Co-ordination across internal organizational boundaries: how the EU Commission co-ordinates climate policies

Hustedt, Thurid; Seyfried, Markus

doi:10.1080/13501763.2015.1074605

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stead (2008) provides an example of low integration in terms of policy goals by arguing that the integration of transport policy is hindered by the autonomous and sectoral goal-setting by other subsystems. An example of enhanced integration of policy goals is given by Hustedt and Seyfried (2015), who show how enhanced internal coordination of climate change policies within the European Commission resulted in the adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation goals in the policies of a number of non-traditional domains, such as energy and maritime affairs.…”

Section: Policy Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of policy integration in the governance of cross-cutting policy problems has attracted increasing scholarly attention in recent years. Nevertheless, the concept of policy (dis)integration is still under theorized, particularly regarding its inherent processual nature. The main argument of this paper is that policy integration should be understood as a process that entails various elements that do not necessarily move in a concerted manner but may develop at different paces or even in opposite directions. To study such dynamic integration pathways, the paper proposes a multi-dimensional framework. Drawing on existing literature, the framework distinguishes four dimensions of integration: (1) policy frame, (2), subsystem involvement, (3) policy goals, and (4) policy instruments. For each of these dimensions, we describe different manifestations that are associated with lesser or more advanced degrees of policy integration within a governance system. Apart from offering an innovative theoretical approach that does justice to the dynamic and oftentimes asynchronous nature of integration processes, the framework allows for holding decision-makers accountable for promises they make about enhancing policy integration. Simultaneously, it is argued that the merit of lower degrees of integration should not be underestimated, as these may sometimes be the most feasible or appropriate for the governance of a cross-cutting problem.

show abstract

Section: Policy Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings of this case study contribute to a comparative understanding of leaking in different political systems. The insights gained will also add to the literature on the administrative and political dynamics inside the Commission as the core executive of the European Union (Hartlapp et al 2013;Kassim et al 2013;Wille 2013 Goetz andPatz 2016;Hustedt and Seyfried 2016). Demonstrating that Pozen's observations can be transferred to the EU, the article gives rise to the argument that, in more open political and administrative systems, rules on secrecy and confidentiality are not necessarily meant to be fully effective beyond (inter)national security concerns and beyond areas of central political interest to those in power.…”

Section: "By Virtue Of Their Unvarnished Nature Leaks Have Evolved Imentioning

confidence: 77%

Bureaucratic Politics and the Prevention of Leaks in the European Commission

Patz¹

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission, much like other executives and public administrations in Western Democracies, is frequently faced with leaks. Even though executive leaders often criticize this practice as unwanted breach of confidentiality and secrecy, research has shown that leak prevention is usually not taken seriously beyond public complaints. This paper analyses the phenomenon of leaking in the European Commission and the efforts the Commission makes to prevent leaks from its own ranks. It finds that leaking and leak prevention are regularly discussed at the highest level of the Commission. However, a survey with leak recipients suggest that leaks seem so widely distributed and frequent at various stages of internal decision-making that the existing prevention efforts seem ineffective.Analysing the rules and practices of leak prevention, the paper shows that, while there are anti-leak rules in place, there have been very few cases in which Commission leakers have been administratively sanctioned. The explanation for these observations builds on the argument that leaking is part of regular bureaucratic politics and that leak prevention therefore is not meant to be effective, except for a few important cases.

show abstract

“…It is hypothesised that lax leak prevention is part of the 'organised hypocrisy' inside public administrations, where talk and action become organisationally decoupled (Brunsson 2006). This builds on previous public administration research on the European Commission as the EU's core executive (Hartlapp et al 2013;Hustedt and Seyfried 2016;Kassim et al 2013) and on the previous observation of decoupling in the European Commission (Boswell 2008). It is expected that the dynamics of leak prevention found in the Commission as a 'normalised' public administration (Wille 2013) are comparable to national public administrations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

Leaking, leak prevention, and decoupling in public administrations: the case of the European Commission

Patz¹

2017

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission is frequently faced with leaks, much like other public administrations in Western democracies. While executive leaders often criticise the practice of leaking as an unwanted breach of confidentiality and secrecy, leak prevention is usually not taken seriously compared to the scale of the phenomenon. This article discusses leaking and leak prevention more broadly and analyses the efforts of the European Commission to prevent leaks. It finds that leaking and leak prevention were regularly discussed at the highest level of the EU's executive between 2006 and 2015. However, few Commission officials have been sanctioned for leaking in that period, and mostly for leaks that appear unrelated to the substance of those discussed at the political level. This mismatch is explained by a decoupling of talk and action regarding leak prevention, allowing the European Commission and other public administrations to manage inconsistencies in competing internal and external demands for openness and confidentiality.

show abstract

Co-ordination across internal organizational boundaries: how the EU Commission co-ordinates climate policies

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

Bureaucratic Politics and the Prevention of Leaks in the European Commission

Leaking, leak prevention, and decoupling in public administrations: the case of the European Commission

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About