summary of the book given, Sintesi del corso di Politiche dell'Unione Europea

Scarica summary of the book given e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Politiche dell'Unione Europea solo su Docsity! EU POLITICS AND POLICIES IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD - B026821 IX. Agenda - setting People (and organisations) cannot attend to all things at the same time. The political agenda is the set of issues that policy-makers give serious attention to. At any given point in time, some issues are ‘on’ the agenda (that is, they receive attention), while other issues are ‘off’ the agenda (they receive no or very little attention). Agenda-setting is a highly political process because it has important consequences for the issues on which decisions are taken and the policy options that are considered. As a result, political actors actively try to bring issues on to the EU agenda or keep them off that agenda. The process through which issues come on to the EU agenda is complex and largely informal. Nevertheless, it is not purely random or idiosyncratic. Common elements and drivers can be discerned in many agenda- setting processes. Agenda setting also involves aspects of scale or authority aka whether or not the issue is European in scope. Thus, most EU policies need to be justified in terms of cross-border effects or common EU-wide problems. If they cannot, the question arises why the EU should be dealing with them, rather than the member states themselves. This becomes even more important when the EU has no clear competence in a certain policy area, such as health policy in the alcohol abuse case. I. THE POLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF AGENDAS Attention is basically about what is on policy-makers’ minds: what they think about and discuss with each other or, stated differently, what they consider to be important issues to which they accord priority. As a result of such a vast array of issues, the EU policy makers make choices about what to attend to and what to ignore. These choices result in an agenda. Agendas can be the result of a deliberate choice, when a policy-maker decides to give priority to some issue over another. They can also be a response to outside events, when policy-makers respond to what is happening around them. For instance, after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 governments in many Western countries immediately focused on issues of terrorism that had previously received much less attention. This choice was hardly the result of a deliberate trade-off between different possibilities but was almost forced on those governments as a result of the impact of and public response to the attacks. Furthermore, agenda-setting is a highly political process as some groups and politicians gain if an issue comes on to the political agenda whole others lose. As a result, political actors actively seek to influence the political agenda. They try to push the issues they want to have on the agenda, but also try to keep issues off the agenda if they have little to gain by greater attention. For example: the agenda relating to obesity would be an issue which the food industry had little interest in raising. For them, it could only entail greater (regulatory) burdens in order to curtail the production and sale of unhealthy foods. For health NGOs, on the other hand, it was an important issue because obesity is related to a range of health conditions that they sought to combat. Hence, health NGOs wanted to get the issue on to the EU agenda, while the food industry wanted to keep it off. II. TYPES OF AGENDAS AND AGENDA DYNAMICS 1. The political agenda: which consists of the issues that policy-makers pay attention to. Within the institutions there are multiple agendas as the European Commission and the European Council and the European Parliament have their own agendas which may overlap to a greater or lesser extent however they are usually not identical. For instance, the agenda of the Commission’s DG Enterprise may feature issues such as the competitiveness of European firms or reducing the regulatory burden on enter- prise, while DG Environment may focus on issues such as global warming or dangerous chemicals. The same is true for different committees in the EP or different configurations of the Council of Ministers. 2. The media agenda: which consists of the issues that receive attention in newspapers, on television and on the Internet. 3. The public agenda: which includes the issues that citizens find important at a given point in time. The media agenda may play an important role in between the political agenda and the public agenda: societal groups may use media attention to put pressure on policy-makers (in the outside initiative model), while policy- makers may use the media to place an issue from the political on the public agenda (in the mobilisation model). These agendas may influence each other but they are not identical: policy- makers may discuss issues that hardly appear in the media and are not on many people’s minds, while some issues may be important in public opinion or the media but resonate much less in the political arena. There are 3 ways in which the various agendas may interact between each other: 1. The outside initiative model: issues arise within groups in society which then seek to reach first, the public agenda and then the political agenda. Example: protests by French farmers on 27 April 2010, who rode into Paris on tractors in order to raise aware- ness of falling grain prices and demand government action. This model is linked to the strategy of outside lobbying in which interest groups put pressure on policy-makers by mobilising public opinion through protests and media attention. However, it this model is less common at the EU level than within MS as EU policy-makers are less vulnerable to public opinion than domestic politicians. 