Exploring Central Governments' Coordination of European Union Affairs

Abstract

This study explores the coordination mechanisms managed by the central governments of the European Union (EU) in order to develop negotiation positions for their plenipotentiaries in the Council. Utilizing novel data from an expert survey, the first part examines the relationships within and between the structures and processes of EU coordination, the actors involved, and the mechanisms' efficacy. The analysis shows that highly formalized coordination mechanisms are associated with developing timely, clear and consistent negotiation positions. The second part allocates the 28 member states' EU coordination mechanisms into different clusters, including unicentric, pluricentric, decentric, proactive, reactive, politicized, depoliticized, high efficacy and low efficacy. Intriguing differences are identified, such as the fact that the Central and Eastern European member states' mechanisms are typically more reactive where coordination centres on the national capital and the Council negotiations.

Choosing channels. Intra-state and extra-state strategies of Belgian subnational authorities in response to the European Semester

“…From a comparative perspective, Tatham (2011: 76), combining his own IRI index with the Hooghe et al (2008) RAI index, concludes that 'greater devolution leads to greater institutionalized regional involvement in the domestic EU policy-shaping process'. Jensen (2017) confirms this formal involvement of SNAs by empirically classifying all (quasi) federal states (but the UK) as pluricentric coordination mechanisms.…”

House United, House Divided: Explaining the EU's Unity in the Brexit Negotiations

“…The Brexit negotiations have contributed toward reinforcing a common EU identity based on the idea that the UK has always been an ‘awkward partner’ in the EU, tending to oppose European integration in many areas (George, 1994). Moreover, this level of awkwardness increased several years prior to the 2016 referendum as the UK moved away from its pragmatic approach to EU decision‐making and took a more uncompromising stand (Jensen, ; Rasmussen, ). In the unfolding Brexit negotiations, it seems that the difficulties in managing Brexit have been much more obvious in London than in Brussels, where there has been almost consensual support for the EU's common principles adopted in 2016.…”

Public sector accountability styles in Europe comparing accountability and control of agencies in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK

“…Administrative concentration refers to the general structures of bureaucracy within the state (Verhoest et al, 2012). Some states have relatively centralized administrative structures (unicentric) with which they coordinate policies, while others have more dispersed and multifaceted (polycentric) systems (Jensen, 2017). This distinction is theoretically relevant for the accountability regimes of agencies.…”