Expertise, politics and public opinion at the crossroads of the European Commission’s decision-making: The case of Glyphosate.

G. Bazzan, M. Migliorati
{"title":"Expertise, politics and public opinion at the crossroads of the European Commission’s decision-making: The case of Glyphosate.","authors":"G. Bazzan, M. Migliorati","doi":"10.4000/irpp.849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the growing politicisation of European Union (EU) integration, the European Commission is increasingly facing a tension between technocratic and responsive decision-making. How does this tension play out in the process of supranational implementation under comitology rules? We argue that the tension between the Commission´s role as a technocrat and as a responsive bureaucrat takes place during the implementation process when the issue at stake becomes politicised. We test our argument through the analysis of the Glyphosate renewal procedure (2015-2017). We process-trace the case by means of semi-structured interviews, media and document analysis. We find that with the increase of issue visibility and subsequent politicisation, the Commission progressively abandons a purely technocratic behaviour. First, it puts in place political strategies such as delays and blame-shifting to release itself from the burden of unpopular decisions. Secondly, it seeks to respond to concerns expressed by consumers by proposing compromise-based measures closer to public interest. Ultimately, we show how the outcome of the policy process is mediated by politicisation and characterised by a shift from technocratic to responsive decision making.","PeriodicalId":33409,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

With the growing politicisation of European Union (EU) integration, the European Commission is increasingly facing a tension between technocratic and responsive decision-making. How does this tension play out in the process of supranational implementation under comitology rules? We argue that the tension between the Commission´s role as a technocrat and as a responsive bureaucrat takes place during the implementation process when the issue at stake becomes politicised. We test our argument through the analysis of the Glyphosate renewal procedure (2015-2017). We process-trace the case by means of semi-structured interviews, media and document analysis. We find that with the increase of issue visibility and subsequent politicisation, the Commission progressively abandons a purely technocratic behaviour. First, it puts in place political strategies such as delays and blame-shifting to release itself from the burden of unpopular decisions. Secondly, it seeks to respond to concerns expressed by consumers by proposing compromise-based measures closer to public interest. Ultimately, we show how the outcome of the policy process is mediated by politicisation and characterised by a shift from technocratic to responsive decision making.
欧盟委员会决策十字路口的专业知识、政治和公众舆论:草甘膦案。
随着欧盟一体化日益政治化,欧盟委员会越来越面临技术官僚和响应决策之间的紧张关系。在滑稽规则下的超国家实施过程中,这种紧张关系是如何表现的?我们认为,委员会作为技术官僚和响应官僚的角色之间的紧张关系发生在执行过程中,当相关问题变得政治化时。我们通过分析草甘膦更新程序(2015-2017)来检验我们的论点。我们通过半结构化访谈、媒体和文件分析的方式对案件进行追踪。我们发现,随着问题知名度的提高和随后的政治化,委员会逐渐放弃了纯粹的技术官僚行为。首先,它制定了拖延和推卸责任等政治策略,以摆脱不受欢迎的决定的负担。其次,它试图通过提出更接近公众利益的基于妥协的措施来回应消费者表达的担忧。最终,我们展示了政策过程的结果是如何通过政治化来调节的,其特征是从技术官僚转向响应决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信