The power of functionalist extension: how EU rules travel

Abstract

This contribution proposes a decentred conceptualization of European Union (EU) international influence based on the external ramifications of its internal policies. It views the EU's international role less as that of an emerging unitary actor than as conglomerate of loosely coupled sectoral regimes expanding their prescriptive scope towards third countries in differentiated ways. Combining conceptual approaches to (EU) power with empirical-analytical research on external governance and policy diffusion, the contribution defines the mechanisms of regulatory extension, specifies their scope conditions, and highlights the role of transgovernmental networks, often involving international organizations, in 'co-opting' third country regulators into EU policies.

The external face of differentiated integration: third country participation in EU sectoral bodies

“…Acknowledging the internal diversification of governance modes in the EU, this contribution argues that the advent of 'policy-making without legislating' (Héritier 2002) through transgovernmental committees and regulatory agencies offers hitherto understudied opportunities for the flexible integration of nonmember states (Lavenex 2008(Lavenex , 2014. Focusing on the more formalized and politically independent EU regulatory agencies, the contribution pursues two aims: it provides a first mapping of third country participation in seven EU agencies and, in a second step analyses the plausibility of two distinct logics of external differentiated integration: a foreign policy and a functionalist approach.…”

Strengthening the Rule of Law at the Supranational Level: The Rise and Consolidation of a European Network

“…Less hierarchical and less formal (Bartolini 2011, 5) networks link different kind of actors, 'who engage in deliberation and problem-solving efforts guided as much by informal norms as by formal institutions' (Pollack 2005, 380). They foster communication and facilitate the pooling and sharing of resources (Montoya 2008, 360;Lavenex 2014;Stone 2004;Galbreath and McEvoy 2013). Networks have greater expertise which make them able to respond to changing circumstances in a given policy domain (Bellamy et al 2011, 135).…”

“…This article demonstrates that in a field in which politicization raises the pressure to act at the EU level but where member states do not delegate more hierarchical powers, the Commission is creating a complex multi-institutional framework and has introduced a 'division of labour' between several international bodies and organizations. Instead of hierarchical governance, the Commission relies on other IOs and is placing itself into a central place of a rule of law network that spans beyond the EU (see also Lavenex 2014). 2 This paper has three lines of sequential argument: it demonstrates, first, that this regulatory gap results from the feedback spiral of EU governance.…”

Market power Europe: exploring a dynamic conceptual framework

“…To overcome such a shortcoming, contributions to the debates have usefully employed insights, to varying degrees, from Barnett and Duvall's (2005) IR taxonomy of power (Bicchi 2006, Diez et al 2006, Lavenex 2014, Holden 2009 …”

“…13 Such extensions can take place, for example, through technical assistance (Sabel and Zeitlin 2010, 22-23) or when third parties are included in the EU's internal governance processes across different policy areas (Zeitlin 2015, Lavenex 2014). …”