European Regions in Brussels: Towards Functional Interest Representation? Riccardo Trobbiani
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
European regions in Brussels: towards functional interest representation? Riccardo Trobbiani DEPARTMENT OF EUROPEAN POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES Bruges Political Research Papers 53 / 2016 1 European Political and Administrative Studies / Etudes politiques et administratives européennes Bruges Political Research Papers / Cahiers de recherche politique de Bruges No 53 / June 2016 European regions in Brussels: towards functional interest representation? By Riccardo Trobbiani © Riccardo Trobbiani European Political and Administrative Studies/ Études Politiques et Administratives Dijver 11, B-8000 Brugge, Belgium www.coleurope.eu/pol 2 3 About the author Riccardo Trobbiani is an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe (European General Studies programme) and Visiting Researcher at the United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) in Bruges. He holds a Bachelor in Political Science and International Relations from the University of Rome, a Master of Science from the University of Bristol in IR, and an Italian Master’s degree in European Studies from the University of Bologna. He is currently working on regionalism within the UN system and on European Cultural Diplomacy efforts in the Middle East, researching in the framework of an EU-funded project. This paper is part of a larger work on regional interest representation vis-à-vis EU institutions, analysing both national and European channels. Contact Details [email protected] or [email protected] Editorial Team Michele Chang, Laurie Andrieu, Umur Akansel, Sébastien Commain, Brice Cristoforetti, Katherine McKeon, Samuel Verschraegen, and Olivier Costa Fax +32 (0) 50 477 280 ׀ Tel. +32 (0) 50 477 281 ׀ Dijver 11, B-8000 Bruges, Belgium website www.coleurope.eu/pol ׀ email [email protected] Views expressed in the Bruges Political Research Papers are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect positions of either the series editors or the College of Europe. If you would like to be added to the mailing list and be informed of new publications and department events, please email [email protected]. Or find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/coepol 4 5 Abstract Opportunities structures for participation in EU policy-making are characterised by the inefficiency of institutional channels of territorial representation and the progressive inclusion of broad civil society in new systems of consultation and cooperation with EU institutions. Recent Multilevel Governance literature has recognised an increasing convergence in strategies of territorial and functional actors to respond to these challenges. Nevertheless, it has neglected the partial shift of European regions from territorial institutional representation to lobbying strategies based on acting as intermediaries for functional interests. Through strong cooperation with the private sector, regions go beyond their purely institutional roles, partly presenting themselves as actors of functional representation and thus playing by the same rules of most lobbying actors in Brussels: providing specialised and genuine information to EU institutions in exchange for inclusion in the policy-making process. 6 7 Many contemporary democratic systems no longer rely on territorial representation as the only way to bridge state and society. On the European stage, EU institutions have increasingly been targeted by actors engaging in functional interest representation through a variety of more or less regulated organisations and networks. This situation is no secret, and the need for EU institutions to be open to civil society beyond purely institutional channels is acknowledged by the treaties themselves. In fact, article 11 of the Treaty on the European Union explicitly states that ‘the institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society’, giving voice to ‘citizens and representative association’ and consulting ‘the parties concerned’ (TEU, Art.11). Regional authorities are among these societal actors seeking participation to the European decision-making process. This paper acknowledges that simply treating them as institutional actors of territorial interest representation constitutes an obsolescent approach, unable to grasp the real nature of regional involvement in European policy-making. On the contrary, regions have increasingly engaged in functional representation, aggregating interests from civil society and economic actors and creating policy-specific networks at the European level. The convergence of the lobbying strategies and channels used by territorial and functional actors has been addressed by the literature analysing regional interest representation in Brussels (see e.g. Huysseune and Jans, 2008) and more broadly within the theoretical framework of Multilevel Governance (MLG), which has been updated in order to better describe this phenomenon (see e.g. Conzelmann, 2008; Greenwood, 2011a; Knodt, 2011; Knodt et al., 2011; Piattoni, 2009; 2009a; 2011). Despite containing almost all the suggestions needed for this further analytical step, most of this research has neither strongly claimed the rise of a functional, policy-specific, approach to interest representation by the regions nor systematically addressed 1) the reasons generating this trend 2) the potential change in modalities and channels of representation 3) how this redefines the concept of regional interest. This will be the focus of this paper, which will try to answer the following research question: are regions in Brussels increasingly acting as actors of functional representation? If so, what are the reasons behind this trend? How does this change the channels and means they use to influence EU policy making?1 It will be claimed that, through strong cooperation with the 1 The analysis proposed by this paper is by no means exhaustive of all the paths available for European regions to participate to EU decision-making and inevitably leaves out national channels, those constituted by administrative levels (e.g. Seconded National Experts) as well as channels created by other social and political actors, like political parties. 8 private sector, regions go beyond their purely institutional roles, increasingly presenting themselves as intermediaries for functional interests within their territory and thus playing by the same rules of most lobbying actors in Brussels: providing specialised and genuine information to EU institutions in exchange for inclusion in the policy-making process. The persistent inefficiency of institutional channels of territorial representation like the Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the Council of the EU – together with the rise of new opportunity structures in the Commission consultation regime – push regions to create interregional networks focusing on a single policy or policy area. The latter provide a channel to aggregate functional interests from the regions, and are included in the consultation mechanisms of the European Commission as ‘experts’ on specific policy fields. This system is animated by the offices of the regions in Brussels, which permanently incorporate or periodically host representatives of chambers of commerce, universities, research centres, trade unions, farmers associations and other stakeholders with territorially-based functional interests. The research will draw upon the literature on Multilevel Governance and regional interest representation, also making use of official documents and websites from the organizations analysed. The analysis is also enriched by set of six semi-structured interviews carried out in Brussels with two heads of regional representative offices, two policy officers within their teams, and two employees in the Secretariats of two interregional networks. First, it will be discussed how the theoretical framework of Multilevel Governance understands the organisation of interest representation in Europe along the divides relevant for this analysis: territorial vs. functional, institutional vs. private, and general purpose vs. policy- specific. Building upon this framework, the second section will present the partial shift of regional representation from its institutional-territorial form to a model which represents functional interests. This section will engage with the contribution of the existing literature on this topic. The following two sections will discuss the inadequacy for the regions of the institutional channels provided for territorial representation at the European level: the Council of the European Unions and the committee of the Regions. Subsequently, we will discuss the mixed functional and territorial nature of the role of regional offices in Brussels. Finally, it will be shown how the rise of sectoral interregional networks and their structure and work provide empirical evidence for claiming the increasingly functional nature of regional interest representation. 9 1. EU’s Multilevel Governance: beyond territorial representation Multilevel Governance defines the existence of multiple levels of decision-making beyond the national and supranational one in Europe (Piattoni, 2009:176). This is not only a de facto situation dictated by the ‘multi-actorness’ of European politics, but is also signalled by the ‘overlapping competencies among multiple levels of governments’ (Littoz-Monnet, 2010:4) – which especially spread through the process of administrative devolution in last decades of the 20th century. Multilevel