When discussing the policy making of the European Union (EU) one has several actors to consider. This paper is going to analyse the role of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and in how far it is possible for the President to influence, structure and guide policy making in the complex institutional setting of the EU. This also leaves room for 'good' and 'bad' presidencies. But what does it mean to have lead a good presidency or a failed one? One major issue that has to be kept in mind is that for the evaluation of a presidency there are so far no common guidelines. One attempt to introduce a method has been done by Schoutt and Vanhoonacker in their paper
„Evaluating Presidencies of the Council of the EU Revisiting“ of 2006. In this paper it becomes clear that fulfilling a good presidency depends on several factors and that this cannot be explained through the sheer size of a country.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Presidency of the European Union
3. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The paper examines the role of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers within the European Union, specifically analyzing how the President influences, structures, and guides policy-making processes amidst complex institutional constraints and the necessity of maintaining trust among member states.
- The rotation system and its role as a "great equalizer" among EU member states.
- Administrative burdens and the power of agenda-setting in the Council.
- The function of the "troika" in ensuring political consistency and smooth transitions.
- The "honest broker" role and the exercise of diplomatic skills in compromise-finding.
- Methodological approaches to evaluating the success or failure of a Presidency.
Excerpt from the Book
The Presidency of the European Union
The paper will start with a detailed discussion of what it means to have the presidency and what is expected of the Presidency. A presidency is termed for six months and every member state of the EU has its turn. This rotation is ordered according to a system which ensures that there is a variance between small and big, as well as new and old, member states. This system functions as a „great equalizer“between the different states, since every member has the same chance to „run things“(Cini, p. 152, 2003). In order to ensure a certain consistency of politics under the different presidencies, the so-called troika was introduced. This troika consists of the „preceding, current and succeeding Presidencies“(Nugent, p. 161, 2006). The troika ensures communication between the presidencies which is especially necessary in terms of multi-annual programs. The troika also ensures a smooth transition between the different presidencies, since in this way it is ensured that every presidencies has had some involvement into the issues before it has to run the whole system.
In order to assess the work of the presidency one has to know its duties and the connected possibilities. On an administrative level, the presidency is a massive strain on the bureaucratic resources of the countries holding the presidency, since it has to provide „chairpersons for all meetings held at all levels of the Council hierarchy“ (Hayes-Renshaw in Shackelton, p. 70, 2006). Although it is an imense burden, it means nontheless that the country has the possibility to influence decision making on all levels of the decision making process in the Council, since as a chair the country has the responsibility to set the agenda. Agenda - setting is a great way to exercise some influence on the policy-making process, since here the possibility is given to decide which „issues are covered and in what order“ (Cini, 2003, p. 153).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the research context, highlighting the lack of common guidelines for evaluating EU presidencies and the potential to influence policy.
2. The Presidency of the European Union: This section details the administrative duties, the role of the troika, the importance of neutrality, and evaluates performance through the lens of contingency theory using the French presidency as a case study.
3. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes that while a Presidency has significant room to shape policy, its influence is constrained by institutional factors and the critical necessity of maintaining trust.
Keywords
Presidency of the Council, European Union, Policy-making, Agenda-setting, Troika, Council of Ministers, Contingency theory, Neutrality, Honest broker, Institutional constraints, Decision-making, Diplomacy, Member states, Political influence, EU enlargement
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper explores the role and influence of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers within the European Union's institutional framework.
What are the central thematic areas covered?
The text focuses on the duties of the presidency, the rotation system, the function of the troika, administrative burdens, and the criteria for evaluating the success of a presidency.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to analyze to what extent the Presidency can influence, structure, and guide policy-making in the complex EU environment.
Which scientific approach or method is applied?
The author discusses the contingency theory proposed by Schout and Vanhoonacker, which evaluates presidencies based on the balance between Demand and Supply.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the rotation system, the administrative responsibilities of the chair, the "honest broker" role, and a critical analysis of the 2000 French presidency.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Presidency of the Council, Agenda-setting, Troika, Policy-making, and Institutional constraints.
How does the "troika" system function within the EU?
The troika, consisting of the preceding, current, and succeeding presidencies, ensures political consistency and smooth transitions across multi-annual programs.
Why is the 2000 French presidency considered a significant case study?
It is analyzed to demonstrate how institutional and national constraints, as well as the loss of trust among member states, can limit a presidency's ability to achieve successful compromises.
What role does "trust" play in the effectiveness of a presidency?
Trust is identified as a crucial factor; once member states lose trust in the Presidency's neutrality, it becomes significantly harder for that country to effectively shape policy.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Bachelor of Arts Esther Schuch (Autor:in), 2007, Presidency of the European Union, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/183386
