects (Ban ) and which increasingly gives priority to Brussels insiders (Suvarierol , ) such as ex‐trainees who are already perceived as colleagues (Ban ). Prospective fonctionnaires make a huge investment and commitment by deciding to go for the competition, which involves months of studying for tough written and oral exams and months of waiting to be appointed for a position (Ban ).…”

“…An official has even termed the process as ‘assimilation’ (CO#72). Even their sense of ‘the Self and the Other’ changes (Suvarierol , p. 193), which points to a deep‐seated change of perceptions. These findings lead us to conclude that in the case of permanent Commission officials, we can speak of European socialization as internalization .…”