Public Management Questions & EU Health Policy (PDF)

Possible PM questions: · Policy formulation · Three strands of Europeanization · What is public policy and political/economic context · Policy roles · Interaction models · What is policy formulation? Actors? Policy examples? · Types of policy evaluation, what are, actors, examples · About theories of European integration and multilevel governance, pros/cons of MLG · What is ex ante evaluation? · What is multi-level governance · EU cohesion policy · EU budget · What is a public policy? What are the elements of the context that have to be considered when studying public policy? Which is the most binding in your opinion? · What is policy formulation? Which are the types of lobbying? Why there’s a bias towards incrementalism in policy formulation? · Which are the roles of policy actors? Which are the interaction models? · Goals principles and governance of cohesion policy. Why the cp is a reflection of multi-level governance? · Incrementalism · Implementation phase, actors · Roles of regions in the EU and examples · What are the inductive approaches of policy analysis? Which one do you consider most convincing one? · Europeanization and its effects on policy change, give an example Eu health policy: The evolution of European Union (EU) health policy reflects a gradual and dynamic trajectory, shifting from a marginal, supplementary role to an increasingly integrated framework influenced by crises, institutional advocacy, and the growing necessity of transnational cooperation. Historically, health policy within the EU remained largely under the purview of Member States, grounded in their sovereign rights to organize, finance, and deliver healthcare services. The EU’s role was limited to a supporting competence as outlined in Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), reflecting the principle of subsidiarity. Over time, however, the interplay of functional needs, political pressures, and unforeseen crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, has expanded the scope of EU involvement in health policy. –disparities in health systems In its early days, EU health policy lacked explicit recognition within the treaties. The Treaties of Rome (1957) omitted any direct reference to healthcare, and the EU’s role in health emerged indirectly as a byproduct of other policy areas such as labor mobility, environmental protection, and internal market integration. It was not until the Single European Act of 1987 that health began to take a more defined role, introducing the principle of maintaining a high level of health protection in EU policies. The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 marked a pivotal moment by establishing a formal legislative basis for the EU’s supplementary role in public health. However, even then, this role was confined to issues with cross-border implications, such as communicable diseases and health emergencies. Directive 2011/24/EU on patients' rights in cross-border healthcare further exemplified this trend, enabling EU citizens to seek medical treatment in other Member States when adequate care was unavailable domestically. While this directive was a significant step toward integration, its implementation underscored practical challenges such as language barriers, administrative hurdles, and varying national healthcare systems. It also established networks for cooperation among Member States, including European Reference Networks (ERNs) for rare diseases. While the directive represented a major step forward, its implementation revealed the challenges of harmonizing healthcare systems that vary widely in terms of governance, financing, and quality. The EU also expanded its health policy through targeted initiatives and programs. For example, the Health Programme, first established in 2003, provided funding for projects addressing public health issues such as cancer prevention, smoking cessation, and childhood obesity. Over time, this program evolved to include more ambitious objectives, such as improving health system resilience and fostering innovation. Similarly, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), established in 2005, reflected the EU’s growing focus on transboundary health threats, providing expertise and coordination in areas such as disease surveillance and outbreak response. Despite these advancements, the pace of integration remained cautious, shaped by the political sensitivities surrounding healthcare. Member States were reluctant to cede significant authority to the EU, particularly in areas such as healthcare financing and service delivery, which are closely tied to national identities and welfare systems. As a result, the EU’s role remained focused on public health and regulatory harmonization rather than direct involvement in healthcare provision. The steady but incremental nature of integration became more pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic, which acted as a powerful accelerator. While the EU initially struggled to coordinate a unified response, the crisis underscored the importance of collective action in managing transboundary health threats. Initiatives such as the creation of the European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) and the expansion of the ECDC’s mandate reflected a significant deepening of integration. These developments built on existing structures and competencies, demonstrating how gradual progress in health policy integration over decades created the foundation for more robust responses in times of crisis. Several factors have driven the integration of health policy in the EU. The emergence of transboundary health challenges has been a major catalyst. Issues such as the spread of infectious diseases, the impact of climate change on public health, and reliance on international supply chains for pharmaceuticals have highlighted the need for coordinated EU-level responses. Equal rights: european pillar on social rights: rights to access affordable health care of good quality Economic integration has also played a significant role, as functional spillovers from policies related to the internal market have necessitated the harmonization of regulations governing pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and professional qualifications. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic served as a critical inflection point, revealing significant gaps in national healthcare systems and the limitations of fragmented responses to global crises. —----reflecting a “building” approach where existing structures were adapted and strengthened in response to emerging needs. The post-COVID-19 period has been marked by a surge in health policy initiatives, collectively referred to as the European Health Union (EHU). This framework represents a significant step forward, encompassing legislative measures aimed at enhancing the EU’s governance in public health. The expansion of the ECDC’s role, for instance, enables better risk assessment, epidemiological surveillance, and coordination of national responses to health threats. The EMA’s broadened mandate includes addressing shortages of medicines and medical devices during emergencies, a function that proved critical during the pandemic. Meanwhile, HERA was modeled after the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to focus on rapid countermeasure development and preparedness for future crises. Additionally, the EU4Health program, with a budget of €5.1 billion for 2021-2027, exemplifies the EU’s enhanced commitment to health security, resilience, and equality. This program supports initiatives such as cancer prevention, digital health, and cross-border health cooperation. Despite these advancements, the EU’s role in health policy remains constrained by Member State sovereignty. Health policy in the EU operates within a shared but limited competence, with Member States retaining control over healthcare delivery and financing. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality guide EU interventions, ensuring that action is taken only where cross-border challenges demand collective solutions. This balance has enabled the EU to focus on public health issues with transnational implications, such as disease surveillance, while leaving direct healthcare services under national jurisdiction. Programs like REACT-EU, designed to address the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrate the EU’s capacity for rapid response without encroaching on national sovereignty. Similarly, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism has provided critical support during emergencies, showcasing the benefits of pooled resources and coordination. §The EGTC is unique in the sense that it enables public authorities of various Member States to team up and deliver joint services, without requiring a prior international agreement to be signed and ratified by national parliaments. Member States must however agree to the participation of potential members in their respective countries. The law applicable for the interpretation and application of the convention is that of the Member State in which the official EGTC headquarters are located. >>At the border of france and spain, crossborder hospital: both language, for both country’s residents The future of EU health policy integration appears promising but fraught with challenges. The Conference on the Future of Europe (COFE) revealed strong public support for enhanced EU competence in health, suggesting a potential shift toward deeper integration. However, sustaining recent developments will require robust coalitions among Member States, political parties, and interest groups. Institutionalizing changes such as HERA and the EHU will depend on maintaining political will and securing adequate funding in future multiannual financial frameworks. While the EU’s selective focus on public health has proven effective, broader integration into healthcare delivery may face resistance due to the diversity of national systems and political sensitivities. In conclusion, EU health policy has evolved from a peripheral area of governance to a critical domain of integration, driven by transboundary challenges, institutional entrepreneurship, and crises like COVID-19. While the EU has successfully expanded its role in public health, it continues to navigate the delicate balance between supranational coordination and Member State sovereignty. The pandemic has undoubtedly accelerated integration, laying the groundwork for a more resilient and cohesive European Health Union. However, the sustainability of these changes will depend on continued political commitment, effective governance, and the ability to adapt to future challenges. Health and neo-functionalism —fairly small examples of spillover (in the broader goals of EU4Health relative to the Health program) in most cases building (Eu4health builds on older health programs) The evolution of EU health policy is deeply connected to the theoretical framework of neo-functionalism, which explains regional integration as a dynamic process driven by functional, political, and cultivated spillovers. Neo-functionalism, developed by Ernst Haas, posits that integration in one sector creates pressures for further integration in related areas, and this has been particularly evident in the gradual development of EU health policy. While health policy initially remained a marginal area of EU competence, the interplay of crises, institutional advocacy, and cross-border challenges has steadily expanded the EU’s role, with the COVID-19 pandemic acting as a powerful catalyst. historically eu inv on public health rather the healthcare At the heart of neo-functionalism lies the concept of functional spillover, which explains how integration in one domain necessitates cooperation in others due to interdependencies. In the context of EU health policy, this has been evident since the early days of the Union. The creation of the internal market required the harmonization of regulations on pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and professional qualifications to facilitate the free movement of goods, services, and labor. For example, ensuring that healthcare professionals could work across borders necessitated mutual recognition of medical diplomas, while the trade in pharmaceuticals required common standards for safety and efficacy. These steps, initially undertaken to support economic integration, had the unintended effect of embedding health-related considerations within EU policy frameworks, demonstrating the functional interconnectedness of health and the economy. Political spillover is another key mechanism of neo-functionalism, referring to the role of interest groups, supranational institutions, and transnational actors in advocating for further integration. In the case of EU health policy, political spillover has been driven by both bottom-up and top-down dynamics. Patient advocacy groups, professional organizations, and civil society actors have played a significant role in highlighting the need for EU action on issues such as cross-border healthcare, rare diseases, and public health emergencies. Simultaneously, supranational institutions like the European Commission have acted as entrepreneurs of integration, using crises and policy gaps to push for new initiatives. For instance, the European Commission leveraged the 2011/24/EU Directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare to establish European Reference Networks (ERNs), fostering collaboration on rare diseases. This directive not only addressed immediate challenges but also created a precedent for deeper health policy cooperation. The concept of cultivated spillover further explains how supranational institutions actively shape the trajectory of integration by creating new frameworks and capacities. In the case of EU health policy, the European Commission has consistently advocated for enhanced cooperation, often preparing the groundwork for initiatives years before they are formally adopted. The establishment of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in 2005 is an example of this proactive approach. The ECDC was designed to address transboundary health threats, and its creation reflected the Commission’s long-term vision for a more integrated health governance structure. Similarly, the formation of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) in 2021 built on existing Commission efforts to centralize crisis response mechanisms, further institutionalizing the EU’s role in health policy. Neo-functionalism also highlights the importance of crises as accelerators of integration, and this dynamic has been particularly evident in the development of EU health policy. The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a critical juncture, exposing the limitations of fragmented national responses and the need for stronger EU coordination. Initially, Member States adopted unilateral measures, such as border closures and export restrictions on medical supplies. However, these actions quickly gave way to EU-led initiatives, including joint vaccine procurement, coordinated distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE), and the launch of the EU4Health program. The pandemic underscored the interconnectedness of health systems and economies, reinforcing the functional need for a unified response and accelerating the integration process. The post-COVID-19 developments in EU health policy exemplify the neo-functionalist logic of spillover and institution-building. The expansion of the ECDC’s mandate to include real-time epidemiological surveillance and risk assessment reflects functional spillover, as effective disease prevention and management require coordinated action across borders. Similarly, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was granted new responsibilities, such as monitoring medicinal shortages during emergencies, aligning its role more closely with the broader objectives of health security. The establishment of HERA, modeled after the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), further illustrates cultivated spillover, as it represents a deliberate effort by the Commission to centralize health crisis preparedness within the EU framework. Despite these advances, the integration of EU health policy remains selective, reflecting the neo-functionalist idea that integration progresses where the need is most pressing. While public health issues, such as disease surveillance and cross-border health threats, have seen significant EU involvement, healthcare delivery remains largely under Member State control. This division aligns with the principle of subsidiarity, which ensures that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level of governance Cohesion policy EU Cohesion Policy is a cornerstone of European integration and solidarity, enshrined in the Treaties as a mission to promote economic, social, and territorial cohesion (Article 174 TFEU). It aims to reduce disparities in regional development, reflecting the EU’s commitment to balanced growth and inclusion. This policy addresses significant socio-economic gaps across the Union, such as differences in GDP per capita, employment rates, and innovation capacities, which have historically hindered convergence. With €392 billion allocated for 2021-2027, it represents about one-third of the EU budget and serves as the primary investment mechanism to achieve broader EU goals, including the Green Deal and the Europe 2020 strategy. // Cecchini reports: Economic disparities between regions could stifle economic integration, as underdeveloped regions would struggle to participate fully in the Single Market. By fostering convergence and improving infrastructure, labor markets, and competitiveness in lagging regions, Cohesion Policy would enable deeper integration and contribute to the EU's overarching goal of creating a unified economic area // Jacques Delor (ex pres of commission): a tangible sign of European solidarity operating through and implicitly redistributive policy The evolution of Cohesion Policy reflects a deepening of integration. It began with the European Social Fund under the Treaty of Rome (1957) and gained momentum with the establishment of the European Regional Development Fund (1975). Key milestones include the 1988 reform, which introduced principles like programming, concentration, additionality (addition to regular ms domestic expenditures), co-financing, subsidiarity (decisions taken at the lowest level possible) result-orientation and partnership (engage all relevant stakeholders), and the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which formally recognized economic and social cohesion as an EU objective. Initially focusing on regional convergence and disparities in gdp per capita and unemployment rates Later reforms under Agenda 2000 and Europe 2020 incorporated thematic concentration, results-oriented frameworks, and greater coherence with other EU strategies. prevailing new levels of disparities resources include: European Regional Development fund (ERDF), European Social funds (ESF), Cohesion fund and Just transition funds, that aims to support the territories most affected by the transition towards climate neutrality to avoid regional inequalities growing, additional funds in synergy on agriculture and maritime Operationally, Cohesion Policy exemplifies multi-level governance (MLG), involving a wide array of actors, including the European Commission, Member States, regional authorities, audit authorities and civil society organizations. This shared management approach ensures subsidiarity, tailoring interventions to local needs while maintaining European Added Value. and keeping in mind the CSF (common strategic framework) national partnership agreements (outlining ms priorities), and op (oprational programs) Mechanisms like ex-ante (thematic or horizontal) and macroeconomic conditionalities ( require countries to adhere to broader macroeconomic stability objectives) align these funds with broader EU governance frameworks, ensuring accountability and strategic focus. Cohesion Policy has demonstrated resilience in times of crisis. During the 2008 financial crisis, it safeguarded public investments in debt-stricken Member States. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid adaptations, including the REACT-EU initiative, which provided additional resources to support health systems, SMEs, and social protection. Similarly, the CARE program addressed the refugee crisis stemming from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, showcasing the policy’s adaptability to emerging challenges. Despite its achievements, Cohesion Policy faces criticisms. While it has contributed to infrastructure development, employment, and GDP growth, regional convergence remains incomplete. The complexity of MLG, coupled with high administrative costs and risks of politicization, highlights the need for administrative capacity-building and simplification. Lessons can be drawn from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, particularly its streamlined, results-oriented approach, which could inform future reforms. impact can be assessed: maco-economic impact (rhomolo-model foresees that eus gdp bz the end of 2029 implementation period would increase by 0.5 percent, especially impactful in beneficiaries countries), econometric, micro-economic, case-studies In conclusion, EU Cohesion Policy embodies the Union’s commitment to solidarity and balanced growth. It has steadily evolved to address changing needs and crises but must adapt further to meet the challenges of the future, ensuring its effectiveness as a tool for integration and regional equity. RRF and CP and others The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and the Cohesion Policy (CP) of the European Union are complementary but distinct tools designed to address socio-economic disparities and foster sustainable growth across the EU. Their intersection is most evident in their shared aim of promoting economic recovery and long-term resilience. However, there are also notable differences and challenges in aligning their objectives, delivery mechanisms, and implementation. The RRF, introduced as a part of the EU's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, is central to the NextGenerationEU plan. Its primary purpose is to support economic recovery and resilience-building through a results-oriented approach. The RRF operates on a “payment by results” principle, where disbursements are linked to achieving pre-defined milestones and targets. This streamlined and centralised mechanism enables rapid implementation, addressing urgent needs arising from crises like the pandemic. By contrast, the CP is a longstanding EU policy aimed at achieving territorial cohesion by reducing regional disparities in economic and social development. Its principles, established since the 1988 reforms, emphasise programming, additionality, and partnership, which require collaboration across multiple governance levels and actors. The coexistence of the RRF and CP raises concerns about potential inefficiencies, such as duplication of funding and conflicting priorities. Reports highlight challenges like displacement effects and the risk of double funding, particularly in member states with limited administrative capacities. These issues underscore the need for stronger synergies, robust monitoring mechanisms, and clearer delineation of roles between the two frameworks. The REACT-EU (Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe) initiative directly links the RRF with the CP, serving as a transitional bridge. It connects the immediate recovery objectives of the RRF with CP’s broader, long-term structural goals, ensuring cohesion between urgent crisis response and enduring territorial development. With over €50 billion in funding, it provides additional resources to ongoing CP programs for the 2014-2020 period. This top-up funding, extended to 2023, supports health systems, SMEs, and employment during the pandemic while preserving the long-term objectives of cohesion. REACT-EU also incorporates higher co-financing rates and simplified procedures, enabling member states to reallocate funds swiftly to address socio-economic impacts. Its operation strengthens CP’s adaptive capacity to handle emergencies while maintaining its structural goals. The CARE (Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe) initiative further demonstrates the adaptability of CP in response to emerging crises. CARE reallocates CP resources to support member states in managing the humanitarian impact of the Ukraine war, including hosting refugees. It introduced measures such as 100% co-financing and retrospective support from February 2022, showcasing flexibility in funding allocation. While this reflects CP’s principle of solidarity, the focus on addressing urgent refugee needs aligns with the broader EU strategy of fostering resilience against geopolitical disruptions. 