2. The mobilisation model: policy-makers take the initiative to place an issue on the political agenda and then try to gain support for the issue by also placing it on the public agenda. Example: US President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. however, EU policy makers have little use of mobilising public support in order to facilitate implementation as implementation itself it is not based on public interest but rather through ms governments. It is instructive in this regard to compare agenda-setting around obesity in the EU and the USA. In the EU, the issue of obesity was placed on the agenda within the EU’s institutions. Subsequently, it was further developed within the European Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, which included representatives of organisations. Hence, the whole process remained limited to a relatively small circle of policy-makers, health experts and direct stakeholders. In the USA, by politicians argue that all workers have a right to decent working conditions and that this cannot be left to individual states to decide. This, then, is a reason to take the issue up at the EU level. 5. Institutional motives: European institutions themselves often have specific reasons why they would bring issues to the EU level. They can be motivated by universalistic motives, aka that the EU will bring benefits which all citizens are entitled to. In addition, the Commission and the European Parliament have clear institutional motives to attract certain issues. Dealing with more as well as more prestigious issues enhances their power and status, increases the resources they command and, in general, makes their lives more interesting. For this reason, most government organisations seek to extend their tasks and take up new, interesting issues. 6. Combination of motives: In reality many issues are brought up because of a combination of motives. There may be some cross-border aspects, it may be politically convenient to discuss an issue at the EU level, firms that incur high costs support a ‘level playing field’, other groups may feel the EU offers a chance to ‘spread the word’, and EU institutions want to extend their activities. IV. FROM IDEA TO PROPOSAL: THE PROCESS OF AGENDA-SETTING IN THE EU The origins of an issue or idea are often difficult to trace as issues can come from anywhere. The European Commission itself develops ideas about the issues that should be taken up. Interest groups are constantly plugging issues that they feel need to be taken up. Member state governments (both politicians and civil servants) may try to get things on to the EU agenda, and the same goes for Members of the European Parliament. At some point, however, the issue becomes part of (informal) discussions among politicians, policy experts and/or the media within the EU. - The first appearance of an issue in an official EU document depends on the issue areas: In some areas, the European Commission publishes multi-annual work plans that guide work in the field for periods of five years or longer. For instance, in the field of environmental policy the Commission publishes multi-annual Environmental Action Programmes that are officially adopted by the Council and the EP. Getting an issue into a multi-annual work plan is one way of placing it more firmly on the EU’s political agenda. However, such plans are only published for a limited number of policy areas. - A next step is when an issue is included in the Commission annual work programme. Early each year, the European Commission publishes an overview of all proposals it is planning to put forward in that year. Ideas for issues to be included in the work programme come from the Commission’s Directorates- General and, within those DGs, specific units. There are always many more suggestions than there is room for within the work programme, so the pro- cess of getting an issue into the work programme is an important bureaucratic struggle within the Commission. This is important for Commission officials and outside stakeholders alike, because once an issue is included in the annual work programme, it is officially recognised as one of the priorities for action by the Commission in that year. - When it is decided to develop a proposal, the Commission usually convenes an expert group to assist it in drafting a document or proposal. The composition of an expert group is completely at the discretion of the Commission. Normally, it contains policy experts from member state governments and/ or interest groups in the field. For the Commission, an expert group is a way to use the best available expertise on an issue when developing proposals. Moreover, it is a way to explore political sensibilities around an issue and to commit important stakeholders to the proposal that is subsequently published. For those stakeholders themselves, an expert group is the best possible way to exert influence on the shape of a policy proposal when much still needs to be decided. This is the reason why a place on an expert committee is highly coveted by governments and groups interested in a certain issue. - The work in the expert groups results directly in a proposal. When the issue is more complex or sensitive however the process may proceed through a number of intermediate steps. 