Going Solo: Direct Regional Representation in the European Union

Abstract

This article seeks to map out routes of direct regional interest representation in the European Union. It identifies six main opportunity structures available to regions: the Committee of the Regions, the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament, regional Brussels offices and European networks and associations. Using original interview material, the article analyses how and under what conditions each route can be most efficient for regional interest representation. It concludes that though these opportunity structures have not triggered the emergence of a 'Europe of the Regions' as some of the literature in the 1990s had predicted, they do represent important channels of access that regions can use in an attempt to influence the EU policy process. These regional para-diplomatic activities bypass EU member states and consequently challenge liberal intergovernmentalist assumptions regarding the nature of EU politics.

How Europe Shapes the Nature of the Belgian Federation: Differentiated EU Impact Triggers Both Co-operation and Decentralization

“…While Regions are becoming increasingly important players within the Belgian federation, they clearly do not dispel the central government from the theatre (Tatham 2008). Europeanization seems to mitigate the dual and competitive nature of Belgian federalism and to stimulate a gradual development towards more cooperative forms of formal and informal governance.…”

Actors of the Common Interest? The Brussels Offices of the Regions

“…Tatham argues that 'first league' regions (from countries with high devolution) became oriented towards influencing public policy, while 'second league' regions with less significant domestic powers primarily chased funding orientated goals (Tatham, 2008). For 'first league' regions, the possibility to represent a member state in the Council of Ministers meant the need to focus their resources accordingly, rather than seeking a role which might lead them into developing activities related to European integration.…”

An Empirical Basis of Multi-Level Governance Approach: Subnational Mobilisation in the European Union Arena

“…The European Parliament is also an effective channel for the promotion of subnational interests, especially when MEPs are elected on the basis of regional constituencies as in the case of the UK, France, Belgium, Ireland or Italy (Tatham, 2008). Although it is still ambiguous to what extent MEPs can be a carrier of regional or local authorities' interests to the other institutions of the European Union, they can still be an efficient way for SNAs to promote their particular interests, bypass their member state's auspices and gain direct access to the Commission's hierarchy (ibid).…”

“…They are also not expected to play a role in high politics issues such as migration, security, and the like, while they may have influence on some low politics issues such as environment, health care, and so forth. For the extensive account on the SNAs' activities in Brussels, see Bullmann, 1997;Bomberg and Peterson, 1998;Jeffrey, 1997a;Hooghe and Marks, 2001;Tatham, 2008. 2008). These 'extra-state' 15 channels encompass the Council of Ministers, the Commission (especially via DG Regio and DG Enlargement), the European Parliament, the Committee of Regions (the CoR), interregional organizations and liaison offices.…”

“…Those scholars have listed a multitude of factors which mainly constrain or enable SNAs to pursue their activities on the EU level. The majority of studies have sought to explain the factors that motivate SNAs to establish their liaison offices in Brussels (Marks, et al, 1996;Jeffrey, 2000;Husseyyune and Jans, 2008;Tatham, 2008;Moore, 2011). To analyze what causes this uneven pattern of mobilisation across the European arena and within the member states, various factors constraining or enabling SNAs to pursue their activities on the EU level have been listed.…”