Coordinator: Renaud Dehousse / Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris

Recent work on EU governance has highlighted the necessity to reconsider standard views of European policy-making. Much emphasis has been laid on the many forms of partnership that may exist between European policy makers and private actors. The concept of Europeanization has been coined to suggest that it might be useful to look beyond the work of EU institutions, and analyze the impact of European policies in areas that were not (or not fully) taken over by the EU. Changes are also noteworthy at the level of policy instruments. Two main trends can be identified, which broadly affect the whole range of EU policies: a move away from rigid "command and control" rules towards softer rules, often worked out and implemented in cooperation with stakeholders of various kinds, and enhanced decentralization, with attempts to identify alternatives to the standard "Community method" or to the strengthening of the EU Commission. Although these two trends are analytically distinct, they are at times combined. The 'Open Method of Coordination" launched by the Lisbon European Council, for instance, appears to blend flexibility and decentralization.

This thematic focus of Research Group 6 on "new instruments" establishes a strong link between CONNEX and the NEWGOV integrated project. However, the focus of RG 6 is primarily characterised by its overlap with the other thematic focuses of CONNEX Task 2: gains and challenges of civil society in multi-level governance (RG 4+5), institutional architecture of multi-level governance (RG 1) and enhancing democracy in European governance (RG 2+3) (see 6.2). This overlap establishes a strong research interest in the legitimacy and efficiency of new instruments of governance. Yet, the linkage between RG 6 and NEWGOV is an important fundament for thematic co-operation with NEWGOV participants at the level of work packages.

The overall ambition of Research Group 6 is to take stock of the studies that have been carried out in a wide number of policy areas and identify a number of cross-cutting trends regarding both the actors and the policy instruments. Its main objectives will therefore be threefold: to examine the patterns of relationships that exist between the whole range of actors (national and European, public and private) intervening in European public policies, to analyze the reasons that have led to the emergence of new modes of governance, and to provide an evaluation of their performance from an efficiency and a legitimacy standpoint.

The structure of the research team will be organized around broad themes, in order to allow cross-fertilization between groups working on different policy areas. The following themes will be given consideration:

1. European Policy Networks as an Alternative to Centralization?

The existence of policy networks, bringing together actors exerting similar functions in their respective countries, is hardly a novel feature on the European scene. the web of EU committees or, more recently, European agencies, have been analyzed along these lines. Yet, there has been in recent times a widespread tendency to regard decentralized, network based-approaches as a surrogate to the transfer of powers at European level, which is a central element of the community model. The open method of coordination explicitly relies on such an approach in order to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and to foster policy convergence. the establishment of networks of national regulators has been encouraged by the European commission; it has even been presented as a prerequisite of the recent reform of anti-trust policy. Various forms of networking are also explored in the third pillar.

To make sense of such an evolution requires a clearer understanding of the way networks operate. at EU level, their functions seem to vary widely: some are meant to enhance professional values and promote mutual learning, others to defend joint interests, other still have been given a formal role in the implementation of EU policies. Their degree of openness, their links with 'stakeholders', their interface with 'government' structures, both at domestic and at EU level, would need to be analyzed systematically in order to assess under what conditions they can contribute to the efficiency of EU policies. Moreover, network-based solutions may entail costs in terms of openness and accountability: these will be analyzed in connection with the work done in the framework Research Rroup n. 2.

2. Partnership and Participation: The Shifting Boundary between Public and Private Actors

Partnership with non-governmental actors has become a key concept in several EU policies, ranging from economic and social cohesion to environmental policy or to development cooperation. It has also played a central role in social or in standardization policies. In addition, the Commission's White Paper on governance and the ensuing decisions have paid much attention to the general issue of participation in the elaboration and implementation of EU policies. Taken together, these elements may be seen as indicating a shift in the responsibilities of public and private actors.

While partnership and participation have often been justified resorting to efficiency considerations (stakeholders being supposed to master the technical knowledge required for an efficient policy) , legitimacy concerns have also been of importance, as some actors (social partners, representatives of the 'general interest') are viewed as the holders of a legitimacy capital. Research will identify the conditions that have led to the emergence of these new instruments, and analyze the impact they have had. On a normative plane, the discussion will address the criticisms voiced at delegation techniques that often appear as deviations from the democratic principle or at participation principles which may end up defeating any hope to hold governments accountable for their deeds.

3. Policy Coordination and Policy Transfers

In an ever larger number of policy areas, policy coordination has been presented as a way to "Europeanize" decision-making while at the same time preserving the autonomy of national governments. However, the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact suggest that there are limits to the effectiveness of such an approach. The impact of the Open Method of Cooperation launched in Lisbon also needs to be carefully assessed.

Are common, broad objectives enough to ensure coordination when it is needed? What is their actual impact on the national plane? Does their existence alter the balance of power between the various actors involved in domestic policy processes? Under what conditions do policy transfers actually take place? Are binding rules necessary in some fields (e.g. fiscal or tax policies?) If yes, what kind of rules? How can one "coordinate coordination" in order to ensure a fair balance between efficiency and legitimacy concerns? Furthermore, the technocratic character of existing coordination devices has often been criticized. Research will therefore have to identify ways to ensure a democratic debate on the objectives and achievements of coordination mechanisms.

4. Soft Policy Instruments

The much-noticed tendency to avoid whenever possible 'hard law' instruments and give preference to softer regulatory techniques is a radical departure from the 'integration through law' approach that has dominated the first decades of the European construction.

The analysis of these developments will be carried out taking stock of experience in areas in which such a technique has long been resorted to. Attention will also be given to the fact that hard and soft law are no mutually exclusive categories: the impact of soft rules may be conditioned by the possibility of harder interventions; soft law may also be a mere stage on the path towards 'classical' rules.

Empirical research is needed to assess the effectiveness of these mechanisms in relation to the objectives pursued at EU level. Can soft policy instruments trigger policy change despite the absence of clear legal sanctions? How can they be used by domestic actors? Do they provide a sufficient degree of certainty? How can their use be controlled?

5. The Europeanization of Risk Regulation

Risk regulation has become a dominant concern at the European level in the 1990s, largely in the wake of the 1992 programme. It has indeed appeared that the initial division of labour, according to which safety was mainly in the hands of national governments, was not viable in a single market. At the same time, the winds of subsidiary have prevented the emergence of a strong European regulator in many areas. One is therefore in a grey zone where the principles governing the demarcation of powers between the EU and its member states are not always clear.

Research undertaken within the network will provide a critical assessment of the devices that have been established to ensure cooperation between the national and the European level in various areas. It will need to address the mighty problem of how to integrate scientific expertise in policy decisions. Particular attention will also be given to the procedural devices that may be used to give flesh to the precautionary principle, in order to prevent its arbitrary use.