Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
6.0
5.0
4.0
Monetary Policy
Economic Freedom
Competition
Agriculture
Interregional
Interpersonal
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1957 (R)
1987 (SEA)
1993 (M)
1999 (A)
2003 (N)
2004 (C)
FIGURE 4.1. Unbalanced Policy Integration in the European Union (1957-2004)
(
Source:
Author's elaboration on the basis of B orzel 2005)
(whether the issue falls under EU competence) and the scope (what decision
making procedure applies to each policy) to ascertain the extent of integra-
tion across policy domains.
1
Figure 4.1
averages the scores for level and scope
across six areas: economic freedom, competition and industry, monetary pol-
icy, judicial affairs, territorial economic and social cohesion (i.e., interregional
redistribution), and taxes (i.e., interpersonal redistribution).
Lower values indicate lower levels of integration within a particular pol-
icy realm, and vice versa. Observations across time reflect the key legislative
moments throughout the process of integration: the Treaty of Rome, the Single
European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty,
and the draft European Constitution (
2004
).
Figure 4.1
brings out two important aspects of the dynamics of integration.
First, policy integration is very unbalanced in the EU. While market integration
spills over some policy realms, such as judicial affairs, others, such as taxes
and transfers, remain sheltered at the national level. Second, and central to
1
The scale for
level
is as follows: 1
=
exclusive national competence; 2
=
shared competences
dominated by national states; 3
shared competences with equal level of responsibility between
the union and the member states; 4
=
=
shared competences dominated by the EU; and 5
=
compe-
tence at the EU level. The
scale
for scope is as follows: 0
=
no coordination; 1
=
unanimity rule,
there is coordination but each nation state has veto power; 2
same as 1, but the commission
may have legislative initiative and there is consultation with the European Parliament; 3
=
=
the
Commission has exclusive right of initiative and there is either consultation or codecision with
the Parliament. Restricted judicial review by the European Court of Justice; 4
co-legislation
between the Council and the Parliament. Full judicial review by the European Court of Justice;
and 5
=
=
supranational centralization at the EU level. See B orzel (
2005
: 221).
