Advertisement

The European Integration Fund: Principles, Decision-Making and Output

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

Abstract

Whilst the end of Chapter  3 starts the analysis of the European Integration Fund’s policy cycle with a focus on policy formulation, this chapter goes through the successive steps that led to the adoption of the fund. Using process tracing, it shows that the absence of a sound competence at EU level and the permanence of unanimity voting in the Council resulted in the creation of a fund that would grant great discretion to member states as to its spending. In other words, the decision making process emptied the fund of its most constraining clauses. By looking at the most disputed provision, this chapter also shows that most of the debate on the adoption of the fund revolved around the henceforth classic “who-gets-what” question.

Keywords

Unanimity Vote in the council Bargaining Target group Distribution key Principle of additionality Principle of partnership European Integration Fund 

References

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. Bache, I. (2010). Partnership as an EU Policy Instrument: A Political History. West European Politics, 33(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachtler, J., & Mendez, C. (2007). Who Governs EU Cohesion Policy? Deconstructing the Reforms of the Structural Funds. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(3), 535–564.Google Scholar
  4. Brams, S. J. & Affuso, P. J. (1985). New Paradoxes of Voting Power on the EC Council of Ministers. Electoral Studies, 4(2), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. & Tullock, G. (1958). The Calculus of Consent: The Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Buchanan/buchCv3c7.html. Last Consulted November 12, 2016.
  6. Carrera, S., & Faure Atger, A. (2011). Integration as a Two-Way Process in the EU? Assessing the Relationship Between the European Integration Fund and the Common Basic Principles. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Checkel, J. T. (2005). It’s the Process Stupid! Process Tracing in the Study of European and International Politics (ARENA Centre for European Studies Working Papers No. 26). University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  8. Collier, D. (2011). Understanding Process Tracing. PS. Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. European Council 15915/05. (2005). Financial Perspective 2007–2013.Google Scholar
  11. Franchino, F. (2004). Delegating Powers in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franchino, F. (2007). The Powers of the Union: Delegation in the EU. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Handoll, J. (2012). Integration Policy in the European Union: The Question of Competence. In Y. Pascouau & T. Strik (Eds.), Which Integration Policies for Migrants? Interaction Between the EU and Its Member States (pp. 15–50). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Hix, S. (2005). The Political System of the European Union (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Hosli, M. O. (1995). The Balance Between Small and Large: Effects of a Double-Majority System on Voting Power in the European Union. International Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics; Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Co.Google Scholar
  19. Mahoney, J. (2010). After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research. World Politics, 62(1), 120–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marks, G. (1993). Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC. In A. W. Cafruny & G. G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The State of the European Community. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  21. Pratt, S. (2015). EU Policymaking and Research: Case Studies of the Communication on a Community Immigration Policy and the Common Basic Principles for Integration. In P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating Immigrants in Europe: Research-Policy Dialogues (pp. 117–131). Amsterdam: IMISCOE Research Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schild, J. (2008). How to Shift the EU’s Spending Priorities? The Multi-annual Financial Framework 2007–13 in Perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsebelis, G. (2001). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tsebelis, G. (2013). Bridging Qualified Majority and Unanimity Decisionmaking in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1083–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Vennesson, P. (2008). Case Studies and Process Tracing Theories and Practices. In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (4th ed., pp. 223–239). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

EU Acts and Other Official Documents

  1. C (2007) 3926 Final—European Commission. (2007). Commission Decision of 21/VIII/2007 Implementing Council Decision 2007/435/EC as Regards the Adoption of Strategic Guidelines for 2007 to 2013.Google Scholar
  2. COM (2004) 487 Final—European Commission. (2004). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Financial Perspectives 2007–2013.Google Scholar
  3. COM (2005) 123 Final—European Commission. (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Establishing a Framework Programme on Solidarity and the Management of Migration Flows for the Period 2007–2013.Google Scholar
  4. COM (2005) 389 Final—European Commission. (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Common Agenda for Integration—Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals.Google Scholar
  5. Council Decision 2007/435/EC. (2007). Establishing the European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals for the Period 2007 to 2013 as Part of the General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows.Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Union 5578/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  7. Council of the European Union 6735/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  8. Council of the European Union 7214/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  9. Council of the European Union 8091/06 (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union 8373/1/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  11. Council of the European Union 8983/06 (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  12. Council of the European Union 9028/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  13. Council of the European Union 9385/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  14. Council of the European Union 10432/06. (2006). Revised Note.Google Scholar
  15. Council of the European Union 10865/06. (2006). Outcome of Proceedings.Google Scholar
  16. Council of the European Union 12524/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  17. Council of the European Union 12802/05. (2005). Outcome of Proceedings.Google Scholar
  18. Council of the European Union 12999/06. (2006). Introductory Note.Google Scholar
  19. Council of the European Union 13407/06. (2006). Note.Google Scholar
  20. Council of the European Union 15434/04. (2004). Information on the Ministerial Conferences of Groningen (9–11 November 2004) and of Rotterdam (6–7 July 2004).Google Scholar
  21. European Council 11638/03. (2003). Thessaloniki European Council 19 and 20 June 2003, Presidency Conclusions.Google Scholar
  22. SEC (2005) 435 Final—European Commission. (2005). Commission Staff Working Document Annex to the General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows Extended Impact Assessment.Google Scholar
  23. SEC (2005) 494 Final—European Commission. (2005). Commission Working Document Technical Adjustments to the Commission Proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2007–2013.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