Decision Making in the European Union - towards a Framework for Analysis by Peterson John - Article Example

Article review: “Decision making in the European Union: Towards a Framework for Analysis” by Peterson John 1995 Introduction Peterson article details how policy networks can be used to analyze European Union policy making process. This is informed by the fact that there exist gaps between the theoretical models which have tried to explain the varied patterns of European integration. This is happening behind the back drop the growing literature on policy making within EU. His article states that many types of policy networks exist in EU mainly due lack of institutions that can facilitate bargaining in addition to the fact that most decisions developed at policy formulations has great influence on the final outcome of the policy. The article groups decision making process at EU into three levels. These include super systemic which are involved in history making, systemic which is involved in policy setting and sub systemic which is involved in policy shaping. Each of these levels uses different theory in carrying out its mandate. This paper reviews Peterson’s article outlining main arguments, uniqueness, the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Based on this review the paper makes a conclusion. Main argument of the article Peterson argues in his article that in spite the fact that there has been much literature on EU policies; the literature available does not address the problem of lack of coherent and theoretical framework necessary for understanding policy making process in European countries. He notes that the process and patterns of making policies vary from sector to sector. He provides a solution to this problem by suggesting the need for dissecting policy making process in EU for better understanding of the process. He argues that macro frameworks have dominated the integration of EU even though neo realism is at the center of international relations. The domination of macro frameworks is viewed by Peterson as a way of overshadowing the process of decision making since people are concerned with making history which mainly shed light on the system of governance that is in place in EU. He further argues that sectoral analysis has relied mainly on explanatory models of policy networks in explaining networks instead of conceptualizing policy networks. Thus Peterson concludes that due to this, discrepancies in theories which explain European integration patterns and those which explain decision making at sectoral level in EU are wide. Peterson also criticizes the existing literature for failing to realize that as a form of governance EU needs to be compared to another system instead of assuming that it can only be compared to itself. Thus, Peterson article proposes use of policy networks for analyzing EU governance and integrates these policy networks within theoretical framework to assist in comparing EU governance system with other systems of governance. He argues that this will ensure formidable bargaining between different participants at sectoral level. In addition, he believes that this will ensure that decisions used to formulate the policies will determine the policy outcome. Peterson article analyses the level, type of decision, dominant actors and rationality of the policy making process. He points out three levels which include super systemic which are involved in history making, systemic which is involved in policy setting and sub systemic which is involved in policy shaping. Actors at super systemic level include European council, national governments in IGCs and European court of justice. Actors in systemic level include council of ministers and committee of permanent representatives (COREPER). On the other hand meso level actors include commission, committees and council groups. Peterson argues that policy formulation and eventual policy outcome linkage has been ignored in EU governance. He associates this neglect to over reliance on theoretical tools which are associated with international relations instead relying on theoretical tools associated with public administration. He argues that many scholars who have applied rational choice have ignored meso level decision making because of its difficulty. Therefore, these scholars failed to realize the importance of sub systemic level which is involved in policy shaping. Peterson argues that the importance meso level decision making in EU cannot be understated like in other systems of governance in determination of policy outcomes and therefore it should not be ignored. Due to the lack of formal institutions which can help in bargaining, policy networks are very essential in EU for this purpose. Furthermore, Peterson argues that better understanding of meso level decision making can help realize the usefulness of network concept. Uniqueness of the article Unlike much of the available literature which ignores the importance of meso-level decision making in EU governance system, Peterson article emphasizes the importance of this level in EU in spite its complexity. Even though meso-level decision making is usually used in political systems of governance, it is usually utilized at the upper level. However, Peterson suggests that this level of decision making in EU needs to be used at the third level of EU system which involves shaping the policy formulated at the super systemic level. In addition, many scholarly literatures have overlooked meso level in EU policy making. Peterson article argues that better understanding of meso level decision making can enable application of policy networks which seems to be difficult to apply to EU system due to its openness, fragmentation and messiness of EU meso level. The article advocates for the need of policy networks to help in bargaining for different issues by actors in EU. This is because EU lacks formal institutions which can help in the bargaining process. Peterson article is unique in that it emphasizes the need for meso-level decision making as being one of the determinants of the outcomes of EU policy which is contrary to other literary works which seem to overshadow the importance of this level in decision making process. He