1. The publication of Green paper: A Green Paper is a discussion document from the European Commission that outlines general issues and options around an issue without presenting specific proposals. Green Papers do not contain specific proposals but chart the terrain, outline policy options and offer a starting point for a discussion with interested stakeholders. For that reason, they are often followed by a formal consultation procedure, in which member state governments, the European Parliament, interest groups and often also individual citizens can respond to the issues and questions raised in the Green Paper. 2. A next intermediate step is the publication of a White Paper. A White Paper is a discussion document from the European Commission that presents specific proposals for EU action. It does contain specific proposals that are presented for further discussion. Here, too, member state governments, the European Parliament and other stakeholders are often given the opportunity to respond to the proposals contained in the White Paper. - Finally, this may result in the publication of a proposal for EU legislation or other forms of policy. If these proposals are scheduled for decision- making by the appropriate institutions (in most cases the Council and the EP), the issue has moved firmly from the EU’s governmental to its decision agenda. However, there are many variations, in which some steps do not appear, additional rounds of documents and (formal or informal) consultation are added, or the sequence of certain steps is reversed. This is in the case of obesity: In the case of obesity, debates on the gravity, determinants and consequences of the problem started well before any mention in an official EU document. A consensus on the significance of obesity developed among medical researchers and practitioners, as well as health policy experts in member state governments, the European Commission and the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency of the United Nations that focuses on health issues. Among these groups, conferences were organised, studies were published, and policy options were discussed. This is how interest in the issue gained ground. Policy work on obesity within the EU took off when the issue was mentioned in the Health and Consumer Protection Strategy for the period 2007– 2013, which was launched by the Commission in April 2005 and subsequently adopted by the Council and the EP. Even before that, in January 2005, the publication of a Green Paper on obesity had been included in the Commission’s work programme for 2005. In March 2005, the Commission created the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. The term ‘platform’ was used because this was a more formal institution than a mere expert group. Still, partly the purpose was the same: to bring together expertise and to create support for a certain course of action. In the specific case of obesity, however, the forum was also meant to lead to voluntary agreements on reducing overweight between industry (food, retail and the like), consumer groups and health NGOs, some- thing a regular expert group would not do. Later that year, in December 2005, the Commission published the Green Paper Promoting Healthy Diets and Physical Activity: A European Dimension for the Prevention of Overweight, Obesity and Chronic Diseases. Linked to this Green Paper was a large-scale consultation in which interested stakeholders could give their opinion on the ideas presented in the Green Paper. The results of that consultation were presented in September 2006. In May 2007, the Commission published the White Paper on A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity Related Health Issues, with more concrete actions to be taken. On the basis of this White Paper, a High-Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity was formed that included high-ranking civil servants from each of the member states. The High-Level Group operates alongside the Platform created in 2005, and sometimes the two meet together. So far, no proposals for binding legislation have been adopted because work on obesity is predicated on voluntary commitments by industry and agreements between member states. V. WHY DO ISSUES MAKE IT ON TO THE EU AGENDA? 