Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T10:33:26.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evading the joint decision trap: the multiannual financial framework 2014–20

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2015

Jørgen Stenbæk  and
Mads Dagnis Jensen
Jørgen Stenbæk
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Mads Dagnis Jensen*
Affiliation:
The Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark
*
*E-mail: mcjensen@ruc.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On 8 February 2013, the European Council agreed on the EU’s multiannual financial framework for 2014–20. The agreement includes a reduction of the overall spending level and significant reprioritisations. This paper asks how this agreement has been reached. Scharpf’s actor-centered institutionalism is applied, including the concept of the joint-decision trap. The paper finds that the outcome was made possible by compensating the member states that were worst affected by the policy changes. A coalition of net contributors, centered on Germany and the United Kingdom, was influential regarding the overall spending level. In addition, the external environment with the fiscal and economic crisis created a momentum for reduced expenditures. Those against the reduction, the member states in favour of agriculture and cohesion, were not able to avoid cutbacks. Member states in favour of the cohesion policy faced hard conditions for maintaining unity in their coalition, whereas member states in favour of agricultural spending could more easily negotiate for their common interests.

Keywords

multiannual financial frameworkEU’s budgetScharpf’s actor-centered institutionalismjoint decision trap
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 615 - 635
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bache, I. (2007), ‘The politics of redistribution’, in K.E. Jørgensen, M. Pollack and B. Rosamond (ed.), Handbook of European Politics, London: Sage, pp. 395–412.Google Scholar
Barroso, J.M.D. (2012), Statement by President Barroso following the Friends of Cohesion meeting. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-811_en.htm Google Scholar
BBC (2012), Government defeated as MPs vote for EU budget cut. United Kingdom, British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9765000/9765071.stm Google Scholar
Becker, P. (2012), ‘Germany and the European negotiations on the multiannual financial framework’, in Visegrad Group and Germany Prospects of Cooperation: Proceedings from the Policy Makers Seminar, November 13–14, Aspen Institute, Prague, s. 16–18.Google Scholar
Begg, I. (2005), Funding the European Union: A Federal Trust Report on the European Union’s Budget, London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2010), ‘Letter to President of European Commission’. Prime Minister’s Office, United Kingdom. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/letter-to-president-of-european-commission/ Google Scholar
Citi, M. (2013), ‘EU budgetary dynamics: incremental or punctuated equilibrium?’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(8): 1157–1173.Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag (2011), Motion Tabled by the Parliamentary Groups of the CDU/CSU and FDP: The Multiannual Financial Framework of the EU 2014–2020, Berlin: Deutscher Bundestag.Google Scholar
Dinan, D. (2005), Ever Closer Union, An Introduction to European Integration, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dür, A. and Mateo, G. (2010), ‘Bargaining power and negotiation tactics: the negotiations on the EU’s financial perspective 2007–13’, Journal of Common Market Studies 48(3): 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2008), European Union: Public Finance, 4th edn., European Commission, Luxembourg. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/public_fin/EU_pub_fin_en.pdf Google Scholar
European Commission (2011a), ‘EU Budget 2011: financial report’. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/fin_report/fin_report_11_en.pdf Google Scholar
European Commission (2011b), CAP Towards 2020 Impact Assessment: Direct Payments, Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, 1–12.Google Scholar
European Commission (2011c), A Budget for Europe 2020, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Council (EC) (2013), ‘European Council 7/8 February 2013: Conclusions’. General Secretariat of the Council, Brussels.Google Scholar
Europolitics (2012), ‘Friends of Better Spending: nonpaper submitted by AT, DE, FI, FR, IT, NL, SE’. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.europolitics.info/pdf/gratuit_en/313262-en.pdf. Friends of Cohesion (2012).Google Scholar
Falkner, G. (2011a), ‘In and out of EU decision traps: comparative perspectives’, in G. Falkner (ed.), The EU’s Decision Traps: Comparing Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–258.Google Scholar
Falkner, G. (2011b), ‘Introduction: the EU’s Decision traps and their exits: a concept for comparative analysis’, in G. Falkner (ed.), The EU’s Decision Traps: Comparing Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. and Seawright, J. (2008), ‘Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options’, Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294–308.Google Scholar
Hix, S. and Høyland, B. (2011), The Political System of the European Union, 3rd edn, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 218–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M.D. and Nedergaard, P. (2012), ‘From ‘Frankenstein’to ‘toothless vampire’? Explaining the watering down of the services directive’, Journal of European Public Policy 19(6): 844–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalan, D., Tokarski, P. and Toporowski, P. (2012), Visegrad’s Winding Road to the EU Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020. The Polish Institute of International Affairs, PISM Policy Paper no. 39, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Kirkup, J. and Waterfield, B. (2012), ‘David Cameron threatens veto over EU budget rebate’. The Telegraph. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9693186/David-Cameron-threatens-veto-over-EU-budget-rebate.html Google Scholar
Kölling, M. and Leal, C.S. (2012), Spain’s Balancing Act: Net Contributor or Net Beneficiary of the EU Budget, Madrid: Real Instituto Elcano.Google Scholar
Kovacheva, R. (2011), ‘The Future of EU Cohesion Policy 2014–2020’. EU inside. Retrieved 15 March 2013 from http://www.euinside.eu/en/news/the-future-of-eu-cohesion-policy-2014-2020 Google Scholar
Kölling, M. (2012), ‘The multiannual financial framework 2014–20: best European value for less money?’, Perspectives on Federalism 4(3): 24–47.Google Scholar
La Moncloa (2012), ‘Joint press statement by the Agriculture Ministers of Spain and France: after the bilateral meeting held in Paris between Miguel Arias Cañete and Bruno Le Maire’. Madrid: La Moncloa. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/IDIOMAS/9/Gobierno/News/2012/20120214_JointPressStatement_AgricultureMinistersSpainFrance.html.Google Scholar
Laffan, B. and Lindner, J. (2010), ‘The budget’, in H. Wallace, M.A. Pollack and A.R. Young (eds), Policy-Making in the European Union, 6th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–228.Google Scholar
Listhaug, O., MacDonald, E. and Rabinowitz, G. (1995), ‘Political sophistication and models of issue voting’, British Journal of Political Science 25(4): 453–483.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1991), ‘Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European community’, International Organization 45(1): 19–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) (2007), Treaty of Lisbon: Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Official Journal of the European Union (OJ).Google Scholar
Orosz, A. (2012), ‘Romania’, in Krisztina Vide (ed.), Strategic issue for the EU10 countries: Main positions and implications for EU policy-making, Budapest: Foundation for European, Progressive Studies & Institute of World Economics, pp. 191–220.Google Scholar
Polish Government (2012), ‘Friends of Cohesion Policy stand united for EU budget that stimulates growth’. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.msz.gov.pl/en/p/brukselaue_be_s_en/news/20121113_cohesion_policy_ep Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (1988), ‘The logic of two-level games’, International Organization 42(3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rant, V. and Mrak, M. (2010), ‘The 2007–13 financial perspective: domination of national interest’, Journal of Common Market Studies 48(2): 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanian Government (2012), ‘Sessions of the “Friends of Cohesion” Group Conference on “EU Multiannaual Financial Framework 2014–2020”’. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.gov.ro/sessions-of-the-friends-of-cohesion-group-conference-on-eu-multiannual-financial-framework-2014-2020__l2a117305.html Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. (1988), ‘The joint-decision trap: lessons from German federalism and European integration’, Public Administration 66(2): 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F. (1997), Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. (2006), ‘The joint-decision trap revisited’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(4): 845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F. (2011), ‘The JDT model: context and extensions’, in G. Falkner (ed.), The EU’s Decision Traps: Comparing Policies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schild, J. (2008), ‘How to shift the EU’s spending priorities? The multi-annual financial framework 2007–13 in perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy 15(4): 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovakian Republic (2012), ‘Friends of Cohesion Joint Declation on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014–2020’. Retrieved 1 May 2013 from http://www.vlada.gov.sk/friends-of-cohesion-joint-declaration-on-the-multiannual-financial-framework-2014-2020/?pg=2 Google Scholar
The European Affairs Committee (2011), Den franske regerings erklæring vedrørende Kommissionens forslag til EU’s budgetramme 2014--2020. Copenhagen: Folketinget. Retrieved from http://www.ft.dk/samling/20111/kommissionsforslag/kom(2011)0500/bilag/1/index.html.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, UK, Princeton: University Press, pp. 1–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, H. (2005), ‘Exercising Power and Influence in the European Union: The Roles of Member States’, in S. Bulmer and C. Lequesne (eds), The Member States of the European Union, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stenbæk and Jensen supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Stenbæk and Jensen supplementary material(File)
File 52.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Stenbæk and Jensen supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Stenbæk and Jensen supplementary material(File)
File 58.6 KB