The European level in EU governance: territory, authority and trans-scalar networks

Abstract

This article offers an analysis of the emerging scalar configuration of the governance of the European Union. It discusses how European integration stands for a move from a collection of territorially homogenous systems of rule towards a new assemblage of territories, authorities and rights. The paper first questions the stretchy territoriality of the seemingly obvious European level. Second it analyses the sectoral differences in the evolution of the width and the depth of integration, measured as the transfer of competencies to the EU level between the Rome Treaty (1958) and the Lisbon Treaty (200y). Third it turns to the day-to-day decisionmaking to assess the relations between players in EU governance and finally it looks more closely at the administrative wheels of the EU machinery.

Mapping the political geographies of Europeanization

“…Beyond studies focusing specifically on the nature and evolution of multilevel governance in the EU (Bache and Flinders, 2004; Hooghe, 1996; Hooghe and Marks, 2003; and, in geography, Boyle, 2000; Mamadouh and Van der Wusten, 2008; Murphy, 2008), the wider literature on the ‘politics of scale’ has drawn critical attention to the sociospatial construction of supranational scalar fixes in Europe (see, for example, Jessop, 2005; Leitner, 2004). Adding to the above-cited studies, however, European space-making can also be regarded as a process whereby different scales are narrated and performed (including negotiation and contestation) in various geographical and institutional contexts.…”

“… 2. The attempts to conceptualize the EU as a distinctive polity have led to adopting terms such as ‘post-national state’, ‘neo-medieval empire’, ‘flexible empire’, ‘super-state’ or ‘regional hegemony’, or invoking concepts of ‘meta-governance’ or ‘multilevel governance’. Some of the above-mentioned characterizations can be found in Anderson (1996), Bache (1998), Bache and Flinders (2004), Barry (1996), Bernard (2002), Browning (2005), Bulmer (1993), Jensen and Richardson (2004), Jordan (2001), Mamadouh and Van der Wusten (2008), Murphy (2008), Peterson (2004), Ruggie (1993), Scott (2002) and Zielonka (2006). …”

‘A modern-day Icelandic saga’: Political places and negotiating spaces at the northern frontier of ‘EUrope’

“…Over the last decade, the external relations policy of ‘Europe’ has been primarily focused upon managing Eastern enlargement, organising a ‘EUropean’ neighbourhood around its frontiers, particularly in the Mediterranean, and firming up relations with rapidly expanding economies such as China, Russia, India and Brazil (Jones, 2006, 2009; Jones and Clark, 2008, 2010, 2011). These efforts have been undertaken using a number of institutional instruments and regional frameworks (Agnew, 2005; Bialasiewicz, 2008; Casas-Cortes et al 2013; Jones, in press; Kostadinova, 2009; Mamadouh and Van Der Wusten, 2008; Murphy, 2005). Most recently, ‘EUrope’ has turned its enlargement focus towards the Balkans and the Arctic (Dodds, 2010a, 2010b; Powell, 2011).…”

The European Union in the grip of accumulated governance crises: the euro, the reform efforts, and the public-support dynamics

“…As for the other parts of the machinery, it is easy to interpret a prominent role of the Commission or the Parliament as an indicator of supranationalism, but the role of the national governments is less straightforward: their input can generally be read as a sign of intergovernmentalism, but occasionally also as a sign of supranationalism as they collectively form one of the key legislative institutions. Finally, the very architecture of the EU is based on a precariously balanced collaboration between the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council, suggesting that an entangled configuration of the national and EU levels (and subnational levels for that matter) are characteristic of the EU political system, rather than a zero-sum game (Mamadouh and Van der Wusten 2008;Murphy 2008, Forthcoming;Bickerton 2011).…”