The Crisisification of Policy‐making in the European Union

Abstract

In recent years a subtle change has taken place in the policy‐making machinery shaping European integration. The traditional methods for producing collective European Union (EU) policies, typified by the extensive analysis of a problem, extended phases of consultation with stakeholders, the deliberate cultivation of support for proposals, occasional decision‐making moments and their long‐term implementation, now share space with what is best described as crisis‐oriented methods for arriving at collective decisions. These methods prioritize the early identification of the next crisis, specific kinds of actors and technologies, abbreviated decision‐making procedures and new narratives on the raison d'etre of European integration. This article treats this development as a kind of crisisification of EU policy‐making – a change in the processes by which collective decisions are made – and explores its implications for practice and research by drawing on both classical EU studies approaches and insights from critical security studies.

Nordic Societal Security

“…Most evidence suggests that securitisation of a great swathe of public policymaking has, in fact, not taken place . The extraordinary security agenda has not welcomed on board many new issues; what may in fact have taken place is the securitisation of the normal public policymaking agenda instead (for more on this, see Boswell, 2007 andRhinard, 2019'). The conclusion to this chapter revisits this question and offers suggestions for further research.…”

“…The 'crisisification' of European cooperation demands decision-making modes and coordination routines which are largely foreign to traditional EU policymaking. The results can be insulated policy decisions that do not have a wide political backing and which stretch the boundaries of solidarity (Rhinard, 2019).…”

Can the Global Problem of Marine Litter Be Considered a Crisis?

“…However, if an elusive issue is framed and accepted as a crisis, then continued inaction or underinvestment can become a politically unattractive option, strengthening the impetus to act. Rhinard () argues that in the European agenda the effect of crisification widens the room for events that are identified as relevant for the EU. Exactly which problems demand an EU‐level solution is often unclear, but what is clear is that the pool of issues identified as emerging crises is expanding (Rhinard, , p. 624).…”

“…Rhinard () argues that in the European agenda the effect of crisification widens the room for events that are identified as relevant for the EU. Exactly which problems demand an EU‐level solution is often unclear, but what is clear is that the pool of issues identified as emerging crises is expanding (Rhinard, , p. 624). Crisification, as well as the evolving role and purpose of the EU, may thus have shifted the focus to identifying the “next urgent event” and incorporate new forms of crisis into the European Agenda.…”

Overcoming Dissent: Socialization in the EU's Political and Security Committee in a Context of Crises

“…Political fall‐out from the multiple crises that the EU has experienced in the last decade has resulted in deep resentment and dissent among EU member states, with some national political leaderships openly refusing to support European integration, whether by taking symbolic action or through practical policies (Rhinard, ). This hightened level of dissension is feared to have detrimental and long‐lasting effects on the EU's ability to deal with the challenges it faces, as its capacity to address intractable problems lies in the specific ability of its member states to forge consensus and find common solutions (Juncker, ).…”