EU politicization and policy initiatives of the European Commission: the case of consumer policy

Abstract

European integration is increasingly contested in public. What are the policy consequences of this EU politicization? This article argues that politicization challenges the hitherto often technocratic mode of policy preparation in the European Commission. Increased public attention and contestation render the diffuse public a more relevant stakeholder for Europe's central agenda-setter because future competence transfers to Brussels are more likely to be scrutinized in the public realm. This incentivizes Commission actors to generate widely dispersed regulatory benefits through its policy initiatives, particularly where an initiative covers publicly salient issues. Applying this expectation to 17 European consumer policy initiatives suggests that the Commission orients its policy proposals towards widespread consumer interest during periods of high EU politicization and issue salience. However, the mechanism is constrained by internal turf conflicts and anticipated Council preferences. These findings highlight that politicization entails both chances and risks for further, policy-driven integration in Europe.

Undermining, defusing or defending European integration? Assessing public communication of European executives in times of EU politicisation

“…To see whether politicisation is a boon or bane for further political integration in Europe, we should take the responses of different types of actors to different configurations of Euroscepticism in public opinion and in partisan competition into account. Beyond merely communicative responses, furthermore, corresponding expectations could be used to extend extant models on the actual policy responsiveness of European executives in Brussels (see, e.g., Rauh ; Toshkov ; Wratil ).…”

“…Indeed, recent empirical evidence suggests that pro‐European parties often hold on to their position when facing Eurosceptic challenger parties (at least when their supporters are united; Adam et al. ), that European elites emphasise public interests more strongly in the face of politicisation (De Bruycker ), that they adopt a more pro‐European perspective against salient Euroscepticism at home (Bes ) or that they even alter the contents of supranational policies in response (Rauh ; Van der Veer & Haverland ).…”

“…This scenario implies that executives defuse political debates on European integration by resorting to technocratic, scientific or managerial language in their speeches, so as to avoid signaling political choice (Wood & Flinders : 161–164). Finally, the re‐legitimation argument posits that Eurosceptic challenges trigger active justification efforts by those holding executive power in the EU (Rauh ; Zürn ). In this scenario, European executives are expected to actively defend European integration in their public communication.…”

Going full circle: the need for procedural perspectives on EU responsiveness

“…At first sight, and in line with the standard model's emphasis on public salience as a moderating variable, the increasing risk that European decisions become subject of highly visible and controversial public debates should create incentives for more responsiveness at the European level. Indeed, initial research shows that both majoritarian (Schneider 2019; Wratil 2018a) but also non-majoritarian institutions adapt policy choices in the light of intensifying public debates about European integration (Blauberger et al 2018;Rauh 2018; Van der Veer and Haverland 2018). But at the same time, the public politicization of European integration also increases the complexity of political conflict against which possibly responsive European policy has to be formulated.…”

The paradox of human rights conditionality in EU trade policy: when strategic interests drive policy outcomes

“…By contrast, saliency of issues which are highly controversial (Roger and Winzen 2015) or of an issue where an individual party claims ownership (Klüver and Spoon 2015) is likely to result in defection from organizational action. In other words, polarized issues (Rauh 2018: 3) test the EP's unity, while strategic issues forge united action.…”