2021-27 CP In the 2021-2027 programming period, the CP aligns with the broader objectives of the RRF and the EU Green Deal, incorporating a Just Transition Fund to address the socio-economic impacts of transitioning to climate neutrality. The CP retains its multi-level governance (MLG) framework, involving regional and local stakeholders, which ensures that interventions are tailored to local contexts. However, this structure introduces complexity and administrative burdens, which the RRF’s centralised model seeks to minimise. -renewed emphasis on macroeconomic and ex-ante conditionalities From 2021 to 2027, CP funding amounts to €392 billion, supporting long-term objectives such as regional convergence, job creation, and infrastructure development. The RRF complements this by injecting €723.8 billion into urgent recovery measures, with a focus on green and digital transitions. The interplay between the two frameworks demonstrates the EU’s commitment to fostering both immediate recovery and sustainable development, albeit with ongoing challenges in coordination and policy coherence. Together, they underscore the EU's dual strategy of addressing immediate crises while laying the groundwork for a resilient and cohesive future. Goals principles and governance of cohesion policy. Why the cp is a reflection of multi-level governance? EU Cohesion Policy is both an expression of European solidarity and a practical mechanism for addressing regional disparities in economic, social, and territorial development. Its goals, as outlined in Article 174 TFEU, focus on reducing inequalities between regions, particularly by supporting less-developed areas. Cohesion Policy is the main EU investment policy, with €392 billion allocated for 2021-2027, aimed at fostering convergence, promoting sustainable growth, and achieving wider EU goals like the Green Deal and Europe 2020. The principles governing Cohesion Policy include programming, which ensures funds are allocated through multi-annual, strategic programs tailored to regional needs; concentration, which directs resources toward EU-wide objectives; additionality, ensuring EU funds supplement rather than replace national investments; co-financing, requiring Member States to contribute their own resources; and subsidiarity, ensuring decisions are made at the most local level possible while maintaining EU-wide value. A critical principle is partnership, which has evolved to involve a broad range of actors, from local authorities to socio-economic partners and NGOs, ensuring local ownership and tailored solutions. Cohesion Policy exemplifies multi-level governance (MLG), as it involves a complex interplay of actors across multiple levels of government—EU institutions like the European Commission, national authorities, regional and local governments, and non-state actors. CP implemented through OPs that involve different administration levels This shared responsibility reflects the policy’s place-based approach, with the European Commission overseeing compliance, while regional authorities design and implement programs. The policy’s reliance on MLG ensures tailored responses to regional needs and encourages a sense of ownership among local stakeholders. better adaptation to local needs However, MLG introduces challenges. The involvement of numerous actors leads to complexity, increased administrative costs, and risks of politicization. Some Member States struggle to implement partnership principles effectively, often due to weak civil society structures or limited administrative capacity. Moreover, declining allocations and changing EU priorities have reduced the scope for regional influence. risk of politicization: funding by patronage networks CoR advocating for MLG: emphasize the importance of involving regions and local authorities in decision making Despite these challenges, MLG is fundamental to Cohesion Policy’s success. It enables vertical and horizontal interactions between governance levels, ensuring policies are both adaptive and inclusive. By institutionalizing networks and fostering partnerships, MLG strengthens the policy’s ability to address disparities and promote balanced development, making Cohesion Policy a cornerstone of EU integration and a reflection of its governance complexity. Roles of regions in the EU and examples Regions in the European Union (EU) have become increasingly significant over the past seven decades, evolving into key players in governance, policy implementation, and political advocacy. Their roles are multifaceted, encompassing policy implementation, political representation, aggregation of local interests, and, in some instances, direct contention with national governments. This evolution reflects the EU's broader push toward regional development and integration, despite recent trends toward renationalization and the challenges posed by crises such as COVID-19. methodological nationalism: that state is natural political form and the default basis for comparison>> regional authorities are more the simple subjects of national policies but rather active actors in policy making different what regions are :in some fully fledged self-government in other juts the territorial representation of national gov (also fiscal autonomy ranges) Policy Implementation Regions are critical actors in implementing EU policies, particularly through the EU’s Cohesion Policy. They manage substantial funds aimed at fostering economic development and addressing disparities across regions. For instance, Cohesion Policy initiatives have targeted lagging regions, focusing on reducing inequalities and promoting harmonious development, as outlined in the Treaty of Rome (1957). Regional authorities often act as "managing authorities," overseeing programme design and implementation. However, significant disparities exist in their capacity to deliver these programmes effectively. Regions in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe, for example, often face institutional and administrative challenges, including insufficient capacity to manage resources and achieve intended outcomes. Capacity-building initiatives,(cp technical assistance) such as those in the 2014-2020 programming period, attempted to address these issues through training, pilot projects, and tailored support. Despite these efforts, many regions lack the strategic outlook and leadership necessary to maximize the benefits of such investments. >vicious circle of high level corruption and inadequate public service delivery and erosion of rule of law As political actors >lobby for influence in eu policymaking Regions also play an essential role as political actors in the EU’s governance structure. Through institutions like the Committee of the Regions (CoR), they advocate for greater influence in the policymaking process, particularly in upstream EU decision-making. The CoR serves as the voice of regions and cities, with its members representing local and regional authorities across the EU. This institution has been instrumental in lobbying for territorial balance and ensuring that local needs are considered in EU legislation, which impacts around 70% of all EU laws. Also CPMR campaign for more active involvement: 1st, problems faced by regions has to be tackled place based 2nd, citizens trust more the local government However, the rise of intergovernmentalism, especially since the euro crisis, has led to a diminished role for regions in shaping policies, as decision-making has increasingly shifted to national governments. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) further illustrates this issue, as regions were largely excluded from the preparation of National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs), despite their critical role in implementing these plans. also funding delivered via-subnational institutions, casuing disconnect between NRRPs and Cp Aggregators of Local Interests Regions also act as aggregators of local interests by fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders, such as industry, academia, and civil society. This role was particularly evident in the smart specialization strategies implemented during the 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy period. These strategies aimed to promote regional innovation by involving stakeholders in a structured entrepreneurial discovery process. Over €65 billion in public funding was mobilized across 120 regional strategies, leading to improved knowledge circulation, stronger networks, and enhanced trust among stakeholders. However, the success of these initiatives varied, with more developed regions demonstrating greater operational leadership and capacity for innovation. In contrast, less-developed regions struggled with coordination mechanisms and lacked the specialized skills necessary for effective implementation. Contenders to National Governments >demand greater autonomy to be able to manege local challanges Regions have occasionally found themselves in direct contention with national governments, particularly during crises. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant challenges in the relationship between national and regional authorities. Many regions faced the pandemic with inadequate financial resources, staff, and technical equipment, and were often sidelined in the development of national response strategies. While some regions capitalized on their proximity to local communities to manage the crisis effectively, others were forced to circumvent central policies to introduce stricter measures. The pandemic underscored the importance of territorial differentiation in policy responses, highlighting the need for stronger coordination and resource allocation to regions. Challenges and Future Prospects Despite their growing importance, regions in the EU face numerous challenges. These include disparities in institutional quality, administrative capacity, and fiscal autonomy, as well as limited involvement in critical national and EU-level policy processes. For example, regions in Poland and Hungary have experienced declines in institutional quality due to democratic backsliding, while others in Eastern Europe have shown improvements. To overcome these challenges, a more robust framework for regional involvement, particularly in the context of the European Semester and RRF, is essential. Strengthening the institutional and administrative capacity of lagging regions remains a priority to ensure balanced territorial development and to bridge the gap between more and less developed areas. In conclusion, regions in the EU occupy a complex and dynamic position, acting as bridges between local communities, national governments, and EU institutions. However, their ability to fully realize their potential depends on addressing structural disparities, enhancing institutional capacities, and ensuring their active participation in policymaking at all levels. As the EU continues to navigate economic, social, and political challenges, the role of regions will remain central to achieving cohesive and sustainable development across the Union. About theories of European integration and multilevel governance, pros/cons of MLG Theories of European Integration Neo-functionalism Neo-functionalism, rooted in the work of Ernst Haas, is one of the earliest theories, emphasizing the concept of "spillover effects." According to this view, integration in one sector, such as coal and steel, inevitably pressures expansion into related sectors, creating functional spillovers. Political spillovers occur as supranational actors like the European Commission (COM) and subnational entities, such as interest groups, advocate for deeper integration. This theory highlighted the potential for sectoral integration to become self-sustaining, culminating in the emergence of a new political entity. The "Community Method" exemplifies this approach, where the Commission proposes policies, and member states collectively deliberate, as seen in the formation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Customs Union. However, neo-functionalism has faced criticism, particularly for underestimating the enduring importance of national sovereignty. Intergovernmentalism This theory, championed by Stanley Hoffmann (nation state as obstinate rather the obsolete) and later revised as liberal intergovernmentalism by Andrew Moravcsik, views nation-states as central actors in EU integration. Challenges the neo-functionalist assumption of diminishing national sovereignty. This theory posits that nation-states remain pivotal in the integration process, resisting significant power transfers to supranational entities It highlights the resistance of states to cede sovereignty, exemplified by events such as Charles de Gaulle's "Empty Chair Crisis" (1965) and the cautious approach of the UK during its accession. Liberal intergovernmentalism introduces a three-step model: domestic preference formation, intergovernmental bargaining, and pooling sovereignty to ensure commitment. Liberal intergovernmentalism, a refinement of this theory by Andrew Moravcsik, underscores the role of domestic preferences and intergovernmental bargaining in shaping EU policies. The three-step model—emergence of national preferences, intergovernmental negotiation, and limited pooling of sovereignty (delegate sovereignty to ensure mutual respect of commitment)—explains how states negotiate their interests while retaining control over critical areas. This theory explains the dominance of intergovernmental negotiations in areas like the Stability and Growth Pact Incrementalism: Integration proceeds in a piecemeal fashion, as states cautiously agree to reforms that do not threaten their sovereignty New Institutionalism Emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, new institutionalist approaches emphasize the role of EU institutions in shaping policy outcomes:: structures the choices of actors Rational choice institutionalism focuses on formal rules and decision-making processes, such as unanimity in the European Council. >focus is on delegation and transaction cost approach, causal importance of formal eu rules and procedures in shaping policy outcomes Historical institutionalism highlights how path dependence and incremental adjustments shape EU integration, as seen in the evolution of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Sociological institutionalism and constructivism add a focus on norms and socialization, though their explanatory power is debated >joint decision trap: rigid instituitions "Failing Forward" Theory A contemporary addition, the "failing forward" theory by Jones, Kelemen, and Meunier, explains how European integration advances through crises. how policy failures and institutional shortcomings lead to incomplete integration, but set the stage for further reforms The theory of "failing forward" provides a nuanced explanation of European integration, portraying it as an iterative process driven by crises and the incomplete solutions that arise in their wake. This theory argues that the European Union (EU) advances integration not through smooth, deliberate planning but rather through a dialectic of failure and response, where crises reveal the limitations of existing institutional frameworks. The pressures created by these crises necessitate reforms, but these reforms are often partial due to the inherent political constraints within the EU. National governments, particularly those from larger or more influential member states, are frequently reluctant to relinquish sovereignty, resulting in compromises that address immediate challenges without fully resolving the underlying issues. For instance, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), established to enhance economic integration, lacked adequate fiscal and banking structures to support the Euro. This deficiency became glaringly evident during the Eurozone crisis, which exposed systemic weaknesses. In response, the EU introduced measures like the European Stability Mechanism and the fiscal compact, but these solutions were incomplete, leaving unresolved issues such as the absence of a full fiscal union. This cycle of incomplete reforms highlights how crises function as catalysts, forcing the EU to confront its institutional shortcomings while ensuring that new challenges emerge over time. The theory further illustrates that the EU’s integration trajectory is non-linear, characterized by incremental changes rather than sweeping transformations. For example, the Single European Act facilitated the establishment of the single market but left significant gaps in social and economic policy coordination, leading to subsequent tensions. Politically, the reluctance of member states to fully commit to deeper integration stems from divergent preferences and the prioritization of national sovereignty. The Eurozone crisis exemplified this dynamic, as creditor and debtor countries clashed over the appropriate responses to economic instability. These disagreements led to temporary fixes rather than systemic solutions, reflecting the EU's tendency to muddle through crises instead of implementing comprehensive reforms. Nevertheless, the incomplete nature of these responses creates functional spillovers, as identified in neo-functionalist theories. By addressing one area inadequately, the EU inadvertently generates pressure for further integration in related sectors. The "failing forward" theory refines this neo-functionalist idea by emphasizing the central role of crises as forcing mechanisms that propel incremental progress. It portrays the EU as a hybrid system of supranational and intergovernmental governance that advances through a cycle of crisis, partial resolution, and renewed challenge. >>>highlights the inherent tensions between national sovereignty and the need for deeper integration. As long as the EU continues to adopt piecemeal solutions, the pattern of "failing forward" is likely to persist, shaping the union's future trajectory. This theory underscores the paradox of European integration: while crises drive progress, they also expose the limitations of the EU’s governance structure, ensuring that integration remains an ongoing and contested process. Multilevel Governance (MLG) Multi-level governance theories provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the complex and layered nature of policymaking within the European Union (EU). Emerging from the study of EU cohesion policy in the early 1990s, these theories conceptualize the EU as a unique political system that defies traditional classifications as either an international organization or a domestic political entity. Multi-level governance highlights the dispersion of authority across multiple levels—supranational, national, and subnational—creating a dynamic policymaking process that involves a wide range of actors, including public institutions, private organizations, and civil society. This approach challenges the state-centric perspective of traditional theories by emphasizing the entanglement of national and international levels and the active involvement of non-state actors in shaping policy outcomes. For instance, the European Commission (COM) and subnational governments frequently interact in the formulation and implementation of policies, demonstrating how authority is shared and negotiated beyond the nation-state. Not a single theory but a cluster of theories: Key features of multi-level governance include its non-hierarchical structure and the mobilization of diverse actors who engage in problem-solving through both formal and informal mechanisms. This decentralized model is marked by the absence of a singular authority, with decision-making responsibilities spread across various territorial and institutional layers. Scholars such as Marks and Hooghe have explored how national governments lose exclusive control over policymaking, sharing authority with supranational institutions like the European Commission and with regional or local actors within member states. :: no off the shelf method actors are viewed as open to changing their beliefs and preferences The theory also addresses the "democratic deficit" within the EU, noting concerns about the opacity of decision-making processes, the limited direct electoral accountability of EU institutions, and the perceived detachment of European governance from its citizens. Despite these criticisms, multi-level governance theorists highlight the potential for the EU to function as a deliberative democracy, where diverse interests and perspectives are reconciled through dialogue and compromise. >Decentralized Policymaking: MLG reflects the weakening of national governments' exclusive control, as seen in Cohesion Policy, where regional authorities manage significant funds. >Policy Networks: Public and private actors collaborate, as in the EU’s smart specialization strategies that mobilize industry, academia, and local governments to foster innovation. Multi-level governance also underscores the territorial redefinition of states, as EU integration has restructured traditional policy implementation systems to identify the most effective territorial scale for various policies. For example, cohesion policies often involve cooperation between EU institutions, member state governments, regional authorities, and private actors, demonstrating how governance networks operate across multiple levels. Additionally, the concept captures the interplay between top-down and bottom-up dynamics, where EU-level directives influence domestic policies, and domestic preferences shape EU policymaking. The theory has been instrumental in explaining the EU’s ability to adapt to the challenges of integration by accommodating diverse actors and facilitating flexible, multi-tiered decision-making. It also reflects the evolving nature of European governance, which continues to blend elements of supranationalism, intergovernmentalism, and local autonomy, making it a central lens for analyzing the EU’s policy processes and institutional innovations. Pros and Cons of MLG Pros: 1. Inclusivity: MLG allows diverse actors to participate in decision-making, reflecting the complexity of modern governance. 2. Flexibility: Its non-hierarchical nature enables adaptive policymaking, as seen in the EU’s responses to the COVID-19 crisis. 3. Democratic Potential: By involving regional and local levels, MLG can address the EU’s democratic deficit and enhance trust in governance. Cons: 1. Complexity and Inefficiency: MLG’s overlapping jurisdictions and multiple actors can slow decision-making and lead to coordination challenges, evident in the delayed implementation of Recovery and Resilience Facility measures. 2. Democratic Deficit: Despite its inclusivity, MLG often struggles with transparency and accountability, as decision-making may shift to unelected bodies or informal networks. 3. Uneven Capacities: Regions and member states vary in their ability to participate effectively, exacerbating disparities, particularly between Eastern and Southern Europe. Permacrisis The European Union (EU) has been navigating an era of "permacrisis," a term describing an enduring state of successive and interconnected crises, from the 2008 financial meltdown and the Eurozone instability to the migration surge, Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and ongoing geopolitical tensions like the Ukraine conflict. These challenges, often exogenous in origin, have exposed the limitations of traditional EU governance, prompting the adoption of a novel approach termed "coordinative Europeanization." This framework emphasizes informal, rapid coordination between EU institutions and member states to devise and implement policy solutions swiftly, balancing the urgency of action with national ownership. For example, mechanisms like the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and the coordinated vaccination strategy during the pandemic reflect this shift. While this model enhances decision-making speed and policy compliance, it introduces challenges such as the marginalization of subnational actors, potential legitimacy backlashes, and inconsistencies with long-term EU goals. Furthermore, the iterative learning from these crises has spurred both integration and fragmentation, with some member states embracing cooperative solutions while others resist deeper Europeanization. As the EU grapples with the volatility of this "new normal," questions persist regarding the institutionalization of these emergency responses, their inclusivity, and their impact on EU governance and cohesion. Ultimately, the EU's ability to adapt its policies and governance structures amidst a "permacrisis" will shape its resilience and effectiveness in addressing future transboundary challenges. Coordinative Europeanization Coordinative Europeanization has emerged as a vital governance approach in the European Union (EU), designed to address the unique challenges posed by the ongoing era of "permacrisis." Defined as a process of informal, rapid coordination between EU institutions and member states during the early stages of crises, coordinative Europeanization emphasizes collaborative policymaking to ensure swift and effective responses to urgent challenges. Coordinative Europeanization encapsulates the EU's evolving governance response to a series of complex, interconnected crises, characterized by informal and rapid coordination between EU institutions and member states during early crisis stages. Unlike traditional Europeanization models—such as soft Europeanization, which relies on non-binding recommendations, or coercive Europeanization, which enforces compliance through regulation—this approach seeks to harmonize national and EU-level interests through collaborative policymaking and shared ownership of decisions. It underscores the growing interdependence among member states and EU institutions, compelling bodies like the European Commission to take proactive roles in coordinating responses that extend into traditionally national policy domains, including health, security, and economic recovery. Contemporary crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical instability have propelled this model into prominence, with initiatives such as the coordinated vaccine procurement and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) exemplifying its necessity. These actions demonstrated the spill-over effect of coordinative Europeanization, influencing pre-existing non-emergency policies while fostering shared responsibility between the European Commission, acting as a mediator and policy entrepreneur, and member states, which participated in both policy design and implementation. Core attributes of this model include speed, flexibility, and informal dialogues between national executives and the European Commission to ensure national ownership and smoother compliance. The European Council has increasingly driven critical decisions, while member states execute policies domestically, as seen with the RRF’s provision of financial support during the pandemic, reflecting the EU's capacity to tackle transboundary challenges beyond the scope of individual nations. However, the urgency-driven and informal nature of this framework poses challenges, including the marginalization of subnational governments, private entities, and civil society, potentially undermining policy legitimacy, creating implementation gaps, and exacerbating governance tensions. Rapid decision-making may also lead to policy misalignment with long-term EU objectives and principles like subsidiarity. Consensus-driven processes heighten vulnerability to political disagreements, particularly when member states’ priorities diverge, raising questions about the approach's durability. Even though crises have temporarily united Eurosceptic nations, sustaining such unity is uncertain, especially amid concurrent de-Europeanization trends. Moving forward, the institutionalization of coordinative Europeanization would require structural reforms to enhance inclusivity, incorporate diverse stakeholders, and ensure coherence with long-term EU policy goals, while managing the coexistence of multiple Europeanization modes to avoid governance inconsistencies. Despite its limitations, coordinative Europeanization represents a pragmatic evolution in EU governance, balancing rapid response with collaborative policymaking and offering resilience in an increasingly volatile world. Its future effectiveness depends on addressing these shortcomings, fostering greater inclusivity, and evolving to meet the dynamic needs of member states and stakeholders, positioning it as a vital mechanism for collective action and deeper integration in the face of uncertainty >>apply to wicked problems Coordinative Europeanization parameters ▪ increased coordination between the EU institutions and the MSs for the design of policy solutions for an urgent matter, often taken in extraordinary European Council meetings, but following preparation at the lower levels (often informal exchange between member states, behind the scenes): lot of preparation ▪ policies adopted under this mode often have an end date (e.g. RRF stopped in august 2026) ▪ consideration of national ownership and national capability to implement new policies taken more into consideration because of the urgent need for results ▪ ongoing dialogue between member states and the European Commission throughout implementation to ensure that reforms/implementation remain on track The agenda-setting role of high-level reports like the Letta and Draghi reports High-level reports, such as those by Letta and Draghi, play a crucial agenda-setting role in High-level reports such as the Letta and Draghi reports play a fundamental role in the agenda-setting process of the European Union (EU), acting as powerful tools to shape policy debates, prioritize strategic goals, and guide legislative and institutional actions. These reports provide a comprehensive analysis of current challenges and propose forward-looking solutions that influence decision-makers and stakeholders within the EU framework. They highlight policy gaps, propose innovations, and set the stage for policy reforms by aligning recommendations with broader EU objectives. The Letta Report, commissioned ahead of the 2024-2029 legislative period, underscores the importance of completing and modernizing the EU Single Market to enhance the EU’s capacity to face evolving global challenges, including technological disruption and geopolitical shifts. Letta focuses on three pillars: competitiveness, resilience, and strategic autonomy. The report highlights the urgent need for deep political commitment from EU institutions and member states, emphasizing collaboration with social partners and citizens to create a robust Single Market strategy. Key recommendations include introducing a "5th freedom" to facilitate free movement of knowledge, data, research, and education to boost innovation capacity; establishing a Savings and Investment Union to channel savings into strategic investments supporting digital and green transitions; and enhancing the social dimension by strengthening labor rights, quality jobs, and equitable access to services across all regions. Letta’s emphasis on cohesion policy addresses regional imbalances and the "freedom to stay," advocating for policies that enable citizens to thrive locally rather than feeling compelled to relocate due to economic disparities. Proposed reforms aim to reduce brain drain, improve access to housing and essential services, and strengthen digital infrastructure. This approach reinforces the EU’s commitment to shared prosperity and social cohesion within its economic framework. The Draghi Report, presented in response to what Draghi describes as an existential crisis for Europe, outlines a radical strategy to revitalize the EU’s competitiveness and economic resilience. Draghi identifies three major areas for action: closing the innovation gap, particularly in advanced technologies; integrating decarbonization with productivity and competitiveness to ensure sustainable growth; and enhancing security by reducing dependencies in critical sectors. The report points to structural barriers, including fragmented policy implementation, inefficient resource allocation, and weak coordination between national and EU-level efforts, which hinder progress. Draghi proposes a comprehensive industrial strategy supported by both public and private sector investments, calling for coordinated EU funding to drive technological innovation, energy transitions, and defense capabilities. His recommendations for massive investment (up to €800 billion annually) in key areas like digitalization, green energy, and defense have sparked debate, particularly on the contentious issue of joint borrowing, which reflects differing fiscal philosophies between Northern and Southern member states. The impact of these reports on policy-making is evident in their influence on the titles and mission letters of EU Commissioners under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen. Titles like "Commissioner for Climate, Net-Zero, and Clean Growth" directly reflect Draghi’s integration of decarbonization with competitiveness. Similarly, references to an "Investment Union" and simplified, long-term budget structures align with the policy directions advocated by both reports. Catherine de Vries highlights how these agenda-setting documents shape the framing of new policy portfolios and institutional priorities, reinforcing their legitimizing and bargaining functions. Overall, high-level reports serve as pivotal agenda-setting tools by defining policy priorities, legitimizing political choices, and fostering dialogue between EU institutions and member states. They provide a structured analysis that anticipates future needs, offering blueprints for legislative and policy actions. While they do not always result in immediate change, their recommendations often plant the seeds for incremental reforms and long-term transformation. In times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and shifting global power dynamics, these reports offer critical insights for adapting EU policies to safeguard welfare, democracy, and economic prosperity. The Letta and Draghi reports exemplify the enduring relevance of high-level policy advice in steering the EU through complex challenges and positioning it as a resilient, innovative, and competitive global actor. 5 policy modes of EU The European Union (EU) employs five primary policy modes, each delineating distinct processes and institutional interactions in its policy-making framework, as detailed in "Policy-Making in the European Union" (8th edn) by Helen Wallace et al. Classical Community Method: This traditional approach is foundational to EU integration, emphasizing supranationalism. The European Commission holds the exclusive right to initiate legislation, underscoring its central role. The Council of the European Union and the European Parliament participate in a bicameral legislative process, often through the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, ensuring both intergovernmental and supranational interests are balanced. The Court of Justice of the European Union oversees the uniform interpretation and application of EU law, maintaining legal coherence across member states. This method is predominantly applied in areas like competition policy and the internal market, where uniformity and deep integration are essential. EU Regulatory Mode: Focused on establishing detailed rules and standards, this mode addresses technical and sector-specific issues to ensure harmonization across the single market. Independent regulatory agencies, alongside the European Commission, develop and implement regulations, providing expertise and oversight. The involvement of specialized committees and agencies facilitates technical decision-making, allowing for adaptability and efficiency. This mode is prevalent in sectors such as environmental regulation, financial services, and food safety, where technical precision and uniform standards are crucial. EU Distributional Mode: This mode pertains to the allocation of financial resources, notably through the EU budget, structural funds, and agricultural subsidies. Decisions in this realm often result from complex negotiations among member states, each advocating for favorable outcomes based on national interests. The process reflects a balance between solidarity and equitable distribution, aiming to reduce economic disparities and promote cohesion within the Union. The European Commission proposes budgetary frameworks, but the Council and the European Parliament play significant roles in amending and approving financial allocations, ensuring