*** DIRK LEUFFEN, BERTHOLD RITTBERGER, FRANK SCHIMMELFENNIG: Differentiated Integration. Explaining Variation in the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hants, RG21 6XS, UK. Tel: (44-1256) 329242 - Fax: 842084 - email: mdl@macmillan.co.uk - Internet: http://www.palgrave.com ). The European Union Series. 2013, 287 pp, £27.99. ISBN 978-0-230-24644-7.
What policies are managed at European level, and when did this start to happen? And more importantly: 'Why do these policies differ in the ways they are negotiated and decided between Brussels, Strasbourg and national capitals?' 'Why do certain policies only address EU member states whereas others invite outside actors?' Why do non-EU players want to be involved from policies from which some Member States opt out? 'Why does differentiation increase over time?' To these questions three lecturers in politics - Dirk Leuffen at Konstanz University, Berthold Rittberger at Munich University and Frank Schimmelfenning at the Ecole Polytechnique de Zurich - provide in-depth, original answers in this book to open up new areas of thought for people trying to understands the European integration process,
As far as the authors are concerned, the grand theories formulated to explain the process that began in the 1950s, namely intergovernmentalism, supranationalism and constructivism (with an entire chapter on each of these schools of thought), tend to be abstract and theoretical. For this reason and to work out where the truth lies, they decided to compare and contract them in four European Union policy domains, namely the Internal Market; monetary and fiscal policy; security and defence; and the area of freedom, security and defence. In the chapters on the various domains, the pertinence of the big theories is finely gauged with the authors including in their assessments an aspect that is usually ignored - the differentiation that is becoming the rule in the European club. To give an example, after pointing out where Economic and Monetary Union came from (and where it's going), the authors provide enlightening answers to four questions: ''What explains the leap from the intergovernmental coordination of exchange rates to the supranational centralization of monetary policy and intergovernmental fiscal cooperation?' Why has strong differentiations always manifested in this domain, culminating in the rumblings and grumblings of Denmark, the UK and Sweden? How can the strong 'vertical differentiation' be explained that translated into lax management of budget matters when monetary integration became a reality? 'Why has fiscal policy become more supranationally integrated' in the current crisis?
As in other domains, it emerges that none of the traditional theories has all the answers, each providing part of a plausible explanation of European monetary integration and the current push for budget integration: 'When the financial crisis exposed how interdependent the eurozone countries had become in fiscal policy, and how limited the autonomy of the highly-indebted countries had become de facto, supranational fiscal integration became possible,' observe the authors, reaching the general conclusion that 'differentiated integration' has become, and will remain, an inevitable reality within the European Union, with the current crisis at the same time demonstrating that the integration process is not in danger. The way they see it, heterogeneity will continue to grow and differentiation can therefore reconcile the tension created by the deeper and expanded Europe. In light of the Greek crisis, they observe that 'solidarity among the citizens of the EU is much weaker than in the national context,' as is shown by the rising power of national stereotypes that one might have thought a thing of the past. They are right, of course, but surely this coldness from citizens is the bitter fruit of the dithering of national politicians who fail to provide any meaning or, to be frank, any purpose to the European project? Are they really so certain that exacerbated differentiated integration will not constantly put off the citizens who want more integration and also put those off who don't want European integration and feel it has already too intrusive? The authors are certain that 'the crisis will not lead to disintegration,' and it will all lead European governments to pull out the stops to save the eurozone, even if it means deepening the existing differentiation. Probably, but wouldn't it be better to ask citizens what they want and politicising the European Union, even if that means one or two countries getting divorced to clear the way for the more ambitious to move towards a clearer, less ambiguous end point? This is at least another relevant question…
Michel Theys
*** The Federalist Debate. Papers on Federalism in Europe and the World. Einstein Center for International Studies (26 via Schina, I-10144 Turin. Tel/Fax: (+39-011) 4732843 - email: info@centroeinstein.it - Internet: http://www.federalist.debate.org ). 2012, No. 3, 64 pp. Annual subscription: €15, $18.
In this issue of the renowned federalist publication, Robert Toulemon looks at three questions raised by the leap into federalism that he calls for, namely the questions of competence, democratisation and differentiation. On the latter, Toulemon (former director general of the European Commission) says that implementing it in line with the desires and abilities of each Member State would be a good way of respecting the European ideal and demonstrating political realism, because the United Kingdom and countries that follow its lead in its allergy to the very concept of federalism can't be placed on a par with countries, for example, that only have a few adjustments to make before they join the euro club. He says that differentiation would lead to clear institutional problems, to which one solution could be 'to admit in the Parliament and the Council, having become the Chamber of States in a bicameral system, the right to participate in a deliberation without voting rights in the matters which are subject of one's derogation.' In the case of the European Commission, however, the idea does not seem so wise because the Commissioners are not supposed to represent their country of origin… No doubt this 'green light' for countries with more ambitious policies would initially lead to the voluntary exit of a minority of countries, but Norway, Liechtenstein and even Switzerland are in the wings to show that arrangements can always be found. Other ideas mooted by Robert Toulemon deserve a mention in this publication, along with some accusations made by other writers. Barbara Spinelli, for example, who says that the 'minimalists' that pilot the European Union in the current crisis and force it to remain unfinished make it 'not democratic, because the peoples, who in all Constitutions have the sovereign power, tend to lose it in the hybrid communitarian space, neither national nor supra-national.' Consequently, historian Antonio Padoa-Schioppa notes the return of the 'the terrible pathology of the Europe of the 1900s,' although most citizens these days are still in favour of a united Europe, their willingness is today 'almost suffocated by the deafening clamour of populism and anti-European demagogy' in politics and the media. Hence the invitation from this professor at Milan University to those who manage the eurozone, urging them not to forget that 'history is also (and perhaps most of all) the result of irrational forces.'
