Bureaucrats as Law-makers: Committee Decision-making in the EU Council of Ministers

1970s and 1980s were important for the transition of a Europe that consisted of nation states into one of member states. Initially a Keynesian consensus, which resulted in the establishment of national corporatist states, dominated Western Europe following World War II. This consensus began to unravel in the 1970s as a result of widespread economic crisis. When national governments tried – and failed – to reintroduce Keynesian policies, they gradually redefined the role that government would play in society. States became regulators of markets, no more. Member statehood, by relying on ‘apolitical rules’, created a setting in which political actors were bound and a ‘more effective . less partisan, policymaking process’ could be guaranteed (p. 102). This new modus operandi became the norm throughout Western Europe. Part 2 discusses how the concept of member statehood helps explain both EU macro-economic policymaking (Chapter 4) and foreign policy (Chapter 5). Especially with regard to macro-economic policy-making, Bickerton makes a convincing case that the logic of member statehood has become increasingly important. Accordingly, as integration deepened, power derived not from the will of the people (as it had in traditional nation states), but from states having a seat at the table. An extensive discussion of how the recent financial crisis has impacted on EU economic policy makes for especially good reading and is a welcome addition to the literature. This up-to-date coverage stands in sharp contrast to the discussion of the EU’s foreign policy. With no discussion of how some of the major post-Cold War foreign policy conflicts have affected integration, it remains rather scant in comparison. One of the real strengths of the book is its impressive overview of literatures one often does not see discussed together. Those writing on the EU and European integration usually confine themselves to discussing a literature that is limited to both. Not Bickerton. He not only gives an impressive overview of EU-related literature, but also draws extensively upon political economics, state transformation, comparative politics and international relations literatures. Perhaps the most problematic part of the book is its conclusion. In it Bickerton argues that populism and technocratic governance, which are often described as being polar opposites, are actually two sides of the same coin. This is because both rest ‘upon a critique of individual capacities for decision-making’ (p. 187). However, the definition of populism that Bickerton builds upon is rather limited in comparison to the one employed in the vast literature on the subject. Though a minor point in comparison to the rest of the work, it nonetheless detracts from it for those more familiar with that literature. Finally, a weakness of the book is that it uses the ‘comparative method lightly, drawing out similarities rather than [also] highlighting’ differences that exist (p. 194). Bickerton freely admits this in the conclusion. Despite these minor issues, this work is a refreshing new take on how to envision European integration that should be widely read by those studying the EU.