Using illustrations from Energy Union‐related legislative initiatives, this article argues that organizational reforms have led to a more top‐down approach in the steering of the European Commission, allowing Commission President Juncker a more centralized internal leadership than his predecessor Barroso. Interviews with EU policy‐makers revealed two main findings. First, the new filter functions of the seven Vice‐Presidents and the Secretariat‐General have contributed to a more top‐down policy formulation process. Second, horizontal coordination has been improved by the implementation of project teams, and by the abolition of a separate Commissioner for Climate Action. Consequently, the level of ambition of the Commission's policy agenda now depends more than in the past on the Commission President's priorities.
By most accounts, the Commission President's potential for political leadership within the EU system has declined since the 1990s, due to the increasingly assertive role of the European Council, and a more autonomous European Parliament (EP). Furthermore, the incumbent's authority over the Commission is complicated by the Commission's internal fragmentation and specialization. Based on interviews with experienced policy‐makers from the Commission, the Council and the EP, this article argues that Juncker's leadership inside the Commission, as well as his leadership within the EU system have been strengthened by his organizational reforms, such as the introduction of project‐team leading Vice‐Presidents and a stronger role of the Secretariat General. These findings challenge the accounts emphasizing the declining leadership capacity of the Commission.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.