provides three features that characterize meso level decision making of EU. First, he states that political controls of this level are weak. Second, he [points out that decision making at meso level in EU is more complex than that found in national level. Third, he emphasizes that eventual decision outcomes depends on the early stages of the Eu p[olicy process. Peterson article also appreciates the fact that policy may change but points out that previous works have not addressed the issue on how this can occur. He therefore proposes more research to be undertaken on whether policy networks can withstand change at the level of EU than at the level individual nations. Critical appraisal a) Strengths of the article Peterson outlines the three levels of decision making found in EU. These are super systemic which is involved in history making, systemic which is involved in policy setting and sub systemic which is involved in policy shaping. Unlike previous works Peterson article points out different theories that may be applied at different levels of decision making. For instance he states that history making decisions can use macro theories to try to explain outcomes. However, he points out that these macro theories are not able to satisfactorily give explanations for outcomes of systemic level of EU decision making. Peterson pinpoints that new institutionalism theories can be used too explain institutional change at systemic level in stead of macro theories. He appreciates the fact that institutional change can result in alteration of the structure of policy network at the meso level since this may transform patterns of resource dependency. On the other hand, Peterson argues that in spite the complexity of policy networks, when they are well understood they can help in explaining the outcomes of resource dependencies decisions of meso level in EU system of governance. Peterson concludes that meso level decision making is more essential in EU system of governance than in national governance even though it has been overlooked by many authors. Unlike previous works which compares EU governance to itself, Peterson compares EU to federal states like those found in Germany, United States of America and Canada. In fact macro theories for example neo realism and neo functionalism conceptualize EU as a mere alliance of nations. However, Peterson conceptualizes EU as a form of governance in itself. Thus he argues that analytical tools of comparative politics should be used to explain systemic change in EU instead of using international relations. However due to sovereignty and unanimous and intergovernmental history decision making nature of EU, Peterson argues that theories of international relations are still required. Furthermore, previous works on policy making in EU have underestimated the role of meso-level decision making. However, Peterson outlines the importance of this level in EU decision making process. He points out that this level is essential for shaping the policy formulated at super systemic and set at systemic levels. In his argument Peterson states that at this level decision making involves sectors which are characterized by loose issue networks which are fluid and changeable. Thus outcomes of decision making on discrete issues have no clear pattern of resource dependencies. Therefore policy networks are used to explain outcomes at this level of poly making instead of macro theories. b) Weaknesses of the article Peterson article divides the decision making process into various levels: super systemic, systemic and sub systemic level. However, this division fails to account for the impact of political outcomes in the member states of EU on the EU governance. He assumes that domestic politics only have effect on super systemic and systemic level which use macro and new institutionalism to explain outcomes but no effect on meso level. However, it should be realized that any effect on upper levels of decision making process are likely to trickle down to meso level and therefore domestic political outcomes can still have an impact on the policy making at meso level. Just like previous theories, Peterson article do not provide information on whether policy networks can withstand change or not. This calls for more research to be undertaken in this area. Even though policy networks are complex in explaining outcomes of meso level decisions, Peterson do not provide a solution of circumventing this complexity but instead states that the importance of meso level decision making is important in EU than other systems of governance. Conclusion Many authors on decision making process of European Union have relied on macro theories to explain the process. They have paid little or no interest on other theories. They have put aside the issue of policy networks as a way of explaining the process of decision making at EU. This is informed by the complexity of policy networks. Furthermore, these authors have neglected the importance of meso level decision making in EU. In addition, EU is seen as an international relation instead of a system of governance. However, Peterson has come from the woods to revert all these. Peterson proposes that EU should be seen as a form of federal government with member countries representing states. He advocates for the segmentation of the decision making process at EU into three levels: super systemic which are involved in history making, systemic which is involved in policy setting and sub systemic which is involved in policy shaping. Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of meso level in decision making in EU as opposed to national level. Finally, Peterson reiterates on the need of policy networks at meso level decision making. The reasoning behind this is that EU lack formal institutions which can be used by different actors in EU to bargain for their interest and the fact that formulation of policies have an ultimate effect on the their outcomes. Even though Peterson article has weaknesses such as lack of explanation of the impact of political outcomes in the member states of EU on the EU governance the adoption of the proposals made by Peterson can be of great value to EU in terms of decision making process. Read More