Setting the Scene: History of a Competence and Analytical Framework

  • Pierre Georges Van Wolleghem
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


This chapter describes how the most sovereign competence of all; immigration, became an EU competence with the completion of the single market and the creation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. It draws from the historical development of the EU policy on immigration and integration to underline the importance of actors and their interactions within specific institutional settings. On this basis, the second part of this chapter elaborates on Scharpf’s actor-centred institutionalism and provides analytical and theoretical insights helpful to understand the argument this book develops throughout. Namely, it insists on the role of rules, the effects of unanimity decision-making, the relationship between principals and agents, and the nexus between politics and policies.


Actor-centred institutionalism Actor constellations Composite actor Aggregate actor Schengen AFSJ Immigration policy Unanimity Delegation Policy instruments Institutions 


Scholarship and Expert References

  1. Aus, J. P. (2008). The Mechanisms of Consensus: Coming to Agreement on Community Asylum Policy. In D. Naurin & H. Wallace (Eds.), Unveiling the Council of the European Union: Games Governments Play in Brussels (pp. 99–120). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borràs, S., & Jacobsson, K. (2004). The Open Method of Co-ordination and New Governance Patterns in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdrez, L. (2010). The EU Policy on the Integration of Third-Country Nationals. “A Two-Way Process?”. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1958). The Calculus of Consent: The Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Indiana: Liberty Fund. Available at Last Consulted November 12, 2016.
  5. Carrera, S. (2008). Benchmarking Integration in the EU: Analyzing the Debate on Integration Indicators and Moving It Forward. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Caviedes, A. (2004). The Open Method of Co-ordination in Immigration Policy: A Tool for Prying Open Fortress Europe? Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2), 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, J. P. (2012). Everyone’s a Winner (Almost): Bargaining Success in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. European Union Politics, 14(1), 70–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Bruycker, P. (2005). Le Niveau D’harmonisation Legislative de La Politique Européenne D’immigration et D’asile. In Julien-Laferriere & Labayle (Eds.), La politique européenne d’immigration et d’asile: bilan critique 5 ans après le traité d’Amsterdam. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  9. Dehousse, R. (2005). La Méthode Ouverte de Coordination. Quand L’instrument Tient Lieu de Politique. In P. Lascoumes & P. Le Galès (Eds.), Gouverner par les Instruments (pp. 331–356). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po «Académique».Google Scholar
  10. de la Porte, C. (2002). Is the Open Method of Coordination Appropriate for Organising Activities at European Level in Sensitive Policy Areas? European Law Journal, 8(1), 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Porte, C., & Pochet, P. (2012). Why and How (Still) Study the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC)? Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 336–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delors, J. (1985). Intervention de Jacques Delors, Luxembourg, 9 septembre 1985, Bulletin des Communautés européennes, Luxembourg: Office des publications officielles des Communautés européennes Septembre 1985, n° 9.Google Scholar
  13. Eurostat. (1996). Asylum-Seekers in Europe 1985–1995. Statistics in Focus.Google Scholar
  14. Faist, T., & Ette, A. (2007). The Europeanization of National Policies and Politics of Immigration: Research, Questions and Concepts. In T. Faist & A. Ette (Eds.), The Europeanization of National Policies and Politics of Immigration: Between Autonomy and the European Union (pp. 3–31). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franchino, F. (2004). Delegating Powers in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franchino, F. (2007). The Powers of the Union: Delegation in the EU. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geddes, A. (2003). The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guild, E. (1998). Competence, Discretion and Third Country Nationals: The European Union’s Legal Struggle with Migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(4), 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guiraudon, V. (2003). The Constitution of a European Immigration Policy Domain: A Political Sociology Approach. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hailbronner, K. (2010). Implications of the EU Lisbon Treaty on EU Immigration Law. Paper prepared for the Transatlantic Exchange for Academics in Migration Studies, San Diego.Google Scholar
  21. Hinich, H. J., & Munger, M. C. (1997). Analytical Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hix, S. (2005). The Political System of the European Union (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Hix, S., & Niessen, J. (1996). Reconsidering European Migration Policies: The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and the Reform of the Maastricht Treaty. Brussels: Migration Policy Group.Google Scholar
  24. Kassim, H., & Le Galès, P. (2010). Exploring Governance in a Multi-level Polity: A Policy Instruments Approach. West European Politics, 33(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassim, H., & Menon, A. (2003). The Principal-Agent Approach and the Study of the European Union: Promise Unfulfilled? Journal of European Public Policy, 10(1), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). The National Impact of European Union Regulatory Policy: Three Europeanization Mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowi, T. J. (1964). American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics, 16(04), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luedtke, A. (2011). Uncovering European Union Immigration Legislation: Policy Dynamics and Outcomes. International Migration, 49(2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lupia, A. (2003). Delegation and Its Perils. In K. Strom, W. C. Muller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mazeron, F. (2008). Le Droit Communautaire de L’immigration et de L’asile à L’épreuve Du Droit International. In C. Bertrand (Ed.), L’immigration dans l’Union Européenne: aspects actuels de droit interne et de droit européen. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  31. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 21–34). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pollack, M. A. (1997). Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community. International Organization, 51(1), 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Radaelli, C. (2003a). The Open Method of Coordination: A New Governance Architecture for the European Union? (Vol. 1). Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. Google Scholar
  36. Regonini, G. (2001). Capire le politiche pubbliche. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  37. Salamon, L. M. (2000). The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611–1674.Google Scholar
  38. Scharpf, F. W. (1990). Games Real Actors Could Play: The Problem of Mutual Predictability. Rationality and Society, 2(4), 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schuyler House, R., & Araral, E. (2013). The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 115–125). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Scott, J., & Trubek, D. M. (2002). Mind the Gap: Law and New Approaches to Governance in the European Union. European Law Journal, 8(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tholoniat, L. (2010). The Career of the Open Method of Coordination: Lessons from a “Soft” EU Instrument. West European Politics, 33(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsebelis, G. (2001). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tsebelis, G. (2013). Bridging Qualified Majority and Unanimity Decisionmaking in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1083–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Urth, H. (2005). Building a Momentum for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union. European Journal of Migration and Law, 7(2), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Velluti, S. (2007). What European Union Strategy for Integrating Migrants? The Role of OMC Soft Mechanisms in the Development of an EU Immigration Policy. European Journal of Migration and Law, 9(1), 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wallace, W. (1983). Less Than a Federation. More Than a Regime. The Community as a Political System. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-Making in the European Community (pp. 403–436). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ziller, J. (2009). Le Droit Au Séjour et à La Libre Circulation Dans l’Union Européenne, à La Lumière de La Jurisprudence et Du Traité de Lisbonne. In H. Bauer, P. Cruz Villalòn, & J. Iliopoulos-Strangas (Eds.), The new Europeans—Migration and Integration in Europe. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Eu Acts and Other Official Documents

  1. COM (2000) 757 Final—European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Immigration Policy.Google Scholar
  2. COM (2001) 387 Final—European Commission. (2001). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an Open Method of Coordination for the Community Immigration Policy.Google Scholar
  3. European Council. (1999). Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Georges Van Wolleghem
    • 1
  1. 1.Fondazione ISMU and University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations