Peter Nedergaard

This chapter examines Denmark’s different positions on European Union policies which vary in terms of the degree to which sovereignty has been transferred to the EU. Specifically, it traces trade policy (very high transfer), agricultural policy (high transfer), internal market (moderate transfer), and opt-outs (low transfer) diachronically to illuminate the extent to which positions have changed over time and the underlying factors behind these changes. While the level of politicization varies between the policy areas, and party political differences play a role, the general picture that emerges is interest based. According to this approach, Denmark is positive towards giving up sovereignty regarding policies it benefits from economically, while it is more reluctant towards policies involving the transfer of sovereignty and money that are not offset by net economic benefits. In this chapter, this is demonstrated through an analysis stretching back to the decades before Danish membership to the European Union. Denmark also seems to change policy positions when the economic benefits for the country changes, as seen in the case of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The formal organizational structure of the Commission relates to the coordination of the distribution of tasks among employees, offices, departments, and General Directorates. In this context, there are different kinds of organizational Structures. This chapter analyzes the organizational structure. It outlines the features of the Commission and discusses the role of the President of the Commission. The top officials in the division of labour in the Commission are the commissioners whose positions are highlighted in the chapter. At the same time, the commissioners and their cabinets have important roles as coordinators. The chapter further analyses bureaucratic division of labour in the Commission. It discusses conflicts between different parts of the bureaucratic structure of the Commission. Finally, the chapter analyses linguistic communication.Keywords: Commission; commission executive powers; commissioners; linguistic communication

This final chapter wraps up some of the conclusions and provides some afterthoughts. The Constitution and the Community of the Realm (Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands) have demonstrated stability over the years and yet allowed for flexible adaptation. The political institutions, such as the Parliament and the administration, are well-functioning although increasing distrust has been a problem, even though trust is now on the rise again. The party system has shown continuity over time in spite of disruptions. The old parties still dominate Parliament as well as minority governments. However, a declining membership base means that parties increasingly lack bottom-up legitimacy. A specific characteristic of Danish politics is the local and regional governmental sectors, which is one of the biggest in the world. The policy section put a critical spotlight on Denmark’s position vis-à-vis the outside world. Since Denmark became a small state in 1864, it has been a story of continuous adaptation to the strongest power of relevance. The welfare state policies include relatively market-accommodating economic, business, and labour market policies, which are necessary in order to fund the welfare state as well as very costly environmental and climate policies.

Comitology is an important part of the EU’s regulatory framework. Hence, lobbying by outside interests is to be expected. However, lobbying in the comitology system has received almost no scholarly attention. This paper provides the first understanding of the subject by analysing the access of business interests to actors in the comitology system. The analysis is designed as a most likely study of two cases, aviation safety and CO2 quotas. Based on Bouwen’s rationalist theory of access goods, the empirical analysis shows that lobbying is prevalent, especially by sectoral interests providing expert knowledge and targeted mainly at the Commission, but also at the member states in the comitology committees, and the European Parliament. The case studies therefore indicate that lobbying is widespread in the comitology system and important to study in order to understand the outputs from this part of the EU political system.

Organised policy learning among the Nordic countries—Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland—has been around for more than 50 years, but it is an under‐researched subject. This article analyses the process as well as the output of policy learning among Nordic countries on adult education in networks under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers. The data material consists of 10 in‐depth interviews with actors herein over a period of 2 years, as well as the few documents available. The most important results are that the policy learning process is characterised by so‐called epistemic and reflexive learning modes dominated by cooperation, inputs from science and dialogue. The output from the Nordic policy learning networks mainly consists of combining elements from other Nordic countries that are frontrunners in the relevant policy area. The output of Nordic policy learning is certainly much more than just being inspired by practices in Nordic countries. The results from ...

The social policy of the ordoliberal tradition has attracted limited scholarly attention despite an increased interest in the content of Ordoliberalism. This article attempts to fill the research gap through a reconstruction of the ideal-typical ordoliberal social policy model and its conception of the welfare state. At the same time, the author compares the scholarly positions of the firstgeneration ordoliberal thinkers with three ideal-typical welfare state models of social policy distilled from Esping-Andersen's seminal book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990). Aiming to uncover the possible distinctiveness of the ordoliberal social policy model, the conclusion is that while the ordoliberal social policy model shares similarities with the liberal and conservative models in Esping-Andersen's typology, it constitutes a welfare policy model in its own right, not least via its foundation in Vitalpolitik.

This article analyses governmental decision-making processes during presidencies of the European Union (EU) from the outset of the planning to the end of the evaluation of the concluded presidency. The Polish, Danish and Cypriot presidencies in the Trio of 2011-2012 are compared by applying a Most Different Systems Design. The three presidencies represent member states that differ in political, administrative and geographical terms. In spite of these differences, considerable similarities can also be traced between the countries in terms of how they handled the presidency, especially how civil servants adapted to the different phases. However, there are also variations concerning the degree of centralization versus decentralization of the whole process, the degree of autonomy of individual civil servants, the degree of political involvement in the presidency process, and the type of evaluation carried out after the EU presidency had taken place. The article is based on interviews with more than 80 civil servants involved in the presidency process from the three countries over a period of nearly four years.

The Danish EU coordination system is set up to secure a consensus-oriented and consistent positioning of Denmark in the EU decision-making process. It was established in connection with Danish membership in 1973, but it has roots that go further back. Over time, the Danish coordination system has undergone changes with increased decentralization to the sectoral ministries, through parliamentarization, and via increased transnationalization with linkages to the administrations in the EU and other EU member states. The system secures that the negotiators have a high degree of credibility in the eyes of other delegations, and it ensures a high score when it comes to implementation of EU legislation in Denmark. However, it also has some disadvantages. The key coordination lens in the form of the European Affairs Committee of the Danish Parliament is overloaded, and it is often involved too late in the Brussels negotiations. All in all, the Danish EU coordination system corresponds to th...

The administration of the European Union (EU) is a cross between a national and an international administration. Given this perspective, it is paramount to determine the exact location of the EU’s administration on a scale between a national and an international administration. The defining attributes of an administration in general and an international administration in particular is outlined in this chapter in order to determine the special character of the EU administration. The chapter then focuses on the peculiar position of the bureaucrat in an international administration and analyses one of the major problems for international administrations, their lack of autonomous influence on the decision-making process, and available means for increasing their influence. Finally, it takes a closer look at the special implications the international administration’s environment has for its functioning.Keywords: bureaucrat; European Union's (EUs) administration

... Methodological considerations The aim of the book is to provide an empirically founded and theoretically ... contrast in the EU between the desire for some degree of supranational governance and the ... is that network analysis is often criticized for not being a model or theory in its ...

Contributors Preface Introduction by John L. Campbell & Peter Nedergaard SECTION 1: INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND INSTITUTIONAL COMPETITIVENESS Chaper 1. Institutional Competitiveness and its Analytical Foundation - in the writing of Ove K. Pedersen by Henning JA rgensen, Professor at Aalborg University, Denmark Chapter 2. Innovation Policy and Institutional Competitiveness in Europe and Denmark by Susana Borras, Associate professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Chaper 3. Institutions of Current Affairs Comparative Research in Varieties of Journalism by Anker Brink Lund, Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Chapter 4. The Institutionalization of Market Mechanisms in Public Service Delivery by Carsten Greve, Professor at Copenhagen School of Business, Denmark Chapter 5. Institutional History by Peter Kjar, Associate professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Chapter 6. The Institutionalization of Regional Trade Agreements: Surprise and Stickiness in NAFTA and Mercosur by Francesco Duina, Associate professor at Bates College, USA and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark SECTION 2: POLITICS AND IDEAS Chapter 7. What do we know - or not - about Ideas and Politics? by John L. Campbell, Professor at Dartmouth College, USA and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Chapter 8. Norms of War: An Institutionalist Account by Edgar Kiser, Professor and Eric Gleave, Graduate Student, both University of Washington, USA Chapter 9. What Shouldthe State Do? A Political Economy of Ideas and Institutions by Sven Steinmo, Professor at European University Institute (EUI) Florence, Italy Chapter 10. How Should the Economy Work? Policy Imagination and Dynamics of Institutional Change by Leonard Seabrooke, Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Chapter 11. Liberal Machiavellianism by John A. Hall, Professor at McGill University, Canada Chapter 12. Transnational Regulation: Europeanization of Nordic Central Governments by Per Lagreid, Professor at University of Bergen, Norway, Runolfur Smari Steinthorsson, Professor at University of Iceland & Baldur Thorhallsson, Professor at University of Iceland SECTION 3. POLITICS AND BUSINESS Chapter 13. The Political Economy of European Integration and Business: How to Explain Policy Developments by Peter Nedergaard, Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Chapter 14. Party Competition and the Origins of Collective Capitalism in Denmark by Cathie Jo Martin, Professor at Boston University, USA Chapter 15. The State and Coporatism - The Role of the State in the Development and Reproduction of the 'Danish Model' by Lars Bo Kaspersen, Professor at Copenhagen Business School and Ulrich Schmidt-Hansen, Special Adviser at the Ministry of Finance, Denmark List of interviews Curriculum Vitae for Ove K. Pedersen A Selected Bibliography of Research published in English Index

The surprise decision expressed by the British people in the referendum held in June 2016 to leave the European Union was remarkable. It also presents a "natural experiment" where the exposure of a society to an extraordinary event allows scholars to observe, in real time in the real world, the interaction of variables.

The Routledge Handbook of the Politics of Brexit takes stock of what we know in the social science community about the Brexit phenomenon so far and looks to make sense of this remarkable process as it unfolds. The book asks simple questions across a range of areas and topics so as to frame the debate into a number of navigable "subdiscussions", providing structure and form to what is an evolving and potentially inchoate topic. As such, it provides a systematic account of the background for, the content of, and the possible implications of Brexit.

The handbook therefore does not examine in detail the minutiae of Brexit as it unfolds on a day-to-day basis but raises its sights to consider both the broad contextual factors that shape and are shaped by Brexit and the deeper sources and implications of the British exit from the European Union. Importantly, as interest in Brexit reaches far beyond the shores of the United Kingdom, so an international team of contributors examines and reveals the global implications and the external face of Brexit.

The Routledge Handbook of the Politics of Brexit will be essential reading and an authoritative reference for scholars, students, researchers and practitioners involved in and actively concerned about research on Brexit, British politics, European Union politics, and comparative politics and international relations.

Contents

1. Introduction [Patrick Diamond, Peter Nedergaard and Ben Rosamond]

PART I: Brexit from the Inside

2. Brexit and the State of the United Kingdom [Daniel Wincott]

3. Brexit and the Irish Case [Mary Murphy]

4. Brexit and Scotland [Michael Keating]

5. Brexit and the City of London [Leila Simona Talani]

6. Brexit and the Future Model of British Capitalism [Andrew Baker and Scott Lavery]

7. Brexit and British Trade Policy [Jed Odermatt]

8. Brexit and Agricultural Policy [Wyn Grant]

9. Brexit and Higher Education and Research [Anne Corbett and Claire Gordon]

10. Brexit, ‘Immigration’ and Anti-discrimination [Adrian Favell and Roxana Barbulescu]

11. Brexit and British Exceptionalism [Peter Nedergaard and Maja Friis Henriksen]

12. Brexit and English Identity [Ben Wellings]

13. Brexit and the Conservative Party [Richard Hayton]

14. Brexit and the Labour Party [Patrick Diamond]

15. Brexit and Anti-Politics [Matthew Flinders]

PART II: Brexit from the Outside

16. Brexit and the Commonwealth [Peg Murray Evans]

17. Brexit and Britain’s Role in the World [Oliver Daddow]

18. The EU as an International Actor Post Brexit [Henrik Larsen]

19. Brexit and European Defence [Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen]

20. Brexit and European Financial Regulation [Lucia Quaglia]

21. Brexit and the EU Power Balances [Mads Dagnis Jensen and Holly Snaith]

22. Brexit and Small States in Europe [Anders Wivel and Baldur Thorhallsson]

23. Brexit and EU’s Affiliated Non-members [John Erik Fossum]

24. Brexit and EU Theory [Christian Lequesne]

Content:

1. Introduction: EU Presidencies between Politics and Administration

2. The Phase of Early Preparations: Creating the Foundation for the EU Presidencies

3. The Phase of Intensive Preparations: Putting the EU Presidencies on Track

4. The Phase of Execution: Managing the Presidencies

5. The Phase of Evaluation: Transfer to the Next Member State and Lessons Learned from the Presidencies　

6. Conclusions

Preface

Chapter 1. Rational Choice, Policy Analysis and the Explanation of European Union Business-Politics Relations

Chapter 2. The Adoption of the Services Directive 2000-2006

Chapter 3. The 2003 Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

Chapter 4. European Import Quotas on Chinese Textile Exports in 2005

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Perspectives

References

Index

The book analyses the administrative system in the European Union with a focus on the efficiency and legitimacy of the administrative practices. The administrative system of the European Union is described as a hybrid between a traditional national and an international administration. In the analysis three distinct theoretical perspectives are used (a structural, a procedural and a cultural), thus ensuring that a broad variety of factors are included. Furthermore, in the analysis the administration is seen from the perspective of an individual Eurocrat, but, simultaneously, the overall institutional perspective is maintained by a focus on the effects of the special characteristics of the administrative practices on the efficiency and legitimacy of the administration.

Erik Oddvar Eriksen har skrevet en interessant bog om det normative, idémaessige grund-lag for EU. Det er et område, som ikke står staerkt i EU-forskningen. Derfor er dette bidrag tiltraengt. I en situation med Brexit og visse opløsningstendenser i EU er det yderligere et felt, som der kan vaere behov for at analysere. Eriksen forsøger at se skoven og ikke blot traeerne enkeltvis i EU. Bogen er opbygget med en historisk introduktion (kapitel 1), en praesentation af det grundlaeggende deliberative perspektiv anvendt på europaeisk integration (kapitel 2), en analyse af den påståede, konkret europaeiske demokratiseringsproces (kapitel 3), en over-sigt over mulige demokratimodeller, som EU kan baseres på (Eriksen foretraekker «det transnationale demokrati») (kapitel 4), en påpegning af en ifølge forfatteren ønskelig kos-mopolitisk europaeisk fremtid (kapitel 5) og endelig en aktuel diskussion af solidaritetsbe-hovet i nutidens EU (kapitel 6). Eriksens bog er meget pro-EU. Han udnaevner bl.a. forsøg på at traekke sig fra EU for at vaere «kontra-revolutionaere» handlinger (side 109). (Gad vide, hvad grønlaenderne og bri-terne siger til denne karakteristik). Det er naturligvis i orden. Han er langt fra den eneste EU-forsker, som anlaegger denne vinkel. En anden sag er så, om vinklingen er klog. Kanske ville EU endda vaere bedre tjent med en mere ikke-normativ og mere nøgtern tilgang til emnet. Det gaelder nok isaer, når selve emnet er EU's normativitet, fordi faren for overdreven «dobbelt-normativitet» – at vaere normativ om det normative – er naerliggende og risikerer at kom-plicere analysen unødigt. For mig har det samtidig altid vaeret lidt ironisk, at forskere, som ukritisk hylder det europaeiske samarbejde, i samme åndedrag bryder med en klassisk euro-paeisk tradition om, at man som akademiker altid bør forholde sig kritisk og distanceret i ana-lysen af sociale faenomener. Ukritisk analyse af sociale institutioner er dybest set ueuropaeisk.

Critique of capitalism is again à la mode1 The critique of capitalism is again a theme in the scholarly literature of social science. In contrast to the situation in 1970s and 1980s, the criticism this time is much more broadly faceted. There is still a left-wing critique, though now it is less Marxist than it was 35-50 years ago.2 Today, there is also a real national conservative criticism, not least arguing that the internationalisation of capitalism has allegedly been undermining the nation state. In this round, as the only major ideological strand, however, liberalism seems to be silent as far as criticism of capitalism is concerned.

The Social Democratic immigration policy can be seen as a sign of an incipient revolt against the dominant liberal, pro-immigration discourse in many circles in Europe. What is new in the party’s plan is that it offers a justification of a U-turn which is seemingly perceived as solid and coherent. Most importantly, it offers interna¬tional solutions founded in the roots and ideology of the party, and in line with the preferences of its potential working-class voters. Inside the party, it is therefore not seen as a sell-out to other political ideologies.

■ In the last two decades, migration has been one of the most salient political issues for Danish Social Democratic voters. The party top more or less neglected this until 2-3 years ago. ■ The Danish Social Democratic Party's liberal, pro-immigration policy since the beginning of the 1980's has pushed the party away from the government position for long periods of time. ■ For these reasons, the Danish Social Democratic Party has adopted a more restrictive immigration policy in line with the preferences of the party's traditional working class voters and its historical roots. ■ The new immigration policy of the Danish Social Democratic Party will limit the number of third word migrants and refugees allowed into Denmark through the setting up of reception centres in North Africa. ■ This will both safe life, undermine the present business model of human smugglers, and help many more refugees outside of Europe for the same amount of money now spend in Denmark. Hence, the new policy line combines national and international regards concerning immigration.

In this paper, I have analysed and compared the Danish policy positions on the CAP and on the Internal Market Policy. As far as the CAP is concerned, the Danish governmental position has changed from strong support of the traditional CAP mechanisms to strong support for a radical reform of the traditional CAP mechanisms. So far, however, the Danish policy change (influenced by a majority in the Danish parliament outside the minority government) has had no impact on the policy and the support Danish farmers obtain from the CAP. Hence, there is speculation over whether this is mainly a way of baiting the government.

Peter Nedergaard The European Union is in deep need of a restructuring. The EU is either reconstructed – or the crisis continues. EU will not, however, collapse; it will probably, on the other hand, lose decision-making power and support. The reconstruction concerns the nature of the EU: its form (flexibility), its content (" de-federalisation "), and its actors' attitude (legitimacy). The idea of a more flexible EU has been around for years. EU is already to some degree flexibly organized via EMU and the Schengen acquis where not all member states participate. But flexibility in this sense is temporary: that on offer is always a step on the way to full participation. A reconstructed EU implies a more permanently flexible cooperation. This means a final end to the present one-size-fits-all model. An à la carte model might even – all in all – imply more European integration rather than less. For example, several European countries could become more strongly linked to the EU as associate members. This could be appealing to countries such as Ukraine, Turkey, Albania, and Bosnia. They could get a closer affiliation to the EU than today in certain defined areas without full membership. A more flexible EU is also thus a more " sensitive " EU. It implies that had David Cameron been given concessions in the area that clearly worried the British electorate the most – full free movement of labour from other EU countries – the outcome of the UK referendum would have been different. Cameron could have been offered a " freeze " on free movement. Such " escape clauses " are known from other international agreements. With more flexibility, Brexit would never had happened.