Governing the Integration of European Market Societies

1. Dr Theo Papadopoulos Director, European Research Institute University of Bath, UK Governing the Integration of European Market Societies Exploring institutional continuity & change in the EU Shandong University, 13–21 November 2006

2. Course structure

3. 1 - Policy, power & governance Three key concepts to explore… • Policy • Power • Governance

4. What is policy? The term policy is used in a large number of ways. Hogwood and Gunn (1990) categorised the usage of the term in distinct categories: • "POLICY" AS A LABEL FOR A FIELD OR ACTIVITY • POLICY AS AN EXPRESSION OF GENERAL PURPOSE OR DESIRED STATE OF AFFAIRS • POLICY AS SPECIFIC PROPOSALS • POLICY AS DECISIONS OF GOVERNMENT • POLICY AS FORMAL AUTHORISATION • POLICY AS A PROGRAMME • POLICY AS AN OUTPUT • POLICY AS AN OUTCOME • POLICY AS A PROCESS However, policy is not only "decided", policy is also inaction, or action under constrains which allow for very limited options.

5. What is policy? REGARDLESS OF THE WAY WE VIEW POLICY, ULTIMATELY WE REFER TO A THEORY OR A MODEL OF UNDERSTANDING REALITY There is no "value-free" policy; policy is both a product of and a contributor to the social construction of reality. Intentions are not formulated in vacuum. They are expressions of a "world view", a way of structuring and understanding reality. This implies a series of assumptions about what governments can and should do and what will be the (expected) consequences of these actions. Examples: the policies of neo-liberalism, the policies of the "Third way", the social democratic policies, the Keynesian economic policy, the monetarist economic policy. This is the key that opens the door to policy analysis. One of our tasks is to link policies with the underlying "ideologies" and "world views" of the actors who influence policy making. However, although ideology and action are linked, politico-institutional and/or resource constrains might impose restrictions on what is possible, legitimate or desirable to do.

6. What is policy? STAGES IN THE POLICY PROCESS (Be careful this is just one of the models !)  A classic “stages-model” of the policy process is the following: • Initial state of society • Agenda-setting / issue definition • Reviewing resources and constrains • Selection of a set of measures • Legitimation of an option • Implementation (production of outputs) • Monitoring Impact and Evaluation • Feedback to policy makers and society From policy as sequence of stages through power to governance…

7. What is policy? TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC POLICY Is it possible to reach a definition of public policy? Let us put together the pieces of the jigsaw. Policy is a dynamic concept that refers to a process. This process ·unfolds over time and involves a series of interrelated stages that can be analytically defined and studied ·takes place within the institutional framework of national, regional or local governments (and increasingly, supra-national institutions) ·takes place within particular organisational settings -government, administrative bureaucracies etc.- who interact with other actors and agencies ·embodies intentions but does not necessarily achieve them ·may refer to action as well as inaction ·its content is subjectively defined by the actors involved in the process (policy actors perceive reality in different ways) This process is both governed and it is the essence of governing…

8. Exploring policy • The uneasy differentiation between policy and politics • Policy is the process of actualising the worldview(s) of actors that legitimised their version of reality • Politics is the context in which this actualising takes place; an arena where the symbolic, structural and relational power is exercised. • Policy is the temporary crystallisation of power struggles (politics) and compromises.

9. What is power ? - 1 • Traditional and radical definitions • Boulding (the stick, the deal, the kiss) • Bacharach & Baratz (the 2nd dimension of power, the power to set the agenda and affect the rules), • Lukes (the 3 dimensional view of power), • Strange (relational and structural power), • Bourdieu & Foucault (symbolic power and discourse) • Metaphors and dimensions of power It’s a game (but not as we conventionally understand it…) • 1st dimension: Power of an actor in relation to other actors within a set of rules • 2nd dimension: Power of an actor to set rules, maintain them or alter them • 3rd dimension: Power of an actor to make others discursively ‘recognise’ her/his view of (social, political, economic) reality

10. What is power ? - 2 • Power is a multi-dimensional social relation. Primarily, it is generated and exercised at the symbolic level (social imaginary/language) but can not be reduced to it; for it also involves the capacity to structure action (create, maintain or alter institutions) as well as the capacity to mobilize resources for own action or for blocking other actors' action. Power can be (and is) exercised within the political, economic, social or private fields with the aim to alter or maintain the status quo. (TP) • Pointer: Consider the statement that ultimately "Public policy is the actualisation of those world-views that managed to legitimise their definition of reality" (TP)

