Coordination of External Policies: Feudal Fiefdoms to Coordinate

Organisational and Procedural Frameworks of Consistency Within the European Commission
Chapter
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)

Abstract

As a formal requirement across policies, coordination is a concern in the Commission regular decision-making. Although it might be met with reluctance on the part of services, it is enshrined in the organization of the Commission. The renewed commitment of the Lisbon Treaty to the coherence of EU’s external action has added an inter-institutional dimension to the challenge, in turn leading the Commission to adapt. How and to what extent are external policies coordinated within the Commission? This paper builds on a two-level approach—using the service and political levels—to analyse the responsibilities, resources and actual contributions of the different actors towards coordination. It argues that, despite the respective principles, the instruments available and the actors specifically engaged in coordination-related activities, coordinating external policies remains a challenge.

Keywords

Secretariat General Policy Coordination Commission Service Lisbon Treaty External Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is a Marie Curie researcher under the multidisciplinary Initial Training Network on Inter-institutional Cooperation in the EU (INCOOP) and is based at the University of Maastricht (FP7-PEOPLE-ITN-2008).

References

  1. Christiansen, T. (1997). Tensions of European governance: Politicized bureaucracy and multiple accountability in the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cini, M. (1996). The European Commission: Leadership, organisation and culture in the EU administration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Commission of the European Communities. (2005). Strategic objectives 20052009, COM(2005)12 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. Commission of the European Communities, Communication to the Members of the Commission. (2004). Functioning of the Commission and internal coordination, SEC(2004)1617/4. Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. Council of the EU, Council decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (2010/427/EU). OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, 30–40.Google Scholar
  6. Davignon, P. (1995). What future for the European Commission? Philipp Morris Institute Discussion Papers, 6.Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2009, January 15). Impact assessment guidelines, SEC(2009)92.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2010a). Guide to inter-service consultation (Internal document not publicly available).Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2010b). Decision of 24 February 2010 amending its rules of procedure, C(2010)1200 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2010c). Commission Staff Working DocumentPolicy Coherence for Development Work Programme 20102013 accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the RegionsA twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals, SEC(2010)421 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission (2011a) (last update 24 January 2011). Impact assessment. Accessed February 6, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/overnance/impact/index_en.htm
  12. European Commission. (2011b). Commission Work Programme 2011, COM(2010)623 final, vol. 1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2011c). Commission Staff Working Paper—EU 2011 Report on Policy Coherence for Development, SEC(2011)1627 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission, DG Trade (no date). Organisation chart of the coordination unit (Internal document not publicly available).Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (no date a). GIS list (Internal document not publicly available).Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (no date b). How the work of the Commission is organised (Internal document not publicly available).Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (no date c). Inter-service coordination groups (Internal document not publicly available).Google Scholar
  18. European Commission, DG Trade (October 2011). Working arrangements between DG Trade and the Cabinet of Commissioner Karel De Gucht (Internal document not publicly available).Google Scholar
  19. European Commission, EuropeAid Development and Cooperation (no date). Policy coherence for development. Accessed February 2, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/policy-coherence/index_en.htm
  20. European Commission, Secretariat General (2011a). Organisation chart. Accessed April 31, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/sg_org_chart_en.pdf; Organisation chart. Accessed May 2011.
  21. European Commission, Secretariat-General. (2011b). Vademecum on working relations with the European External Action Service (EEAS), SEC(2011)1636.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission, Secretariat-General (2012). Working arrangements between Commission services and the European External Action Service (EEAS) in relation to external relations issues, SEC(2012)48.Google Scholar
  23. European External Action Service (2011). Report by the High Representative to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. European External Action Service (no date). Organisation chart of the global issues unit (Internal document not available publicly).Google Scholar
  25. Gual, J. (1995). The coherence of EC policies on trade. CEPR Discussion Paper Series: Competition and Industry. 1105.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. MPIFG Discussion Paper, 96(6)Google Scholar
  27. Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2010). The agenda set by the EU Commission: The result of balanced or biased aggregation of positions? LEQS Paper, 21Google Scholar
  28. Interview (2011a, April 20). EU official, Cabinet member, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Interview (2011b, April 27). EU official, Secretariat General, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  30. Interview (2011c, May 20). EU official, Secretariat General, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  31. Interview (2011d, May 26). EU official, Secretariat General, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. Interview (2011e, May 26). National diplomat, Brussels.Google Scholar
  33. Interview (2011f, May 31). EU official, Secretariat General, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  34. Interview (2011g, June 6). EU official, EEAS, Brussels.Google Scholar
  35. Interview (2011h, June 16). EU official, Secretariat General, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  36. Interview (2011i, June 30). EU official, DG Trade, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. Interview (2012a, January 6). EU official, DG EcFin, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  38. Interview (2012b, January 13). EU official, EEAS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  39. Interview (2012c, January 27). EU official, EEAS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  40. Interview (2012d, January 27). EU official, DG Devco, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  41. Interview (2012e, March 7). EU official, DG Trade, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  42. Interview (2012f, April 27). EU official, DG Trade, European Commission.Google Scholar
  43. Interview (2012g, May 8). EU official, DG Trade, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  44. Interview (2012h, June 5). EU official, DG Trade, European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  45. Jordan, A., & Schout, A. (2006). The coordination of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kassim, H. (2004). The secretariat general of the European commission, 1958–2003: A singular institution. In A. Smith (Ed.), Politics and the European Commission: Actors, interdependence, legitimacy (pp. 47–66). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kassim, H. (2006). The secretariat general of the European commission. In D. Spence (Ed.), The European commission (pp. 75–102). London: John Harper Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Metcalfe, L. (1994). International policy Co-ordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miglioli, C. (2009). From coordinated decision-taking to integrated policy-making: How sustainable development and impact assessment have broken down the European Commission’s internal boundaries. Bruges: College of Europe.Google Scholar
  50. Nugent, N. (2001). The European commission. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  51. Spence, D. (2006a). The president, the college and the cabinets. In D. Spence (Ed.), The European Commission (pp. 25–74). London: John Harper Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Spence, D. (2006b). The directorates-general and the services: Structures, functions and procedures. In D. Spence (Ed.), The European commission (pp. 128–155). London: John Harper Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Spierenburg, D. (1979). Proposals for reform of the Commission of the European Communities and its services [Spierenburg Report]. Brussels.Google Scholar
  54. The President of the Commission (2009a). Barroso unveils his new team, IP/09/1837. Brussels.Google Scholar
  55. The President of the Commission (2009b). Mission Letters to the Commissioners designate. Brussels. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/mission_letters/
  56. The President of the Commission (2010a). Communication from the PresidentThe working methods of the Commission 20102014, C(2010)1100. Brussels.Google Scholar
  57. The President of the Commission (2010b). Information note from the PresidentCommissioners Groups, SEC(2010)475 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  58. The President of the Commission (2010d). State of the Union 2010, SPEECH/10/411. Brussels.Google Scholar
  59. The President of the European Commission (2010c). Note from José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission to Catherine Ashton, High Representative/Vice President of the European Commission, Olli Rehn, Member of the European Commission, Andris Piebalgs, Member of the European Commission, Karel de Gucht, Member of the European Commission, Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the European Commission, Stefan Füle, Member of the European Commission on Commissioner's group on External relations, D(2010)/1162. Brussels.Google Scholar
  60. Wollmann, H. (2003). Coordination in the intergovernmental setting. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 594–606). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political ScienceUniversiteit MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations