Skip to main content
Log in

Access, capacity and influence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Different forms of integration into the European Union (EU) call for studies of the consequences of multilevel access structures. Similar to EU member-states, government officials from associated states interact closely with EU-level administrative institutions, notably the European Commission (Commission) and EU agencies. Benefiting from a large-N survey, this study demonstrates that bureaucrats from “third-countries”, such as Norway, may exert sectoral policy influence in the EU, and that organizational features of the public administration may systematically shape such patterns. The study offers two distinct contributions to the extant literature: First, it presents original survey data on how domestic agency officials perceive their influence vis-à-vis the EUs executive branch. Secondly, it probes the effects of two distinct drivers of policy influence—bureaucrats’ access to secondary structures and requisite administrative capacities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are approximately 50 working groups in total under the seven scientific EMA committees. NoMA participates in approximately 25 of these.

  2. Author’s own translation.

  3. Applies to matters that are not strongly politicized. Note also that these interviews were conducted prior to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

References

  • Adam, C., S. Hurka, C. Knill, and Y. Steinebach. 2021. Policy accumulation and the democratic responsiveness trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G.A. 1965. ´Political development: Analytical and normative perspectives´. Comparative Political Studies 1 (4): 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., J. Trondal, and M. Ogard, eds. 2016. Governance in turbulent times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M., and J. Trondal, eds. 2015. The Palgrave handbook of the European administrative system. Cheltenham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C.M. 2021. Alternatives and complements to rationality. Research in the Sociology of Organizations 76: 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A., A. Corcaci, and J.W. Doser. 2016. Unreavelling multilevel administration. Patterns and dynamics of administrative co-ordination in European governance. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (7): 999–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A., A. Corcaci, and J.W. Doser. 2017. Multilevel administration in international and national contexts. In International bureaucracy, ed. M.W. Bauer, C. Knill, and S. Eckhard. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A., J. Broschek, and M. Lederer, eds. 2021. A research agenda for multilevel governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blauberger, M., and B. Rittberger. 2014. Conceptualizing and theorizing European regulatory network. Regulation & Governance 9 (4): 367–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsma, G., D. Curtin, and A. Meijer. 2008. How transparent are EU comitology committees in practice? European Law Journal 14 (6): 819–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. 1989. The organization of hypocrisy. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buena, A. 2017. Designing stakeholder consultations: Reinforcing or alleviating bias in the European Union system of governance? European Journal of Political Research 56 (1): 46–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, D.P. 2001. Forging bureaucratic autonomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. 2005. International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Organization 59 (4): 801–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2009. Living in the past? Change and continuity in the Norwegian central civil service. Public Administration Review 69 (5): 951–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., M. Egeberg, P. Lægreid, and J. Trondal. 2018. Sentralforvaltningen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen, M., and M. Thatcher. 2008. Network governance and multi-level delegation: European networks of regulatory agencies. Journal of Public Policy 28 (1): 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corcaci, A. 2022. The dynamics of multilevel administration. Coordination processes between national, supra- and international administrations in energy policy. Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-022-00321-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debre, M., and H. Dijkstra. 2021. Institutional design for a post-liberal order: Why some international organizations live longer than others. European Journal of International Relations 27 (1): 311–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deters, H., and G. Falkner. 2021. Remapping the European agenda-setting landscape. Public Administration 9 (2): 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. 1999. The impact of bureaucratic structure on policy-making. Public Administration 77 (1): 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., ed. 2006. Multilevel union administration. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M. 2012. How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In The SAGE handbook of public administration, ed. B.G. Peters and J. Pierre. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 1999. Differentiated integration in Europe: The case of EEA country, Norway. Journal of Common Market Studies 37 (1): 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 2009a. Political leadership and bureaucratic autonomy: Effects of agencification. Governance 22 (4): 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 2009b. National agencies in the European administrative space: Government driven, Commission driven, or networked? Public Administration 87 (4): 779–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 2011. EU-level agencies: New executive centre formation or vehicles for national control? Journal of European Public Policy 18 (6): 868–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 2016. Why strong coordination at one level of government is incompatible with strong coordination across levels (and how to live with it). The case of the European Union. Public Administration 94 (3): 579–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 2017. Researching European Union agencies. What have we learned (and where to go from here?). Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (4): 675–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., and J. Trondal. 2018. An organizational approach to public governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., G.F. Schaefer, and J. Trondal. 2003. The many faces of EU Committee governance. West European Politics 26 (3): 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., Å. Gornitzka, and J. Trondal. 2017. Organization theory. In Handbook on theories of governance, ed. C. Ansell and J. Torfing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, G., O. Treib, M. Hartlapp, and S. Leiber. 2005. Complying with Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fossum, J.E., and H.P. Graver. 2018. Squaring the circle on brexit. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frommelt, C. and S. Gstöhl. 2022. ´Beyond downloading: Venues for associated neighbouring countries to influence EU law and policies´, unpublished paper.