11. a power-theoretical framework of analysis Aspects of social reality / power dimensions • relational dimension: Power is a relation between social agents within a given set of instituted rules/parameters that constitute a ‘field’ (in the sense that Bourdieu uses the term) of social action for these agents. Power asymmetries are observable as differences in the volume and capacity to mobilize power resources as a social agent. • Structural/instituting dimension: Power is also the simultaneous reproduction/alteration of the very institutions – the field - within which the relation between the social agents takes place. When exploring this dimension, analysis 'captures' the instituting capacity of social agents as well as their instituted power. Power asymmetries are observable as differences in their capacity to maintain or reconstruct the rules/parameters of the field; to use a metaphor, the capacity of social agents to change and/or 'the rules of the game'. • Discursive/symbolic dimension: Power is also the simultaneous reproduction/alteration of the social categories within which the power-relation and the corresponding field(s) are understood and given meaning. When exploring this dimension, analysis 'captures' the power of social agents to discursively construct the categories used to understand the social world. Power asymmetries are observable as differences in the discursive capacity to maintain or alter categories of social meaning within which the other two dimensions are understood and 'recognised' by the social agents.

12. Governance –thinking about it… • Government & Governance • Governance as a set of structures: Hierarchies, markets, networks, communities • Governance as as a process: a dynamic of steering and co-ordinating • Governance as a framework for analysis – some perspectives of governance • Traditional authority • Autopoesis, network steering • Cybernetics and steering • Policy instruments • Institutional analysis • Rational choice • Networks and policy communities • New Marxism and critical theory • Regional formations (e.g. EU), nation states, and market societies – embeddedness & disembeddedness, institutional continuity and change

13. What is governance? Governance describes a form of political regulation of social subjects - i.e. individuals, social groups or institutions - initiated, organised and partially controlled by an actor or actors vested with the political authority to act in an area of public policy. Governance involves the 'steering' of the subjects' behavioural practices towards particular social and politico-economic goals via a set of institutions and processes that aim to maintain or change the status quo. Carmel & Papadopoulos, 2003

14. What is governance? The concept of governance enables us to focus on a crucial feature of government policymaking: that government is not only about legislation and rule creation, but it is also about 'how government is to be done‘. It facilitates an analysis of policymaking in two distinct but clearly related domains: • ‘Formal' policy: the content of policy, the legislation and regulations that embody policy principles, objectives and intended outputs • The 'mode of doing policy'; the organisational arrangements and procedures for policy delivery, referred to here as operational policy

15. What is governance? • The analytical power of the concept of governance allows enough flexibility to separately analyse both formal and operational policy while simultaneously highlighting their unity. This unity concerns policy means and ends. The means (operational policy) are inexorably connected to the ends ('formal' policy); the 'how' of doing policy affects the 'what' of 'formal' policy and vice versa. • Furthermore, both the 'how' and the 'what' of policy involve the regulation of categories of social subjects. Indeed, the latter are inseparable from, and are reproduced by, the very institutions, regulations and procedures of which they are the focus. The formation of these categories is also inseparable from the discourse through which 'formal' policy is expressed and made sense of, a discourse that encapsulates a particular vision of how the social world is and should be. Governance is immersed in discourse; forms of governance involve the institutional crystallisation of particular discourses.

16. (some of the) Ways of studying and integrating governance in policy analysis (and how it is used in the relevant literature) • Governance as a process or set of institutions to be explained ('dependent variable') • Governance as a process or set of institutions as an explanation ('independent variable') of a set of policy choices • Governance as a process or sets of institutions as a context of understanding the governing of social life through policy • Comparing between modes of governance as an indicator of explaining institutional continuity or change

17. End of session 1

18. Dr Theo Papadopoulos Director, European Research Institute University of Bath, UK 2. Theorizing the integration of European market societies Governing the integration of European market societies Shandong University, 13–21 November 2006

19. Theories of European Integration • Neo-functionalism • Intergovernmentalism • Liberal intergovernementalism • The ‘new institutionalisms’ in rational choice • Constructivism & reshaping European Identities

20. Integration theory - The intellectual roots From: Cram (2001) • Federalism (Monnet, Hallstein, Spinelli) • Transactionalism/communications school (Deutsch) – focus on conditions necessary for political integration – ‘mutually responsive transactions’ – historical process of social learning’

21. Theories of European Integration:neo-functionalism Seminal work - Haas (1958) ‘The Uniting of Europe’ • Functional spillovers - sectoral integration produces unforseen consequencs and promotes further integration • Political spillovers • The ‘Community Method’ – 1958-1963 • 1965 – Luxemburg crisis – de Gaulle • 1974 – the creation of European council – intergov. body preparing legisaltion for adoption by the Council of Ministers

22. Theories of European Integration - intergovernmentalism • (Hoffman, 1966) ‘the limits of the functional method’ • The logic of diversity prevails • Limits to spillover effects • Governments would maintain control over decision making processes of vital interest • Distinction between ‘low’ (economics, social) and high’ politics (foreign, security, defence) • ‘EU member governments rather than supranational organisations played the central role in the historical development of EU

23. Theories of European Integration - Liberal intergovernementalism Andre Moravcsik’ s work (1993, 1998) – emphasis on power and preferences on EU member states 3 step model: • liberal theory of national preference formation • Intergovernmental model of EU-level bargaining • A model of institutional choice - chocie of institutions providing ‘credible commitments’ Rationalist framework of international co-operation – actors are assumed to have fixed preferences

24. Theories of European Integration - ‘new institutionalisms’ & constructivism • Rational choice approach – some alternatives are permissible by institutions, others not; actors will rationally modify their behavior and use institutions for their interests • Historical institutionalism – institutions matter, especially when they persist in time • Pierson • discount rate to the future • Unintened consequences of institutional choices • Government preferences change over time • EU institutions become ‘locked in’ – support ‘from below’ • Beyond rationalism – Sociological institutionalism and constructivist approaches in IR

25. End of Session 2

26. Dr Theo Papadopoulos Director, European Research Institute University of Bath, UK 3. Governance and the integration of European market societies Governing the integration of European market societies Shandong University, 13–21 November 2006

27. Integration theory and governance in the EU -1 In classical integration theory, the shape of the Euro-polity is the ‘dependent’ variable – the variable to be explained; In the governance approach, governance is the ‘independent’ variable to help us understand the shape of Euro-polity. When applying the concept of Governance we need to think about: • Types of institutions and modes of integrating (logics) • Formal policy (policy content) and operational policy (ways of delivering)

28. Integration theory and governance in the EU -2 Positive versus negative integration • Positive – ‘areas where the EU formulates uniformly applicable market-correcting rules, such as environmental or consumer protection standards’ (Lenschow in Richardson 2006: 60) • Negative – market creating rules the removal (by law) of national barriers to the creation of a single market Supranational institutions versus intergovernmental institutions • Supranational institutions: Examples - the Commission, the Court of Justice • Intergovernmental institutions: Examples – the European Council and the Council of Ministers • EU as Multilevel governance

29. Integration theory and governance in the EU - 3 Dimensions of European integration From: Schimmelfennig F. and Rittberger B. (2006) Theories of European Intergation in J. Richardson (ed.), European Union: Power and Policy Making (Routledge, 2006, 3rd edition),

30. Multi – level governance -1 • Multi-level governance, describes the dispersion of authoritative decision making across multiple territorial levels. • Two developments have been decisive in creating multi-level governance in Europe over the past half century. • European integration has shifted authority in several key areas of policy making from national states up to European level institutions. • Regionalization in several European countries, including the most populous ones, has shifted political authority from the national level down to subnational levels of government.

31. Multi-level governance - 1 Pierson’s explanation: • "intergovernmentalist" accounts for exaggerating the extent of member-state control over European integration. • From a historical institutionalist analysis, we need to study European integration as a process that unfolds over time. • Losses of control result not only from the autonomous actions of supranational organizations, but from member-state preoccupation with short-term concerns, the ubiquity of unintended consequences, and the instability of member-state policy preferences. • Once gaps in control emerge, change-resistant decision rules and sunk costs associated with societal adaptations make it difficult for member states to reassert their authority. • Brief examination of the evolution of EC social policy suggests the limitations of treating the EC as an instrument facilitating collective action among sovereign states. • Rather, integration should be viewed as a path-dependent process producing a fragmented but discernible multitiered European polity.

32. Open Method Co-ordination –1 The open method of coordination (OMC) • Is a (formally) intergovernmental - means of governance in EU based on the voluntary cooperation of its member states. • It relies on soft law mechanisms such as guidelines and indicators, benchmarking and sharing of best practice. • there are no official sanctions for ‘laggards’. Rather, the method's effectiveness relies on a form of peer pressure and naming and shaming, as no member states wants to be seen as the worst in a given policy area.

33. Open Method Co-ordination –2 Five Main Elements: 1. Agreeing common objectives for the Union 2. Establishing common indicators as a means of comparing best practice and measuring progress 3. Translating the EU objectives into national/regional policies on the basis of National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion 4. Publishing reports analysing and assessing the National Reports 5. Establishing a Community Action Programme to promote policy cooperation and transnational exchange of learning and good practice.

34. Open Method Co-ordination – 2 It works in stages: • First, the Council of Ministers agrees on (often very broad) policy goals. • Second, Member states then translate guidelines into national and regional policies. • Thirdly, specific benchmarks and indicators to measure best practice are agreed upon. • Finally, results are monitored and evaluated. However, the OMC differs significantly across the various policy areas to which it has been applied: there may be shorter or longer reporting periods, guidelines may be set at EU or member state level and enforcement mechanisms may be harder or softer.

35. Open Method Co-ordination and the European Employment Strategy From: Trubek and Mosher (2003) New Governance, employment Policy and the European Social Model in Zeitlin and Trubek (eds) Governing work and Welfare in a New Economy • Open Method of Coordination (OOC) and the European Employment Strategy (EES) • Process (iterative, Multi-level, Multi-actor) • EES is a ‘soft law’ strategy – no ‘hard’ sanctions • EES involves ‘multi-lateral surveillance’ – a ‘naming and shaming’ mechanism • EES promoting ‘policy learning? • Assessment: • Coordinates actions of multiple levels of government (local, national, union) • Cuts across policy domains • Enhances participation and ensure functional representation • Encourages partial convergence while accommodating diversity

36. OMC and the European Employment Strategy - 1 • EMU - and in particular the Stability and Growth Pact as well as the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (which were introduced as an instrument to realise the goals set down in the Lisbon Agenda) - can be considered a sort of “proto-OMC” with comparatively hard sanctioning mechanisms. • As a reaction to the economic integration of Europe, the European Employment strategy (EES) evolved in the 1990s with the rationale of rebalancing monetary and economic integration. The original EES thus consisted in more or less replicating the EMU process with mid-term objectives, indicators and pressure for convergence. • Legitimised through the Amsterdam treaty, the EES then became a process in its own right. Its principles were generalized and christened “Open Method of Coordination” at the Lisbon Summit (2000). • Finally, the third phase of the EES began with the five year review in 2003 where the EES was repoliticised, due to the growing dominance of right wing governments in the EU. • It is claimed that nowadays the EES is a political compromise aimed to exclude both pure neo-liberal and social democratic approaches – there are problems with this approach

37. OMC and the European Employment Strategy - 2

38. OMC and Social inclusion - 1 The Lisbon European Council of March 2000 asked Member States and the European Commission to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty by 2010. Building a more inclusive European Union is an essential element in achieving the Union's ten year strategic goal of sustained economic growth, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Member States co-ordinate their policies for combating poverty and social exclusion on the basis of the 'Open Method of Coordination' (OMC). From 2006, three policy areas provide the framework for this process: 1. Eradicating poverty and social exclusion 2. Adequate and sustainable pensions 3. Accessible, high quality and sustainable health and long-term care

39. OMC and Social inclusion - 2 The social inclusion OMC, by contrast, was not directly linked to the EMU debate. Social inclusion was for many years a controversial topic to address at the European level due to the subsidiarity concept. In 1999 the Commission finally adopted a communication for a concerted strategy on social protection, proposing a Social Protection Committee which was made official in the Nice Treaty. Next, each member state was asked to benchmark its situation by producing a two year national action plan (NAP or NAPincl), presenting national-level strategies for improving the situation. In the social inclusion OMC some funds were made available for NGOs and consequently its' "inclusive" approach to civil society has been favourably commented upon. However, this is not necessarily the case for other OMCs. According to FEANTSA (2005), the Pensions OMC is more closed and involves mainly the Commission and national civil servants.

40. Governing the integration of EU market societies Conclusions and Questions • Our perspectives has changed • Europe is dynamic, continuously re-constituted • A new form of polity – perhaps a ‘regulatory’ state BUT • One integration or many? – importance of looking at subsystems and their interaction • How about the integration of integrations – the governance of governance? • Is EU a governance of the market or market as governance? • Who benefits?

41. End of Session 3