(MT)
*** Fedechoses… pour le fédéralisme. Presse fédéraliste (Maison de l'Europe et des Européens, 13 rue de l'Arbre sec, F-69001 Lyon. Internet: http://www.pressefederaliste.eu ). December 2012, No. 158, 36 pp, €8. Annual subscription: €30.
Once more, in his article for this ever pugnacious, indefatigably old guard federalist publication, veteran journalist Jean-Pierre Gouzy dips his pen in bile as he lectures to the European leaders who manage the European Union 'while remaining in their national logic and paying heed to the timelines of national politics.' He derides the 'umpteenth farcical intergovernmental trip,' last December 'of a Summit of sovereign accountants of the dominant interests of the States they represent.' For this reason, he curses the way they condemn the European project to tread water for so long and lead it to 'rampant re-nationalisation for lack of the necessary resources for any new supranational development.' In this connection, the European Parliament finds itself 'with its back to the wall vis-a-vis its budget responsibilities,' but it is the Council of Ministers he particularly takes to task. Since, in the words of its president, Herman Van Rompuy, 'democratic legitimacy and political responsibility must intervene at the level where decisions are taken,' he relays the question - both impertinent and pertinent - raised by MEP Sylvie Goulard in these terms: 'Who controls the European Council, this collective monarch that decides behind closed doors without allowing debate or being accountable and that can never be overthrown?' Hence this unanswerable comment - though it will be considered lese-majesty: 'The indirect legitimisation of its members in separate national elections where Europe doesn't come up is no longer good enough.' Elsewhere in the review, there is an invitation by three economists - Michel Aglietta, Bernard Barthalay and Michel Herland - to move beyond Europe by 'daring Europe,' and at the very least to agree to consider the answers provided by federalism. Much of the rest of the issue is devoted to the federalist lessons to be drawn from the relations between Europe and the Mediterranean fifty years after Algerian independence, and the tenth anniversary of the International Criminal Tribunal.
(MT)
*** Politique. Revue de débats. ASBL Politique (9 rue du Faucon, B-1000 Brussels. Tel: (32-2) 5386996 -email: secretariat@politique.eu.org - Internet: http://politique.eu.org ). January/February 2013, 78 pp, €9. Annual subscription: €40.
This issue of a review well-known in progressive intellectual circles in Brussels is highly eclectic. It starts with reflection by political analyst Anne Peeters on the fate that Scotland will reserve for itself (and Europe) after the October 2014 referendum on whether to remain in the United Kingdom. Noting the parallel rise in separatist movements (the N-VA in Belgium, Catalan separatists and so on) that say they belong to Europe and support its ideals, she explains that many members of the Scottish Nationalist Party say that separating off from England need not necessarily lead to having to join the European Union. It is not certain that these views are widely shared in Brussels, but the novelty lies in the announcement by David Cameron last week that if the 'no' vote wins in the referendum he is organising on Scottish independence, then an independent Scotland would not be able to demand a continuation of the commitment made by the United Kingdom to join Europe in the 1970s, not that the UK ever challenges those commitments… There is an interesting special report on updating the civil service in Belgium and elsewhere and converting the political world, upon the instigation of the European Union, to a 'new public governance that raises serious questions about democracy.' Historian and political analyst Jean-Paul Nassaux observes that this results in 'public or collective affairs must be treated in the same way as private affairs, political authority being reduced to the role of regulatory agent.' Isn't this precisely where the true democratic deficit begins?
(MT)
*** CHRISTOPH DEMMKE, TIMO MOILANEN: Effectiveness of Public Service Ethics and Good Governance in the Central Administration of the EU-27. Evaluating Reform Outcomes in the Context of the Financial Crisis. Peter Lang (1 Moosstrasse, Postfach 350, CH-2542 Pieterlen. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - Fax: 3761727 - email: info@peterlang.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.com ). 2012, 181 pp, €34-95. ISBN 978-3-631-63288-8.
The past twenty years have seen a mushrooming of codes of ethics in all EU27 Member States and elsewhere to clean up public services and make them provide good service to individuals and the State. But how effective are such codes in practice? This is what two scientists specialising in the public service wanted to know and therefore carried out a detailed comparative study, commented upon in this book. Are civil servants more aware these days of the need to combat discrimination, mobbing, political patronage and so on? One would certainly hope so. Nothing is quite that simply when push comes to shove. Christoph Demmke and Timo Moilanen point out, for example, that ethical codes abound in Eastern countries and Scandinavia, but are not enough in and of themselves: 'This suggests that more rules are needed in a given political, economic, legal and institutional context characterised by low levels of public trust.' The study also shows that countries have invested very little in verifying the efficacy of policies introduced to promote public service ethics or even introduce them in the first place. Another revelation is the fact that ethical policies often emerge in the wake of a scandal when there is such public discontent that there has to be a symbolic demonstration that the State is taking action to prevent such a scandal re-emerging. The problem is that symbolism rarely changes anything in practice… Many other failings and shortcomings are diagnosed and the authors draw attention to issues like the fact that many high-ranking civil servants end their working lives in the private sector. The methods introduced to deal with this type of problem in particular prove especially ineffective, as some people in the Brussels' European quarter would agree.
(PBo)