1. Issue framing: Issue framing concerns the way in which issues are defined. A frame is an interpretation scheme with which issues and events are defined and given meaning. Framing is the activity of (re-)defining an issue in such a way that it fits a particular frame. Therefore, this section determines how an issue is conceived and who will be involved in the policy process and whether or not the issue will command a lot of attention. Example: 9/11, political actors from different sides offered interpretations of what the attacks constituted and what they implied. These were all attempts at ‘framing’ the issue: defining it in a certain way that includes some aspects and highlights some factors while ignoring others. Furthermore, framing determines who participates. As new participants join the issues they will bring with them new ideas thus altering the way agendas are set and policies are made and consequently altering the balance of proponents and opponents around an issue. Lastly, issues need to be defined as a means to see whether they are European in scope. The issue with alcohol abuse: This can also be seen in the alcohol abuse case. Much of the debate around the issue revolved around the question how the issue should be defined. Until the mid-1990s alcoholic drinks, insofar as they entered the EU agenda, were perceived as tradable commodities. Alcohol abuse was seen as an individual problem of a relatively small proportion of all alcohol consumers, which was not related to the general availability of alcoholic drinks. SUMMARY: • The political agenda is the set of issues that policy-makers give serious attention to. • Agendas are important in politics and policy-making because they determine which issues will be taken up for decision-making and which will not. • Political actors actively seek to place issues on the agenda or keep them off. As a result, agenda-setting is a highly political process. • Besides the political agenda, we can also discern the media agenda and the public agenda. Political systems differ in the way these three types of agenda are related. Cobb, Ross and Ross distinguished between three models in this regard: the outside initiative model, the mobilisation model and the inside access model. In the EU, the inside access model is relatively more important than in other political systems, although the other two models also occur. • Political actors may have various reasons for wanting to put an issue on the EU agenda: tackling cross-border problems, circumventing domestic political resistance, creating a ‘level playing field’ between competing firms, ‘spreading the word’ for an issue one believes strongly in, or satisfying institutional interests in expanding organisational tasks and resources. In reality, many issues are pushed on to the EU agenda out of a combination of motives. • Although agenda-setting processes are not formalised, certain steps tend to occur in many EU agenda-setting processes. These steps form the sequence of a ‘typical’ agenda-setting process. In concrete cases all kinds of variations on this sequence may occur. • Three (sets of) factors are particularly important in understanding why issues (do not) make it on to the EU agenda: issue framing, institutional structures and timing. • Issue framing consists of defining an issue in such a way that some aspects are emphasised while other aspects are ignored. • The existence and remit of institutional venues determine how receptive policy-makers are to certain claims and issues. • Issues rise to the top of the political agenda during so-called policy windows or windows of opportunity. These windows often occur suddenly, as the result of a highly publicised focusing event or a change in political circumstances. A glossary of Commission documents Commission documents come by different names. Here is a brief guide: » A Green Paper is a discussion document that outlines general issues and options around an issue, without presenting specific proposals. It forms the start of a consultation among stakeholders. Example: Green Paper Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People, COM (2009) 329. » A Communication informs the other EU institutions, member state governments, advisory bodies and/or stakeholders of the Commission's point of view or intended strategy on a given issue, without inviting a response. Example: Communication on International Climate Policy Post-Copenhagen, COM (2010) 86. » A White Paper is a discussion document that presents specific proposals for EU action. Example: White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391. =» A Work Programme sets out the priorities of the European Commission for a given year. Example: Commission Work Programme 2010 ‘Time to Act’, COM (2010) 135. = An Action Plan (or: Action Programme) is an overview of activities that the Commission intends to undertake in relation to a given issue or policy area over a period of several years. Normally published in the form of a Communication. Example: Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe, COM (2008) 886. * A Report contains factual information on the state of affairs in a given issue area. Example: First Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum, COM (2010) 214. Figure 9.1 Steps in a typical EU BO FA te eat oi ‘agenda-setting process setting process around obesity Informal discussions among politicians or policy experts or in the media (In some policy areas) Multi-annual action plans Commission annual work programme ; Expert committee | Green Paper (+ Consultation) j White Paper (+ Consultation) } Proposal(s) Prior to 2005: Debates in the medical ‘community and among health experts April 2005: mention of obesity in EU Health and Consumer Protection Strategy 2007-2013 January 2005: Obesity included in Commission Work Programme 2005 March 2005: Creation of EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health December 2005: Commission Green Paper on obesity (+ Consultation) May 2007: Commission White Paper on obesity November 2007: Creation of High- Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity