Abstract
If there is an effective ‘centre of government’ at the European Union level, we expect it might be located partially in the European Union. The nature of the Commission’s contribution to a centre of government function might go beyond its obvious roles in initiating and formulating legislative proposals and its work of monitoring and guiding Member States with respect to the Europe 2020 Strategy. We have noticed that the Commission, starting in 2014, may have been taking on a more overtly political involvement in the work of leadership of the European Union. It looks as though this might have happened to compensate for the way in which the European Council has discharged its political leadership role towards the Europe 2020 Strategy and other collective endeavours. From a neo-Weberian perspective, the change could be seen as politically sensitive since bureaucrats and politicians are meant to occupy different formal positions within a mass democracy system. From an early 1990s governance perspective this change in the Commission may seem unsurprising—assuming that the move to a more overtly political orientation in the leadership of the Commission was a part of a trend to ‘de-differentiation’ of the roles of bureaucrats and politicians within a system moving towards a greater capacity for partnership in problem solving and a move away from hierarchical coordination in society. These preceding comments suggest a need for some theoretical open-mindedness when approaching the empirical data presented in this chapter on the leadership and monitoring activities of the European Commission.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The authors use the term of ideological preferences that we are keen to relabel because this terminology induces a negative sense.
- 2.
- 3.
Refer to Appendix A to find details on each graphs and synthesis provided by Alceste© software.
- 4.
We tagged ‘Europe_2020’ to make it appear separately from ‘Europe’ or ‘European’.
- 5.
17 DGS have been analysed, those concerned by the recommendations making off. The list is available at Appendix D.
- 6.
See details on descending classification in Appendix A.
Bibliography
Bach, T., & E. Ruffing. (2017). The transformative effects of transnational administrative coordination in the European multi-level system. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (Chap. 39). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Balint, T., Bauer, M. W., & Knill, C. (2008). Bureaucratic change in the European administrative space: The case of the European Commission. West European Politics, 31(4), 677–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380801905967.
Ban, C. (2013). Management and culture in an enlarged European Commission: From diversity to unity? Palgrave studies in European Union politics. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barel, Y. (1979). Le paradoxe et le système. Grenoble: Presses Universitiares de Grenoble.
Bauer, M. W. (2009). Impact of administrative reform of the European Commission: Results from a survey of heads of unit in policy-making directorates. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(3), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309337690.
Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2012). Politicization within the European Commission’s bureaucracy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312445022.
Calvino, Nadia, and European Commission. 2016. “Budget Focussed on Results (BFOR).” CONT_20160524 presented at the European Parliament, CONT Committee, Brussels, May 26. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/budget4results/news/BFOR_presentation_CONT_20160524.pdf.
Cameron, K., & Quin, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In K. S. Cameron & R. E. Quin (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Cini, M. (2014). Institutional change and ethics management in the EU’s college of commissioners. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12008.
European Commission. (2010a). Communication from the Commission EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication COM(2010) 2020. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf
European Commission and Directorate-General for the Budget. (2014). Multiannual financial framework 2014–2020 and EU budget 2014: The figures. Luxembourg: Publications Office.
European Commission. (2015d). Management Plans 2015. Ares(2015)3483461, 3039903, 3228103, 3138354, 3273060, 3527314, 459464, 1683309, 3738909, 3186093, 3027563, 3228249, 3021665, 3175343. Brussels.
European Commission. (2016c). Strategic Plans 2016–2020. Ares(2016)1121128, 1970101, 1853065, 2100600, 2060610, 1582897, 2086086, 1443186, 1732125, 2075174, 1439439, 1566833, 1051529, 1771125, 1266241, 1273926, 1294281, 1275012, 2282915. Brussels.
European Commission. (2016d). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors. 2015 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget AMPR. Brussels: European Commission.
European Court of Auditors. (2016). Governance at the European Commission—Best practice? (p. 78). Special Report 27. Luxembourg.
European Parliament, C.C. (2016). Budget focussed on results (BFOR). Brussels.
Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2013). Linking agenda setting to coordination structures: Bureaucratic politics inside the European Commission. Journal of European Integration, 35(4), 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.703663.
Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2014). Which policy for Europe? Power and conflict inside the European Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hooghe, L. (1999). Images of Europe: Orientations to European integration among senior officials of the commission. British Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 345–367.
Hooghe, L. (2012). Images of Europe: How commission officials conceive their institution’s role*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02210.x.
Juncker, J.-C. et al. (2015). Completing Europe’s economic and monetary union. Five Presidents’ Report, June. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.spcr.cz/images/EU/5-presidents-report_en.pdf
Kassim, H. (2017). The European Commission as an administration. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (Chap. 41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kassim, H., et al. (2013). The European Commission in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-european-commission-of-the-twenty-first-century-9780199599523?cc=fr&lang=en&
Koenig, G. (1996). Management stratégique. Paradoxes, interactions et apprentissages. Paris: Nathan.
Metcalfe, L. (1996). The European Commission as a network organization. Publius, 26(4), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/3330770.
Morin, E. (1976). Pour une crisologie. Communications, 25(1), 149–163.
Napel, S., & Widgrén, M. (2008). The European Commission—Appointment, preferences, and institutional relations. Public Choice, 137(1/2), 21–41.
Ongaro, E. (2012). Editorial introduction: Managerial reforms and the transformation of the administration of the European Commission. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 379–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312448036.
President of the Commission and DG SG. (2014). The working methods of the European Commission 2014–2019 (p. 39). Communication from the President C(2014) 9004. European Commission.
Schedler, K., & Proeller, I. (2010). Outcome-oriented public management—A responsibility-based approach to new public management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Trondal, J. (2012). On bureaucratic centre formation in government institutions: Lessons from the European Commission. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312445021.
Trondal, J., Van Den Berg, C., & Suvarierol, S. (2008). The compound machinery of government: The case of seconded officials in the European Commission. Governance, 21(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00398.x.
Wille, A. (2012). The politicization of the EU Commission: Democratic control and the dynamics of executive selection. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312447061.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Drumaux, A., Joyce, P. (2018). The Commission as Part of the ‘Centre of Government’ for the Europe 2020 Strategy. In: Strategic Management for Public Governance in Europe. Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54764-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54764-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54763-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54764-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)