a multifaceted decision-making process. Policy Coordination: Recognizing the diversity of member states' policies and preferences, this mode involves coordinating national policies to achieve common EU objectives without resorting to binding legislation. The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is a key instrument here, relying on setting guidelines, establishing benchmarks, and facilitating peer reviews. Policy areas such as employment, social inclusion, and education commonly utilize this mode, where the EU sets overarching goals, and member states retain autonomy in implementation. This approach fosters mutual learning and best practice sharing, promoting convergence while respecting national sovereignty. Intensive Transgovernmentalism: This approach is characterized by direct cooperation between national governments, with limited involvement from supranational institutions. Policy areas such as foreign policy, security, and defense often employ this mode, where decisions are made through intergovernmental negotiations and consensus-building. The European Council and the Council of the European Union are central actors, with the European Commission and Parliament playing more peripheral roles. This mode allows for flexibility and respects national sovereignty, enabling member states to collaborate on sensitive issues without ceding authority to supranational bodies. These policy modes illustrate the EU's multifaceted approach to governance, balancing the need for collective action with respect for member states' autonomy, and adapting to the varying demands of different policy areas. Europeanisation and 3 strands The Europeanisation of public administrations (PAs) in EU member states is studied through three interconnected strands, each offering a comprehensive understanding of how European integration influences governance systems. The first strand examines the direct changes initiated in domestic administrative systems due to EU integration. This includes assessing how national governments adjust their structures, operations, and policies to align with the EU’s multi-level governance framework. It considers how European norms, rules, and policies shape the reorganization of domestic ministries, the establishment of new administrative units, and the creation of coordination mechanisms to manage EU affairs effectively. These adjustments often involve the creation of dedicated EU affairs departments within national ministries, inter-ministerial committees for policy alignment, and enhanced legal and technical expertise to comply with complex EU regulations. This strand also investigates the interplay between national and European levels, particularly how member states reconfigure administrative processes to address policy coordination needs, such as aligning legislative outputs with European directives and regulations. Examples include the adaptation of procurement policies, environmental standards, and labor laws to meet EU requirements. The second strand delves into the effects of these changes on administrative performance, focusing on how the transformations in structure and organization influence the efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness of public administrations. It explores whether alignment with EU standards and practices enhances governance outcomes, including improved accountability, better regulatory compliance, and strengthened institutional capacities. For instance, compliance with EU cohesion policies has often necessitated advanced planning and monitoring systems, contributing to more strategic governance. However, this strand also critically examines trade-offs, such as the potential bureaucratic overload caused by the detailed procedural requirements of EU policies, the administrative costs of compliance, and the challenges of balancing national priorities with European mandates. In some cases, the adaptation process has strained smaller or less resourced administrations, revealing disparities in how Europeanisation impacts member states. The third strand takes a circular perspective, studying the mutual and iterative influences between the EU and member states’ PAs. Known as the circular Europeanisation model, this strand investigates how EU norms and policies, as independent variables, reshape national institutions and practices and, conversely, how the preferences and institutional configurations of member states, as dependent variables, influence the formulation, refinement, and implementation of EU policies. This perspective emphasizes the role of national administrative actors, such as civil servants, in shaping EU-level decisions through their participation in committees, working groups, and negotiation processes. It highlights a dynamic feedback loop where national actors contribute to shaping European governance while simultaneously adapting to its evolving requirements. For example, the harmonization of competition policies has often reflected national preferences, which, after being integrated into EU frameworks, further influence domestic governance. Studies on Europeanisation reveal that the process has significantly strengthened central administrative structures, particularly ministries, by fostering institutional concentration. Finance ministries and other core executive bodies have gained prominence due to their role in coordinating EU policies, managing funds, and ensuring compliance with fiscal rules, such as those under the Stability and Growth Pact. However, while Europeanisation has often centralized administrative functions at the national level, its effects on national parliaments are more nuanced. Although the early phases of integration appeared to weaken parliamentary roles—reducing their influence over policy areas increasingly governed by EU mechanisms—later studies show that these impacts vary across policies and countries. In some contexts, parliaments have adapted by establishing European Affairs Committees or increasing scrutiny of national governments' positions in EU negotiations, partially mitigating their diminished influence. Additionally, Europeanisation has expanded the role of civil servants as multilevel actors, reinforcing their influence in both domestic and European governance settings. Civil servants increasingly act as intermediaries, bridging national and EU levels by participating in policy networks, representing national interests in Brussels, and facilitating the implementation of EU policies domestically. Their dual role as both implementers of EU directives and advocates of national priorities underscores their critical importance in the Europeanisation process. Together, these strands and findings illustrate the profound and multifaceted impact of Europeanisation on public administrations, demonstrating it as a bidirectional and dynamic process that reshapes governance structures, balances, and interactions across the EU and its member states. Europeanisation, when understood as a theory of integration, offers a broader analytical framework compared to the Europeanisation of public administrations, encompassing a wider range of processes that influence domestic institutions, policies, and practices in EU member states. It highlights how EU-level decisions and norms interact with national contexts, shaping governance across multiple dimensions. Unlike the more specific focus on administrative adjustments in public administration studies, this approach considers broader institutional, political, and societal impacts, emphasizing mechanisms, domestic intervening variables, and dynamic processes like top-down and circular Europeanisation. Domestic Intervening Variables A critical aspect of Europeanisation as a theory of integration is the role of domestic intervening variables in mediating how EU norms and policies influence member states. These variables include factors such as political culture, institutional capacity, administrative structures, and the presence of veto players. For instance, countries with centralized governance and cohesive political institutions may find it easier to implement EU policies, whereas those with fragmented or decentralized systems face greater challenges in alignment. Veto points—such as strong regional governments, independent judiciaries, or robust civil society organizations—can either facilitate or obstruct the adoption of EU-driven changes. These intervening variables help explain why the same EU policy may result in diverse outcomes across different member states, reflecting the unique institutional and political landscapes within each country. 3 strands in this case: 1. Direct Changes to Domestic Systems (Top-Down Europeanisation) This strand focuses on how EU norms, policies, and institutional requirements impose direct changes on domestic governance systems. It emphasizes the top-down transfer of rules and standards from the EU to member states, compelling them to adjust their institutions, policies, and practices to comply with European requirements. This process often involves legal harmonization, the creation of new administrative bodies, and the reorganization of existing institutions to manage EU-related tasks effectively. Examples include the adoption of EU competition law, environmental standards, and fiscal regulations, as well as the alignment of domestic policies with the EU’s cohesion and structural funds. This strand also examines the degree of "goodness of fit" between EU demands and national systems, highlighting how misalignment can drive institutional transformation. The cross-loading understanding of Europeanisation emphasizes the bidirectional and reciprocal relationship between the European Union (EU) and its member states, highlighting how influence flows in both directions. Unlike a purely top-down or bottom-up approach, cross-loading conceptualizes Europeanisation as a dynamic process where EU norms, policies, and practices shape domestic governance systems, while national preferences, innovations, and institutional frameworks simultaneously influence EU policymaking. This perspective reflects the evolving nature of European integration as a collaborative process involving mutual adaptation and the iterative development of governance structures. In addition to top-down processes, Europeanisation also encompasses bottom-up and circular models, recognizing that member states influence EU policymaking. Bottom-up Europeanisation highlights how national preferences and practices contribute to shaping EU norms, reflecting the reciprocal nature of integration. Circular Europeanisation takes this further by emphasizing iterative interactions between national and EU levels. For example, a policy may originate at the EU level, be implemented and adapted domestically, and then feed back into EU discussions through lessons learned or new proposals from member states. This dynamic underscores the EU's hybrid governance system, where integration is a two-way street. 2. Impact on Governance Outcomes (Performance Strand) The second strand evaluates how Europeanisation affects the performance of domestic governance systems. This involves assessing whether alignment with EU norms and practices enhances administrative efficiency, policy effectiveness, accountability, and regulatory compliance. For example, adherence to EU standards may improve governance outcomes by introducing best practices, fostering transparency, or building institutional capacities. However, this strand also explores potential trade-offs, such as bureaucratic overload or the diversion of resources to meet EU procedural requirements. It critically examines whether the benefits of Europeanisation outweigh its administrative and political costs, considering disparities in how member states implement EU directives based on their institutional capacities and political will. 3. Mutual Influence and Iterative Interactions (Circular Europeanisation) The third strand focuses on the reciprocal and dynamic relationship between the EU and member states, often referred to as circular Europeanisation. This strand highlights how domestic preferences, institutional configurations, and political cultures influence EU policymaking, which, in turn, shapes member states' governance. It examines the feedback loop where national actors contribute to the development of EU norms and policies, which are subsequently implemented domestically and adapted based on local contexts. This iterative process underscores the mutual influence between national and EU levels, demonstrating that Europeanisation is not a unidirectional process but a complex interaction. Examples include the role of member states in shaping policies like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) or influencing the evolution of the EU’s single market regulation Mechanisms of Europeanisation Europeanisation operates through several mechanisms that facilitate the transmission and adoption of EU norms and policies. Key mechanisms include: 1. Coercion: The EU imposes binding requirements, often through legal instruments such as directives and regulations, compelling member states to align with its standards. 