  • Genschel, P., and M. Jachtenfuchs, eds. 2014. Beyond the Regulatory Polity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., and U. Sverdrup. 2008. Who consults? The configuration of expert groups in the European union. West European Politics 31 (4): 725–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guèrin, N., and B. Rittberger. 2020. Are third states pulling the strings? The impact of domestic policy change on EU-third state cooperation. Journal of European Integration 42 (7): 991–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulick, L. 1937. Notes on the theory of organization. In Papers on the science of administration, ed. L. Gulick and L. Urwick. New York: Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, T. 1990. In defence of luther Gulick’s “notes on the theory of organization.” Public Administration 68 (2): 143–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hille, P., and C. Knill. 2006. It’s the bureaucracy, stupid’: The implementation of the Acquis Communautaire in EU candidate countries, 1999–2003. European Union Politics 7 (4): 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, H., E. Vos, and M. Chamon, eds. 2019. The external dimension of EU agencies and bodies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. 2005. Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization: A case study of the European Commission. International Organization 59 (4): 861–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joaquin, M.E., and T.J. Greitens. 2021. American administrative capacity. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B.D., and F.R. Baumgartner. 2005. The politics of attention. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joosen, R., M. Haverland, and E. de Brujin. 2022. Shaping EU agencies’ rulemaking Interest groups, national regulatory agencies and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Comparative European Politics 20: 411–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., O. Sibony, and K.R. Sunstein. 2022. Noise. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H., S. Connolly, R. Dehousse, O. Rozenberg, and S. Bendjaballah. 2017. Managing the house: The presidency, agenda control and policy activism in the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (5): 653–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krick, E., and Å. Gornitzka. 2020. Tracing scientization in the EU Commission´s expert group system. Innovation: THe European Journal of Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1811649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, P., and J.P. Olsen. 1978. Byråkrati og beslutninger. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lægreid, P., T. Randma-Liiv, L.H. Rykkja, and K. Sarapuu. 2016. Coordination challenges and administrative reforms. In Public administration reforms in Europe, ed. G. Hammerschmid, S. Van de Walle, R. Andrews, and P. Bezes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex, S. 2011. Concentric circles of flexible “European” integration: A typology of EU external governance relations. Comparative European Politics 9 (4/5): 372–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavenex, S., and M.-L. Öberg. 2023. Third country influence on EU law and policy-making: Setting the scene. Journal of Common Market Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leruth, B., S. Gänzle and J. Trondal. 2019. Exploring differentiated integration in a Post-Brexit European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 57 (5): 1013–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leruth, B., S. Gänzle, and J. Trondal, eds. 2022. The Routledge handbook of differentiation in the European Union. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. 2005. Dilemmas of European integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, M. 1984. ´The autonomous power of the state: Its origins, mechanism and results´. European Journal of Sociology 25 (2): 185–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. 2008. ´The myth of rationality´. In The organizational dimension of politics, ed. U. Sverdrup and J. Trondal. Fagbokforlaget: Bergen.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, E. 2016. When europeanization feeds back into EU governance: EU legislation, national regulatory agencies, and the EU regulatory networks. Public Administration 94 (1): 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R., and F.W. Scharpf. 1975. Policy-making in the german federal bureaucracy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K., and L.G. Nigro. 1976. Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study of the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review 36 (4): 458–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migliorati, M. 2020. Relying on agencies in major European Union legislative measures. West European Politics 43 (1): 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, P., and P. Slominski. 2015. Theorizing third country agency in EU rule transfer: Linking the EU Emission Trading System with Norway, Switzerland and Australia. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (6): 814–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NOMA (2019) About us, https://legemiddelverket.no/english/about-us. Accessed 25 Feb 2021

  • Norwegian Government (2018–19) Prop. 47 LS (2018–2019), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-47-ls-20182019/id2630679/?ch=15

  • Olsen, J.P. 2009. Change and continuity: An institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. European Political Science Review 1 (1): 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J.P. 1998. The new European experiment in political organization. Paper presented at the conference ‘Samples of the Future’, SCANCOR, Stanford University, 20–22 September.

  • Pollack, M. 1993. The engines of European integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddervold, M., J. Trondal, and A. Newsome, eds. 2021. The Palgrave handbook on EU crises. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger, B., and M. Blauberger. 2018. Introducing the debate section: “The EU in crisis: EU studies in crisis?” Journal of European Public Policy 25 (3): 436–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwok, R. and C. Najy. 2022. The case of Switzerlands “bilateralism” within EU’s privileged partnerships, unpublished paper.

  • Simon, S.A. 1957. Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmo, S., K. Thelen, and F. Longstreth. 1992. Structuring politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. 2001. When formality works. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stritch, J.M. 2017. Minding the time: A critical look at longitudinal design and data analysis in quantitative public management research. Review of Public Personnel Administration 37 (2): 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. 2002. Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization 56 (3): 609–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2009. Nudge: Improving decisions on health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treib, O. 2014. Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs, Living Reviews in European Governance 9(1).

  • Trondal, J. 2002. Beyond the EU membership-non-membership dichotomy? Supranational identities among national EU decision-makers. Journal of European Public Policy 9 (3): 468–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. 2010. An emergent European executive order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. 2014. Agencification. Public Administration Review 74 (4): 545–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. 2023. Governing the contemporary administrative state. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., and M.W. Bauer. 2017. Conceptualizing the European multilevel administrative order: Capturing variation in the European administrative system. European Political Science Review 9 (1): 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., and B.G. Peters. 2013. The rise of European administrative space. Lessons learned. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (2): 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J., Z. Murdoch, and B. Geys. 2018. How pre-and postrecruitment factors shape role perceptions of European Commission officials. Governance 31 (1): 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoest, K., S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, and P. Lægreid, eds. 2010. Government agencies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vestlund, N.M. 2017. Pooling administrative resources through EU regulatory networks. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (1): 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vestlund, N.M. 2015. Between centralization and decentralization. Decision behaviour in the EU’s multilevel administrative system. PhD Thesis, University of Oslo.

  • White, J. 2021. The de-institutionsation of power beyond the state. European Journal of International Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211053683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank reviewers for constructive and helpful feedbacks on previous versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadja S. Kühn.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Table

Table 10 Inter-correlation matrix on influence, secondary structures and administrative capacity

10

List of interviews.

Interviewee

Agency

Position

Date

Place

Processed

Interviewer

1

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

2

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

3

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

4

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

5

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

6

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

7

NoMA

Senior adviser

Feb 2019

Oslo, NO

Transcribed

Authors

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kühn, N.S., Trondal, J. Access, capacity and influence. Comp Eur Polit (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00366-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00366-0

Keywords

Navigation