|
| |
The national level
|
EU as a multi-level system |
Addressing the institutional structure of the EU is usually limited to looking at the bodies of the EU, the way in which they are structured, their tasks and the way in which responsibilities have been distributed among them. The following illustration, however, shows quite clearly that such an approach delivers the completely wrong impression of the Union.
On the one hand, the illustration shows that representatives from the national and sub-national levels are represented at the EU level and that they play a part in the decision-making process, such as the national governments in the EU Council and European Council, sub-national governments in the Committee of the Regions, associations in the Economic and Social Committee. In addition to this, the citizens of the member states elect MPs to represent them in the European Parliament.
On the other hand, however, it is also recognizable that EU decisions, that is, its laws are as binding as national laws in the member states. Indeed, the significance of the scope of EU law is increasing in both quantitative and qualitative terms. Just consider for a moment the Euro Zone group of nations. Here it was the governments of the member states themselves that handed over sovereignty and authority of nothing less than monetary policy with all its importance for national politics! The administration of the EU, however, is not responsible for the implementation of these laws rather the local, regional and national administrations.
In other words: These three areas are so closely entwined that it is absolutely necessary to address and analyse these areas and the interplay between them together. And it is for this reason that scientific discussion in this area is on the so-called "EU multi-level system".
[Back to top of page]
|
|
Problems associated with determining the national level |
The thing is, analysing this level is very problematic, firstly because it is difficult to define precisely what exactly the national level encompasses and which structures, parties other determining factors associated with Community policy in the member states should be incorporated. After all, we don't want to and indeed don't have to start looking into the entire political system of each of the 25 member states. No, we only want to address the elements that play a part in the EU's decisions and in the implementation of the Union's policy.
And, secondly, because it is also necessary to systematize these factors in a meaningful way in order that we may, thirdly, identify and understand the major differences between the individual states.
|
|
An overview of the factors responsible for determining EU policy in the member states (national level)
relatively stable and relatively variable factors |
The illustration below represents one attempt at resolving this problem in a fairly satisfactory way. In order to record the determining factors systematically a line was drawn between relatively stable, that is, factors which hardly ever change or only over the long-term, on the one side and factors that are subjected to a short-term process of change on the other. As far as I am concerned, this approach would seem to make a great deal of analytic sense. But why do we need to draw a second line between national
and policy area specific aspects?
|
|
Policy area and nation-specific factors |
Well, for one, think back to what we have already established about the supranational level, namely that a large degree of functional differentiation exists, which, in turn, means that individual policy areas are extremely important in the EU. And just think about the considerable differences that exist in individual member states between the different areas of policy. The shape of relationships in one area such as agriculture, for example, might be completely different in another such as environmental policy. Moreover, when it comes to agriculture policy nations are often comfortable to accept and practice an ideology promoting massive intervention at a state level in stark contrast to their otherwise free-enterprise approach to politics.
[Back to top of page]
|
|
The background of this division from an analytical standpoint |
What does this mean for the EU? This means that even when factors relating to individual nations differ greatly, there can still be plenty of agreement in individual areas. And it is this agreement that can ease cooperation or, indeed, even make it possible in the first place. One example of agreement to a high degree in a specific policy area - as far as the acceptance of massive state intervention in agriculture is concerned - is the Common Agricultural Policy. Indeed, this is why this area has been part of cooperation within the EU from the very beginning and demonstrates strong supranational characteristics. In contrast, social policy provides a good example of an area demonstrating substantial differences; cooperation in this area began in earnest at the end of the 80s and continues to demonstrate a clear intergovernmental character.
|
|
Relative stable member-state-specific factors |
But let us now turn to the determinants mentioned earlier and start by addressing the relative stable member-state-specific factors. The decision-making system and basic attitude make up the first two of these and have a direct bearing on the the EU. As far as the EU decision-making system in member states is concerned, we will concern ourselves with the three main dimensions which demonstrate considerable differences between the member states:
 | The allocation of responsibilities between the executive and the legislative. If parliament in France exercises relative little influence, its counterpart in Denmark has enormous power of sway. Given the rather sceptical stance of the Danish people to the EU and given the need to reach a unanimous decision in some EU policy areas, this strong influence can have far-reaching consequences for the development and the policies of the EU! |
| The scope of coordination of EU policy. Characterized by very rigid, centralized coordination of all EU-related political activities, France represents one extreme, while Germany with a high degree of autonomy between its individual government departments as well as additional fragmentation because of the way its federal system is structured represents the other. Over the past few years, however, there has been a general move away from broad coordination and towards ever more independence for the protagonists in individual policy areas. This means, then, that EU policy is losing its "foreign policy" character in member states! |
| The relationship between the national and sub-national level. That this is an important aspect is demonstrated by the situation in Germany with its federal structure. Since the Treaty of Maastricht and the introduction of article 23 into German constitutional law, German states can bring a great deal of influence to bear on the country's EU policy. Here, too, there is a fundamental difference to the way in which foreign policy activities are normally conducted.
|
|
|
Different basic attitudes to the EU |
An insight into the degree to which these basic attitudes can differ, that is, how states think cooperation with the EU should be structured at an institutional level on a scale stretching from distinct supranationalism at one end to intergovernmentalism at the other, is offered by a comparison between the positions of Great Britain and Denmark on one side and Germany and Italy in the other. It goes without saying, of course, that these differences play a huge role when it comes to deciding on fundamental issues and treaty revisions. And, as we discovered in Basic Course 3 these differences have become far more pointed since the enlargement of the EU and the addition of another 10 member states.
|
|
Relative stable member-state-specific factors |
This completes our look at some of the core and relative stable member-state-specific factors. I have decided not to address the more general system characteristics of the individual member states. These characteristics would include the constitutional framework, structural and institutional framework, political culture and regulatory orientation. The differences between the member states and the affects on the EU because of these are the ones that are important in this regard. It is particularly worth noting here that these differences, which in certain areas such as on regulatory issues have been very grave indeed, have reduced as cooperation has progressed and that agreement has been possible to such an extent as to make a project like monetary possible at all.
|
|
Relative stable policy-specific factors |
I would also like to keep my comments on the relative stable policy-specific factors brief. Comparative system research has been taking a close look at the relationships between the protagonists in individual areas of politics, the policy networks, over the last few years and has established that these have significant influence on the output of policies in their areas - which also means on EU-related policies. Impressive proof of this was produced by a study carried out on EU environmental policy. This means, then, that the degree to which EU policy plays a role in a particular policy area and the shape this takes in concrete terms is largely dependent on the compatibility of the policy networks in the member states.
Policy-specific ideologies - that is basic ideas about what the policy should be in a particular area - are important insofar as they correspond in a comparison of member states and insofar as they provide a starting point for cooperation and make it possible at all, despite grave differences in nation-state-specific factors such as the basic attitude to the EU. Examples here include agricultural policy, but also the internal market project which Great Britain went along with despite the fact that it was against abolishing unanimous voting. It made this decision because the project ideology - free market economy and competition in general and deregulation in particular - went hand-in-hand with its own political beliefs.
|
|
Relatively variable factors |
We will finish this section with the relatively variable factors. These factors hardly need mentioning. That governments have differing ideas about how European politics should progress, that they react to prevailing sentiment, to opinion, to the given economic situation and to difficulties thrown up in certain areas and that they do this at different levels and using the different decision-making options available to them to influence EU policy has been clearly proven by changes of government in Great Britain, France and Germany during the late 90s. |
[Author: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schumann]
[Back to top of page]
|
