„Europäische Institutionen kommunizieren zu wenig“ – so lautet eine der jüngsten Diagnosen zur steigenden EU-Verdrossenheit und niedrigen Wahlbeteiligung bei Europawahlen. Gleichzeitig versichern Europäisches Parlament und Kommission, wie nie zu vor alles daran zu setzen EU-Politik Bürgern zu vermitteln. Wie lässt sich dieser Widerspruch erklären?
Dieser Band geht dieser Frage nach und untersucht – aus einem handlungs- und organisationstheoretischen Blickwinkel, mit Hilfe von qualitativen Interviews – die Intentionen, Organisationsprozesse und Machtstrukturen, auf denen die institutionelle Kommunikation des EU-Parlaments und der Kommission basiert. Anhand der gewonnenen inner-institutionellen Einblicke lässt sich erklären, warum beide Institutionen nicht nur öffentlichen, sondern auch eigenen idealtypischen Vorstellungen von demokratischer Kommunikation nicht entsprechen - und nicht entsprechen können. Damit bietet die Arbeit nicht nur einen alternativen theoretischen Blickwinkel auf die akademische Debatte um das Kommunikationsdefizit der EU. Die aufgezeigten Zusammenhänge sind auch für die Praktiker institutioneller EU-Kommunikation von großer Relevanz.
| 1 |
Putting the project into context |
| 1.1 |
Looking for the relevance of communication in EU research |
| 1.1.1 |
Enhancing EU legitimacy through public communication? |
| 1.1.2 |
Why should the EP and the Commission communicate? |
| 1.1.3 |
The changing role of institutional communication throughout the integration process |
| 1.2 |
The notion of an EU communication deficit |
| 1.2.1 |
What should EU institutions communicate? |
| 1.2.1.1 |
Normative expectations |
| 1.2.1.2 |
Professional demands |
| 1.2.2 |
How EU institutions do not communicate what they are expected to |
| 1.2.3 |
Researching the EU institutional communication deficit |
| 1.3 |
Explaining the EU's communication deficit |
| 1.3.1 |
External boundaries to EU institutional communication |
| 1.3.2 |
Formal institutional obstacles |
| 1.3.3 |
Shifting from structural to actor-centred explanations |
| 1.3.3.1 |
Lack of determination |
| 1.3.3.2 |
Problems with coordinating institutional communication |
| 1.3.3.3 |
Internal rivalries |
| 1.3.4 |
Explaining the EU institutions' communication deficit |
| 2 |
Institutional communication from an actor-centred perspective: Developing an analytical framework |
| 2.1 |
The complex nature of institutional communicators |
| 2.1.1 |
Corporate institutional actors — beyond unitary conceptions |
| 2.1.2 |
The many communicators in the EP and the Commission |
| 2.1.3 |
Implications for EU institutional communication |
| 2.2 |
Public communications and the intentionality of human (social) action |
| 2.2.1 |
Norm-oriented motives for public communication |
| 2.2.2 |
Interest-based communication aims |
| 2.2.3 |
Conflicting public communication intentions |
| 2.3 |
Public communication and institutional action constraints |
| 2.3.1 |
Sitational and individual constraints |
| 2.3.2 |
Organisational constraints: procedures and structures |
| 2.3.3 |
Social constraints: political power and social profile |
| 2.4 |
Explaining EU institutional communication efforts |
| 3 |
Methodological Considerations |
| 3.1 |
Analysing EU institutional communication activities |
| 3.2 |
Analysing EU institutional communication intentions |
| 3.2.1 |
Document analysis |
| 3.2.2 |
Interviews |
| 3.3 |
Analysing EU institutional internal capability structures |
| 3.4 |
Critical evaluation |
| 4 |
Communicating the Services Directive and REACH |
| 4.1 |
The timing of and occasions for institutional press communication |
| 4.2 |
Making EU politics public — the EU institutions' communication of political responsibility, conflict and responsiveness |
| 4.2.1 |
Communication of political responsibility? |
| 4.2.2 |
Communication of diversity of opinions? |
| 4.2.3 |
Communication of responsiveness? |
| 4.3 |
EU institutional communication: between expectations and performance |
| 5 |
Why and how to make EU politics public: Communication intentions |
| 5.1 |
What the documents say: The official line to take |
| 5.2 |
What the interviewees say: a variety of communication intentions |
| 5.2.1 |
On communicating political responsibility |
| 5.2.2 |
On communicating conflict |
| 5.2.3 |
On communicating responsiveness |
| 5.2.4 |
On the absence of any communication intentions |
| 5.3 |
Actor patterns of intentional differences |
| 5.4 |
Communication intentions: the Services Directive and REACH |
| 6 |
The two institutions' communication ability: Organisational constraints |
| 6.1 |
Formal organisational structures and procedures |
| 6.1.1 |
Planning structures |
| 6.1.2 |
Monitoring structures |
| 6.1.3 |
Coordination structures |
| 6.2 |
Limits to formal organisational structures and procedures |
| 6.2.1 |
Limits of planning structures and procedures |
| 6.2.2 |
Limits to monitoring structures and procedures |
| 6.2.3 |
Limits of coordination structures and procedures |
| 6.3 |
Organisational constraints: the Services Directive and REACH |
| 7 |
The two institutions' communication ability: Social restrictions |
| 7.1 |
Social restrictions and the definition of institutional communication aims |
| 7.1.1 |
The European Parliament |
| 7.1.2. |
The European Commission |
| 7.2 |
Social resources and the use of organisational structures |
| 7.2.1 |
The European Parliament |
| 7.2.2 |
The European Commission |
| 7.3 |
Social restrictions — the Services Directive and REACH |
| 8 |
Summary and conclusion |
| 8.1 |
The characteristics of EU institutional press communication |
| 8.2 |
The institutional communication development process |
| 8.3 |
Relating the development process to the institutional press release features |
| 8.4 |
Beyond the empirics: Theorising an EU institutional communication |
| 8.5 |
Conclusion |
| |
References |