2. Conditionality: Compliance is incentivized by linking benefits, such as financial aid or accession opportunities, to adherence to EU norms and policies. 3. Socialization: Through participation in EU institutions and policy networks, member states and their actors gradually internalize European norms and practices, leading to voluntary alignment. 4. Persuasion: The EU engages in dialogue and argumentation to encourage member states to adopt policies by highlighting shared values or practical benefits. 5. Normative Emulation: Member states adopt EU norms not out of compulsion but because they perceive these norms as legitimate or beneficial. 6. Lesson-Drawing: Governments learn from the experiences of other member states within the EU framework, adapting successful policies to their own contexts. 7. Competition: States align with EU standards to maintain competitiveness within the single market or enhance their standing relative to other members. Comparison with Europeanisation of Public Administrations While the Europeanisation of public administrations focuses narrowly on how domestic administrative systems adapt to EU requirements, the broader theory of Europeanisation examines systemic changes across governance structures, including political, legal, and societal dimensions. Public administration studies are concerned primarily with organizational and procedural adjustments within ministries, civil services, and coordination mechanisms, emphasizing efficiency, capacity building, and administrative performance. In contrast, the broader Europeanisation framework addresses how EU norms reshape national identities, policies, and institutional relationships, often considering societal impacts and broader political implications. Multi-Level Relations The implications of Europeanisation for multi-level relations are profound. On the one hand, integration has centralized administrative functions within national governments, sometimes at the expense of subnational and local authorities. This trend has been particularly challenging for federal states and countries with strong traditions of local governance, as seen in the Nordic states, where the shift often limits the autonomy of local governments. On the other hand, the EU’s regional policy has partially compensated for this centralization by strengthening meso-level authorities, promoting regional governance, and fostering a Europe of the Regions. Additionally, the process has led to the emergence of European administrative networks, where national ministries and agencies collaborate within a new European administrative space. These networks reflect a layered governance model where national, regional, and EU-level actors interact and influence one another, showcasing the dynamic complexity of multi-level governance in the European context. Thus, Europeanisation has both centralized and decentralized effects, fostering integration while respecting the diversity of member states' administrative traditions and systems. The European Parliament (EP) and How It Works The European Parliament (EP) serves as the cornerstone of democratic representation within the European Union (EU), embodying the interests of over 447 million citizens across its member states. Composed of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected every five years through direct universal suffrage, the EP operates as a supranational legislature. Its primary functions include legislative, budgetary, and supervisory responsibilities. Legislative power in the EP is exercised primarily through the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as co-decision, where the EP shares equal authority with the Council of the EU to adopt and amend legislation. This ensures that EU laws are deliberated upon from both a citizen-centric perspective, represented by the EP, and a member-state perspective, represented by the Council. Furthermore, the EP plays a pivotal role in the EU's budgetary process by establishing, scrutinizing, and approving the annual budget in collaboration with the Council, which enhances transparency and accountability in EU financial management. The EP also acts as a watchdog over other EU institutions, especially the European Commission (EC), ensuring democratic oversight. It has the power to approve or dismiss the College of Commissioners, which illustrates its significant supervisory role. /// decides on international agreement, enlargement, discuss monetary policy with European Central Bank As highlighted by Alasdair Young and Christilla Roederer-Rynning in Wallace et al. (2020), the EP’s growing influence reflects the EU’s commitment to a more participatory and accountable governance structure. Young and Roederer-Rynning highlight how the EP's role in co-decision reflects a balance between supranational and intergovernmental dynamics, ensuring that laws resonate with both citizen and member-state perspectives. but despite its growing powers, the EP often faces challenges in achieving high visibility among EU citizens, particularly due to the complexity of its operations and the perception of a “democratic deficit” within the EU framework. Scrutiny and Influence Beyond Legislation: >Beyond its legislative and budgetary roles, the EP exerts significant influence through its supervisory functions, particularly in approving the Commission's appointment and its ability to issue motions of censure. >The EP’s ability to debate policies with the European Central Bank (ECB) demonstrates its involvement in areas of monetary governance, showcasing its role in enhancing transparency within the EU's financial architecture. The European Commission (EC) and How It Works The European Commission (EC) operates as the executive arm of the EU, responsible for driving the Union's policy agenda and ensuring its effective implementation. Comprised of one Commissioner from each member state, the EC is led by the President, who assigns specific policy portfolios to the Commissioners. The EC is unique in its exclusive right to propose legislation, which is then reviewed and adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. This monopoly on legislative initiation enables the EC to align proposed policies with the EU’s long-term objectives, such as sustainability, competitiveness, and social cohesion. Additionally, the EC administers EU policies and funds, preparing annual budgets and overseeing their implementation to achieve key policy goals. The EC also acts as the "Guardian of the Treaties," ensuring compliance with EU law across member states, which includes initiating infringement procedures against non-compliant countries. Beyond its legislative and enforcement roles, the EC represents the EU internationally, negotiating trade agreements and coordinating the Union’s external relations. According to Alasdair Young and Christilla Roederer-Rynning in Wallace et al. (2020), the EC plays a critical role in maintaining the functional integrity of the EU by bridging the diverse interests of member states and steering collective action. This dual role as both initiator and enforcer underscores the EC's centrality in the EU’s governance and policy-making architecture. The Spitzenkandidaten (German for "lead candidates") process has enhanced the democratic legitimacy of the EP and the EU’s leadership selection. Introduced in 2014, this process ties the selection of the European Commission President to the results of the EP elections. Each European political group nominates a lead candidate, or Spitzenkandidat, for the Commission Presidency. After the EP elections, the Council proposes a candidate, typically the Spitzenkandidat of the largest political group, who then needs to secure a majority in the EP to be elected. While the process strengthens the connection between EP elections and EU executive leadership, it has faced criticism for its limited public recognition and for challenges in securing consensus among EU leaders, as seen in 2019 when Ursula von der Leyen became Commission President without being a Spitzenkandidat. European Commission (EC): The European Commission (EC) serves as the EU’s executive arm, ensuring the implementation of Union policies and driving its legislative agenda. The EC is composed of one Commissioner from each member state, including the President, Vice-Presidents, and Commissioners with specific policy portfolios. While Commissioners are nominated by member states, they must act independently of national governments, serving the EU's collective interest. The President of the Commission, elected by the European Parliament, leads the College of Commissioners and assigns portfolios to individual members. EC’s day-to-day work is carried out by its Directorates-General (DGs) and associated services Directorates-General (DGs): These are specialized departments within the Commission that manage policy areas such as trade, agriculture, energy, competition, and environment. Each DG is headed by a Director-General who reports to the Commissioner responsible for the respective policy area. This specialization allows the Commission to develop expertise in diverse fields and manage the complexities of EU-wide policies The College of Commissioners ensures coherence by overseeing and approving DG activities before implementation The Secretariat-General and Services The Secretariat-General (SG) supports the President and ensures the smooth functioning of the Commission by coordinating the work of DGs. It manages the Commission’s legislative agenda, prepares meetings of the College of Commissioners, and ensures that initiatives align with the EU’s strategic objectives. Other Services: In addition to DGs, the EC has specialized services, such as: ○ Legal Service: Ensures that the Commission’s proposals comply with EU law. ○ European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF): Investigates corruption and misuse of EU funds. ○ Statistical Office of the EU (Eurostat): Provides statistical information to guide policy-making. How it works: Legislative Initiative: The Commission holds the exclusive right to initiate legislative proposals, setting the agenda for EU policy-making. This prerogative allows the EC to propose laws that address emerging challenges and align with the Union's strategic objectives. Policy Implementation: Once legislation is adopted, the EC is responsible for its implementation, ensuring that EU laws are applied uniformly across member states. This includes managing the EU's budget, overseeing the execution of policies, and ensuring compliance with EU law. for that::: Comitology act refers to the system of committees that assist the European Commission (COM) in implementing EU laws. It ensures that the Commission's executive actions are supervised by representatives from EU member states, maintaining a balance between the Commission’s authority and member states’ oversight. Network of committees that provide regular channel for consultation, cooperation and control between com and relevant offices Enforcement of EU Law: As the "Guardian of the Treaties," the Commission monitors member states' adherence to EU law. It can initiate infringement proceedings against states that fail to comply, which may lead to cases before the European Court of Justice. External Representation: The EC represents the EU in international fora, negotiating agreements and partnerships on behalf of the Union. This role is vital for presenting a cohesive external policy and for the EU's participation in global affairs. >>not on issues related to external representation of euro area Young and Roederer-Rynning (2020) note