Conclusion: A Matter of Principals

  • Johan Adriaensen
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)


What are the main theoretical and empirical contributions of this research? Following a brief overview of the lessons learnt, the conclusion takes a more prospective angle. The relationship between administrative capacity and member-state control has several normative implications that warrant a proper reflection. A prospective angle is also useful for looking beyond the empirical ambitions of this book. The final section identifies paths for further research, not only to extend the scope of the initiated research, but also to offer suggestions on how to improve to the applied research design.


Member State Signalling Strategy Trade Policy Qualitative Comparative Analysis Policy Domain 
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.


  1. Baldwin, M. (2006). EU trade politics—heaven or hell? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 926–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Börzel, T. A. (2011a). Comparative regionalism—A new research agenda. In KFG Working Paper N°28.Google Scholar
  3. Börzel, T. A. (2011b). Networks: Reified metaphor or governance Panacea? Public Administration, 89(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busch, M. L., Reinhardt, E., & Shaffer, G. (2009). Does legal capacity matter? A survey of WTO Members. World Trade Review, 8(04), 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2005). DG Trade 2004 Annual Activity Report. Available at: (Last accessed: 2 April 2016)Google Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities (2015). Trade for all. Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy. Available at: (Last accessed 23 October 2015)
  7. Costello, R. & Thomson, R. (2011). The nexus of bicameralism: Rapporteurs’ impact on decision outcomes in the European Union. European Union Politics, 12(3), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cristofoli, D., & Markovic, J. (2015). How to make public networks really work: A qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, n/a–n/aGoogle Scholar
  9. Crombez, C., & Vangerven, P. (2014). Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement. European Union Politics.Google Scholar
  10. Crombez, C., Steunenberg, B., & Corbett, R. (2000). Understanding the EU legislative process: Political scientists’ and practitioners’ perspectives. European Union Politics, 1(3), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, J. P. (2012). Interventions and negotiation in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. European Union Politics, 13(1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Da Conceição-Heldt, E. (2006). Integrative and distributive bargaining situations in the European Union: What difference does it make? Negotiation Journal, 22(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Da Conceição-Heldt, E. (2011). Variation in EU member states’ preferences and the Commission’s discretion in the Doha Round. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delreux, T. (2009a). Cooperation and Control in the European Union: The Case of the European Union as International Environmental Negotiator. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(2), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delreux, T. (2009b). The EU negotiates multilateral environmental agreements: Explaining the agent’s discretion. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dür, A. (2008). EU Trade Policy as protection for exporters: The agreements with Mexico and Chile. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 833–855.Google Scholar
  17. Dür, A. & Elsig, M. (2011). Principals, agents, and the European Union’s foreign economic policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dür, A. & Mateo, G. (2010a). Bargaining power and negotiation tactics: The negotiations on the EU’s Financial Perspective, 2007–13. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(3), 557–578.Google Scholar
  19. Dür, A. & Mateo, G. (2010b). Choosing a bargaining strategy in EU negotiations: Power, preferences, and culture. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Egeberg, M., Gornitzka, Å., Trondal, J., & Johannessen, M. (2013). Parliament staff: Unpacking the behaviour of officials in the European Parliament. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(4), 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Egeberg, M., Gornitzka, A., Trondal, J., Gornitzka, Å., & Trondal, J. (2014). A not so technocratic executive? Everyday interaction between the European Parliament and the Commission. West European Politics, 37(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eglene, O. & Dawes, S. S. (2006). Challenges and strategies for conducting International Public Management Research. Administration & Society, 38(5), 596–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elsig, M. & Stucki, P. (2012). Low-income developing countries and WTO litigation: Why wake up the sleeping dog? Review of International Political Economy, 19(2), 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guzman, A. T. & Simmons, B. A. (2005). Power plays and capacity constraints: The selection of defendants in World Trade Organization disputes. Journal of Legal Studies, 34(2), 557–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haastrup, T. (2013). EU as Mentor? Promoting regionalism as external relations practice in EU–Africa relations. Journal of European Integration, 35(7), 785–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hankla, C. R. & Kuthy, D. (2013). Economic liberalism in illiberal regimes: Authoritarian variation and the political economy of trade. International Studies Quarterly, 57(3), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haverland, M. (2006). Does the EU cause domestic developments? improving case selection in Europeanisation research. West European Politics, 29(1), 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jetschke, A. & Lenz, T. (2013). Does regionalism diffuse? A new research agenda for the study of regional organizations. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(4), 626–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jørgensen, K. E. & Valbjørrn, M. (2012). Four dialogues and the funeral of a beautiful relationship: European studies and new regionalism. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiewiet, R. D. & McCubbins, M. D. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Koitzsch, C. (2012). Institutional similarities between regional organizations: An analysis of ECOWAS and the Arab League. In T. A. Börzel, L. Goltermann, M. Lohaus, & K. Striebinger (Eds.), Roads to regionalism: Genesis, design, and effects of regional organizations (pp. 117–141). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Mamadouh, V. & Raunio, T. (2003). The Committee System: Powers, Appointments and Report Allocation*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 333–351.Google Scholar
  33. McCubbins, M. D. & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McElroy, G. (2006). Committee Representation in the European Parliament. European Union Politics, 7(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Milner, H. V. & Kubota, K. (2005). Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization, 59(01), 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw & Innovatie (2011) Kabinetsreactie op de mededeling van de Europese Commissie over de toekomst van het Handelsbeleid. Kamerstukken 02.02.2011. Available at: (Last accessed: 23 October 2015)
  37. Niemann, A. (2004). Between communicative action and strategic action: The Article 113 Committee and the negotiations on the WTO Basic Telecommunications Services Agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niemann, A. & Huigens, J. (2011). The European Union’s role in the G8: A principal–agent perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(3), 420–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raab, J., Mannak, R. S., & Cambre, B. (2015). Combining structure, governance, and context: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 479–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rasmussen, A. & Reh, C. (2013). The consequences of concluding codecision early: Trilogues and intra-institutional bargaining success. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(7), 1006–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaffer, G. (2005). Can WTO technical assistance and capacity building serve developing countries? Winsconsin International Law Journal, 23(4), 643–686.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, W. (2015). Exploring the determinants of network effectiveness: The Case of Neighborhood Governance Networks in Beijing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muv017
  43. Warleigh-Lack, A. & Van Langenhove, L. (2010). Rethinking EU studies: The contribution of comparative regionalism. Journal of European Integration, 32(6), 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Adriaensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations