Systems of public administration within European countries have traditionally been tailored to the unique features of individual states. Despite these differences, European integration has started to facilitate the convergence of public administration approaches across the continent. Jarle Trondal discusses the development of this ‘European administrative space’ (EAS), in which European administrative practices come to complement national practices. He suggests a way to conceptualise EAS, but also notes that the current economic crisis may in future encourage national governments to cast a more sceptical eye toward European administrative capacities which are out with their control.
Despite advances in contemporary research on the European administrative space (EAS), no widespread understanding about its meaning, mechanisms and significance yet exists. European integration through administrative capacity-building assumes that the EAS features a new pattern of European integration that complements regulatory integration. Until now, formulating and implementing public policy in Europe has been a prerogative of national administrations, and the capacity of the state has largely been determined by ‘the [administrative] capacity of the state to effectively achieve the chosen policy outcomes’, according to Felicity Matthews. These prerogatives have become complemented with the institutionalisation of EAS within the European Union (EU). Now, an EAS serves arguably as a common European administrative infrastructure for the joint formulation and execution of public policy.
A three-dimensional EAS
EAS, and its component parts, have in literature been analysed mainly along three analytical dimensions: institutional independence, integration, and co-optation. These dimensions are reflected in contemporary research on EAS and may serve to capture central aspects of the integration of public administration in Europe. We have seen basically two waves of study of EAS. The first wave of research emphasised convergence of administrative systems and policies. One early contribution to this strand of research defined EAS as European administrative convergence, or the ‘convergence on a common European model’.
A second and more recent line of research conceives of EAS as featuring an emergent common administrative order in Europe through the development of new institutional constellations and configurations. Compared to the first wave of EAS literature, this second line of research emphasises new patterns of integration of public administration. This second line of research might be analytically captured by the institutionalisation of (i) independence, (ii) integration, and (iii) co-optation.
– (i) First, EAS involves the institutionalisation of some level of independent administrative capacity at a European level, notably the rise of relatively permanent and separate administrative institutions that are able to act relatively independently from member-state governments. The most prominent example would the European Commission.
– (ii) Secondly, EAS may require some degree of integration of this independent European administrative capacity. This entails both the inter-institutional integration of administrative structures at European Union level (for example mutual integration of the activities of the Commission administration and the European Parliament administration) and the intra-institutional integration of each institution (for example within the Commission administration) thus forging internal administrative hierarchies.
– (iii) Third, EAS entails that this independent and integrated European administrative capacity is able to co-opt some administrative sub-centres, for example mutual processes of integration (‘engrenage’) of domestic agencies and relevant EU administrative structures (for example between Commission DGs and corresponding domestic regulatory bodies). Moreover, EU institutions may also co-opt other international bureaucracies thus integrating global administrative architectures (for example between Commission DGs – such as DG Trade – and international bureaucracies – for example the Secretariat of the World Trade Organisation).
Research suggests that capacity building through the creation of genuinely European public administration has strengthened the European Commission’s ability to set independent policy agendas, shape the implementation of these, and strengthen its capability to draw common lessons from experience. The supply of administrative capacities inside the Commission has become steadily extended. At present, most administrative capacities of the Commission are concentrated within policy DGs, however, increasingly supplemented with a more powerful Secretariat-General. This supply of administrative capacities inside the Commission administration enables Commission officials to act fairly independently of domestic government institutions.
Secondly, the administrative capacities of the Commission also supply it with a capacity to co-opt non-majoritarian institutions by stealth. Compared to the gradual increase of capacities within the Commission, the supply of administrative capacities in non-majoritarian institutions outside of it has happened more recently. These consist primarily of EU agencies and domestic agencies, but in fact also to some extent the administration of the European Parliament. Research suggests that the supply of administrative capacities inside the Commission is positively associated with its capacity to co-opt non-majoritarian institutions, however, largely at the implementation stage of the decision-making cycle, and largely within policy areas in which the Commission already assigns considerable administrative capacities.
Institutionalising EAS
The development of EAS can be understood as a process of institutionalisation of common administrative capacity. If we consider the institutionalisation as a continuous variable we might also judge the possible incompleteness of the institutionalisation of common European administrative capacities. The levels of institutionalisation may vary, for example, across countries and policy areas, along the three dimensions suggested.
Institutionalisation means more than the simple creation of structures to perform administrative routines. It means that these structures and the work that they perform may have meaning for the members of the structures. Institutionalisation involves infusing a structure with values greater than necessary for the mechanical achievement of their tasks. In terms of the EAS, this normative basis of institutionalisation implies that there is some commitment to the Union and to the maintenance of existing patterns of governance within. This ideational basis of institutionalisation of EAS can be seen as having certain discursive and semantic elements. The need to transpose European directives into national law may for example require acceptance of some common standards of administration and of administrative law. Thus, institutionalisation may accompany the rise of shared language for understanding public administration in member-states, despite the broad differences in their administrative traditions.
The relevance of analysing EAS might be more easily grasped during periods of crisis. The unsettled nature of EAS may be accentuated by adverse political and/or economic environments such as the sovereign debt crisis in Europe (2008 to present). During periods of stress and uncertainty, existing balances in EAS as regards institutional independence, integration, and co-optation may be challenged and questioned. Times of austerity might alert member-state governments to question the relevance of independent European administrative capacities outside direct government control.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/PYgdky
_______________________________
Jarle Trondal – University of Agder and University of Oslo
Jarle Trondal is Professor in public administration at University of Agder and at ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo. His academic interests include the EU in general, the executive branch of government, the transformation of European government and governance, and comparative international bureaucracy.