that the Commission's role has evolved, balancing its supranational responsibilities with the interests of member states, and adapting to the complexities of an expanding and diversifying Union. In summary, the European Parliament and the European Commission are integral to the EU's structure, each contributing to a system of checks and balances that underpin the Union's democratic legitimacy and effective governance 2 very different roles and expectation from Com: secretariat and proto-executive/agenda-setter Relationship Between the EC and EEAS The EC and EEAS collaborate closely to ensure coherence in the EU’s external actions. Their roles are complementary rather than overlapping, with clear divisions of labor in certain areas: Policy-Making and Coordination: The EC drives sectoral policies with external dimensions (e.g., trade, climate, development), while the EEAS focuses on the broader diplomatic and political aspects of foreign policy. Council of the European Union The Council of the European Union, often referred to as the Council of Ministers, is a core institution in the European Union's policymaking framework, embodying both intergovernmental and supranational elements. Unlike the European Council, which sets the EU's overarching political direction, the Council of the European Union directly engages in legislative processes, representing member states' interests. Its structure is unique, comprising various configurations based on policy areas, such as the General Affairs Council (GAC) for internal policies and the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) for external matters. Each configuration consists of relevant ministers from each member state, ensuring that discussions are informed by subject-specific expertise. The Council's legislative role is pivotal, as it co-legislates with the European Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure. This collaboration ensures a balance between the representation of EU citizens and member states in lawmaking. Additionally, the Council serves as a catalyst for legislative proposals by stimulating the European Commission, which holds the exclusive right of legislative initiative. Decisions within the Council are typically made using Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), which requires at least 55% of member states (representing 65% of the EU's population) to approve. However, unanimity is required for sensitive areas like foreign policy. The dynamics of consensus-seeking often dominate, even under QMV, reflecting the Council's culture of compromise. >contested decisions on areas of spend // block minorities: 4 council member repres 34% of pop Decisions in the Council can be classified as contested or uncontested, depending on the degree of agreement among member states during the decision-making process. Usually involve politically sensitive issues or areas where national interests diverge Contested:: >>May require intensive negotiations to achieve a compromise or majority support >If a consensus is not possible, the Council relies on its voting procedures to adopt decisions. Voting Procedures: Qualified Majority Voting (QMV): Used for most decisions. Requires approval by at least 55% of member states representing at least 65% of the EU population Unanimity: Required for decisions on highly sensitive matters, such as foreign policy or taxation. Simple Majority: Used for procedural issues. The preparatory work of the Council is largely managed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), comprising ambassadors (COREPER II) or deputy ambassadors (COREPER I) from member states. COREPER prepares agendas, identifies items requiring ministerial discussion, and facilitates agreements through over 150 working groups, which address technical and policy-specific details. This layered structure ensures that 70% of decisions are made at the working group level, with the remainder escalated to COREPER or the ministers themselves. As highlighted by Young and Roederer-Rynninig in Wallace et al. (2020), the Council's dual role as a collective institution and an intergovernmental forum creates inherent tensions. On one hand, it strives to promote EU-wide interests; on the other, ministers often defend national positions, influenced by domestic political considerations. This duality underscores the Council's nature as a platform for reconciling diverse national interests within the broader EU framework. The presidency of the Council rotates among member states every six months, with a trio system ensuring continuity. The presidency plays a significant role in setting agendas, chairing meetings, and representing the Council in negotiations with other institutions, such as the European Parliament and the Commission. However, the presidency must balance its national priorities with its obligation to act in the EU's collective interest. The Treaty of Lisbon enhanced the Council's transparency by requiring legislative deliberations to be public. Yet, decision-making remains complex, influenced by coalitions, ideological divides, and the interplay between richer and poorer member states. For instance, recent initiatives like the Next Generation EU recovery fund have reshaped traditional coalition patterns, illustrating the Council's adaptability to emerging challenges. and with outside on issues other then CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) Representation in Non-CFSP International Fora: For policy areas outside CFSP, such as trade, environmental issues, and other internal EU competencies, the presidency may represent the Council in international negotiations or high-level discussions. However, this is often done in coordination with the European Commission, which holds primary responsibility for external representation in areas of exclusive EU competence (e.g., trade negotiations) Ultimately, the Council of the European Union embodies the EU's spirit of unity amidst diversity, facilitating collaboration among member states while navigating the complexities of policymaking in a multi-level governance system. Its operations, while intricate, are central to the functioning and legitimacy of the European Union. >>> channeled away some influence from COM (ECOFIN) European Council The European Council is one of the most significant institutions of the European Union, providing strategic direction and political impetus to the EU's overall agenda. As outlined in the document and in Alasdair Young and Christilla Roederer-Rynninig’s chapter in Wallace et al. (2020), the European Council operates as the pinnacle of political authority within the EU, bringing together the Heads of State or Government of the 27 member states, the President of the European Council, and the President of the European Commission. It occasionally includes the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy when issues related to external affairs are discussed. Unlike the Council of the European Union, which deals with specific legislative and policy matters, the European Council focuses on broader political issues and resolving impasses that arise at lower institutional levels. Established as a formal institution by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, it has evolved from informal summit meetings into a structured body that meets at least four times annually, though extraordinary meetings are convened when urgent issues arise. The European Council’s structure is designed to facilitate decision-making at the highest political level. The institution is chaired by a permanent president, a position created by the Lisbon Treaty to provide continuity and leadership, rather than rotating among member states. This president is elected by the Council for a renewable two-and-a-half-year term. The role of the president includes preparing and chairing meetings, fostering consensus among members, and representing the EU externally on specific issues such as security and foreign policy, complementing the role of the High Representative. The current president, Antonio Costa. Functionally, the European Council does not legislate but sets the EU’s political priorities and strategic direction. It addresses complex, high-stakes issues such as treaty changes, multiannual financial frameworks, and responses to crises, including the Eurozone crisis, migration challenges, and geopolitical conflicts like the war in Ukraine. It also plays a decisive role in appointments, such as nominating the President of the European Commission and selecting the High Representative. Its conclusions, issued after meetings, are non-binding but carry significant political weight, guiding the work of other EU institutions, particularly the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. >level of activity expanded reflecting a sharply increasing on part of the most senior national politicians to take control of the direction of EU >need for political leadership in the Eu policy process by defining direction of policy and resolving controversies Decision-making in the European Council primarily operates on a consensus basis, although formal votes are sometimes used, particularly for procedural or personnel decisions. This consensus-driven approach underscores the European Council’s role as a mediator of national interests, ensuring that all member states can agree on major policy directions. However, achieving consensus in a diverse union of 27 states often leads to complex negotiations and compromises, reflecting the “joint decision trap” described by scholars like Scharpf and echoed in Young and Roederer-Rynninig’s analysis. The European Council’s strategic leadership has been instrumental in addressing both internal and external challenges. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it played a critical role in coordinating the EU’s response, including the adoption of the Next Generation EU recovery fund. It has also been pivotal in defining the EU’s stance on climate change, advancing the European Green Deal as a core priority. In foreign policy, the European Council sets the overall direction, although implementation often falls to the High Representative and the Council of the European Union. In conclusion, the European Council is the EU’s preeminent political forum, where national leaders shape the union’s strategic trajectory. Its structure, combining national representation with institutional continuity through its president, enables it to address issues that cut across policy domains and require collective action at the highest level. While its decisions are often marked by compromise and complexity, the European Council remains central to the EU’s capacity to adapt and respond to an ever-changing political landscape. This institutional flexibility and its role in resolving high-stakes political dilemmas underscore its importance within the EU’s governance framework. Interactions and Cross-Institutional Dynamics The relationship between the EP, EC, and the Council is marked by mutual checks and balances, ensuring that no single institution dominates the policymaking process. The EC’s collaboration with the European External Action Service (EEAS) highlights its role in aligning sectoral policies with broader EU foreign policy objectives. The Council and the European Council's interplay reflects a division of labor, where the latter focuses on setting strategic direction and resolving impasses that the former cannot. ECA The European Court of Auditors (ECA) serves as the guardian of the European Union’s financial interests, ensuring the proper and efficient use of EU funds. Established in 1977 and formalized as an EU institution by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, the ECA plays a critical role in promoting transparency, accountability, and sound financial management within the Union. It operates independently of other EU institutions and member states, a feature designed to maintain its impartiality and authority in assessing financial activities. The ECA’s main mandate is to audit the EU’s finances, evaluating whether the EU’s budget is implemented correctly, efficiently, and in line with legal requirements. Its findings contribute to the accountability of EU institutions and serve as a basis for improvements in financial g

Public Management Questions & EU Health Policy (PDF)

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript