As the Prodi Commission comes to the end of its term of office, the Kinnock reforms of internal management systems are now well under way. While these are welcome, they are only a preliminary step in a much broader and more difficult process of change. As the EU institutions have to work with and through the administrations of the member states, it is essential to develop the management of organizational networks. These networks are a negotiated multi-level order in which the Commission is only one actor. This article explores the nature of these networks, their common features and problems, arguing that the Commission use its unrivalled position to act as a strategic node for their future development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Christiansen, Thomas (1996), ‘A maturing bureaucracy? The role of the Commission in the policy process’, in Jeremy J. Richardson (ed.), European Union Power and Policy-making, ( London and New York: Routledge ), pp.77-95.
2.
Cini, Michelle (1996) The European Commission, ( Manchester: Manchester University Press ).
3.
COM (2000), 2000 White Paper, “Reforming the Commission”.
4.
Committee of Independent Experts (1999), First Report on ‘Allegations regarding Fraud, Mismanagement and Nepotism in the European Commission’ (15 March).
5.
Committee of Independent Experts (1999), Second Report on ‘Reform of the Commission - Analysis of current practice and proposals for tackling mismanagement, irregularities and fraud’ (10 September).
6.
Dror, Yehezkel (1994), The Capacity to Govern, Report to the Club of Rome, Executive Summary, July.
7.
Edwards, Geoffrey and Spence, David (eds) (1994), The European Commission, ( Harlow, Essex: Longman Current Affairs ).
8.
Emery, Fred E. and Trist, Eric L. (1965), ‘The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments’ , Human Relations, Vol 18, pp. 21-32 .
9.
Kickert, Walter J.M. , Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan (1997), Managing Complex Networks, ( London: Sage Publications; New Delhi: Thousand Oaks ).
10.
Haas, Emst B. (1976), ‘Turbulent Fields and the Theory of Regional Integration’ , International Organization, Vol 30, No 2, pp. 173-212 .
11.
Laffan, Brigid (1997), ‘From policy entrepreneur to policy manager: the challenge facing the European Commission’ , Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 4, No 3, pp. 422-438 .
12.
Levy, Roger , (1998), ‘Re-engineering audit and performance management systems for multi-level governance: the European Union experience’ , International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol 64, pp. 55-71 .
13.
Levy, Roger , (2000), Implementing European Union Public Policy, ( Cheltenham: Edward Elgar ).
14.
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1995), Democratic Governance, ( The Free Press ).
15.
Metcalfe, Les (1978), ‘Policy Making in Turbulent Environments’, in K. Hanf and F.W. Scharpf (eds), Interorganizational Policy Making, ( Sage Publications ), pp.37-55.
16.
Metcalfe, Les (1992), ‘After 1992: Can the Commission Manage Europe?’ , Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol 51, No 1, pp. 117-130 .
17.
Metcalfe, Les (1994), ‘International Policy Co-ordination and Public Management Reform’ , International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol 60, pp. 271-290 .
18.
Metcalfe, Les . (2000), ‘Reforming the Commission: Will Organizational Efficiency Produce Effective Governance?’ , Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 38, No 5, pp. 817-841 .
19.
Nugent, N. (1997), At the Heart of the Union: Studies of the European Commission, ( London: Macmillan ).
20.
Peterson, John and Bomberg Elizabeth (1999), Decision-Making in the European Union, ( Basingstoke: MacMillan ).
21.
Prodi, Romano (2000), ‘2000-2005 Shaping the New Europe’ , speech to the European Parliament, Strasbourg, 15 February (see also Strategic Objectives 2000-2005 COM (2000)154 final).
22.
Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto (eds) (1992), Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
23.
Scharpf, Fritz W. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
24.
Schulman, Paul R. (1993), ‘The Negotiated Order of Organizational Reliability’ , Administration & Society, Vol 25, No 3, pp. 353-372 .
25.
Senge, Peter M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, ( New York: Doubleday/Currency ).
26.
Spence, David (2000), ‘Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose? Attempting to reform the European Commission’ , Journal of European Public Policy, Vol 7, No 1, pp. 1-25 .
27.
Spierenburg Report (1979), Proposals for Reform of the Commission of the European Communities and its Services, ( Brussels: European Commission ).
28.
Stevens, Anne with Handley Stevens (2001), Brussels Bureaucrats? The administration of the European Union, ( Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave ).
29.
Wallace, Helen (2000), ‘The Institutional Setting, Five Variations on a Theme’, in Helen Wallace and William Wallace (eds), Policy Making in the European Union, 4th edn, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ), pp.3-38.
