Leading the Band or Just Playing the Tune? Reassessing the Agenda-Setting Powers of the European Commission

Abstract

Setting the political agenda is a critical and usually powerful aspect of policy making. However, the ability to set the agenda, without any significant decision-making powers, can undermine this influence, leaving a technical agenda setter without substantive political influence. This research examines the difference between technical and political agenda setting through an analysis of the policy impact of the Commission of the European Union (EU). Using two newly developed databases on Commission policy priorities and all adopted EU legislation, as well as the Decision Making in the European Union (DEU II) dataset, we investigate the ability of the Commission to shape EU legislative outcomes to reflect its policy preferences between 2000 and 2011. Our analyses highlight the comparative weakness of the Commission’s policy influence, despite its formal monopoly of legislative initiation. In this way, we argue for a need to carefully differentiate between technical and political agenda setters when evaluating the policy influence of different political actors.

European environmental policy at 50: Five decades of escaping decision traps?

“…As a result, it launched a “Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme” in December 2012, under which 53 items were withdrawn, including two major environmental policy projects: the planned Soil Framework Directive (COM/2006/0232) and the Directive on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (COM/2003/0624). The Commission's decreasing legislative activity has been attributed to it being more constrained by member states' reluctance (Kreppel & Oztas, , pp. 1139–1140).…”

The Trio Presidency and the Efficiency of Council Decision‐Making: An Empirical Study

“…This argument is at the expense of the agenda-setting role of the EU Commission. For instance,Kreppel and Oztas (2017) show that the Commission is merely a technical agenda-setter, with no power to affect policy outcomes.König and Proksch …”

The contested nature of political leadership in the European Union: conceptual and methodological cross-fertilisation

“…As a result, scholars of EU leadership have focussed mainly on the capacities of the different European institutions, member states and key individuals to provide leadership and impact EU politics. Leadership studies of the European Commission, for instance, have tended to centre around its leadership and that of its presidents in specific policy areas and on the Commission's institutional capacity to influence European treaty negotiations (Beach 2005;Dinan 2016;Kreppel and Oztas 2017;T€ ommel 2013). Close attention has also been paid to the European Council, with scholars studying its leadership capacity, the potential impact of the rotating presidency and the effect of the balance of power among its members on European negotiation outcomes (Elgstr€ om 2003;Fabbrini and Puetter 2016;Tallberg 2003).…”

“…Scholars taking a 'purpose' perspective stress the role and importance of leaders' values, ideals, interests, motives and leadership mission in producing a certain outcome (Dinan 2016; T€ ommel 2017; M€ uller and Van Esch 2019). The 'resources' approach focusses on the sources and capacities leaders and institutions may draw upon to affect an outcome, such as their material capabilities, skills, functional position, role and personality traits (Beach 2005;Elgstr€ om 2003;Kreppel and Oztas 2017;Schild 2019;Tallberg 2003; T€ ommel 2019). As Schoeller (2019) explains, studies taking one of these first two perspectives often assume causal links between leaders' purposes or resources and final outcomes rather than actually empirically establishing them.…”