Resumé

Commission expert committees and Council working parties of the European Union {EU) affects the coordination behaviour of the participants. Based on organizational theory arguments, the coordination role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is arguably weakened by institutional dynamics existing within Commission expert committees. The opposite is argued to be the case within Council working parties. Empirically, this study is based on 160 questionnaires and 47 face-to-face interviews with Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish domestic government officials attending EU committees. Secondly, this study also includes answers from 49 officials at the permanent representation to the EU of these three Scandinavian countries. Being excluded from attending Council working parties. Norwegian civil servants participating within Commission expert committees are shown to coordinate considerably less with the foreign ministry than their Danish and Swedish counterparts. Notwithstanding these observations, study also reveals how the coordination behaviour evoked by national civil servants reflects their domestic institutional affiliations. In addition to showing how EU committees affect coordination behaviour among the participants, the current analysis also shows how responses to integration requirements are filtered - and even conditioned - by a prior state of affairs at the domestic level of governance.

Introduction

The European Union (EU) bureaucracy is made up of permanent Eurocrats together with 'travelling national civil servants' (Nedergaard 1995. 26). Van Schendelen (1996) estimates that about 50.000 domestic officials are temporarily engaged in the administrative work of the EU per year. The Commission organized about 5500 committee meetings in 1989 and approximately 64,000 person days were spent on them. 'Since about 1963 the Commission's own work has become dominated by that of these various intermediary committees of national representatives' (Coombes 1970. 243).

---

* Jarlc Trondal. Department of Political Science and the ARENA programme. Universin o\' Oslo. P.O. Box 1097. Blindern. 0317 Oslo. Norway. E-mail: jarle.trondaluf stv.uio.no

Thus, "committees function as hybrids between EU governance and the
organisations represented' (van Schendelen & Pedler 1998, 288).
Past and more recent literature on EU committees has in various ways

measured the degree of cross-level participation through EU committees among national civil servants (e.g. Institut fiir Europåische Politik 1989; Wessels 1998). One question less frequently addressed is how such crosslevel affects the officials themselves - their identities, role conceptions, and modes of acting. The current study tries to grapple with this question through analysing how participation within EU committees affects domestic coordination processes.

Past and contemporary literature pictures EU committee meetings as generally business-like, depoliticized, consensual, and technocratic; emphasizing 'technocratic collusion' at the Community level (Dehousse 1997, 48; Wessels 1998; 1999, 265). Current studies on EU committees largely ignore the differentiated institutional character of the EU committees, paying heed to their commonality as a symptom of administrative integration engrenage more broadly (Joerges & Neyer 1997; Neyer 1999). The current study argues that the way EU committees are formally organized affect the coordination behaviour of the participants in particular ways. Thus, the coordination role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) is arguably affected differently by the institutional dynamics within Commission expert committees and Council working parties.

Studies of actual decision behaviour within domestic governance institutions that the formal organization of the bureaucracy is important, together with the professional background of the officials (Lægreid & Olsen 1984; Egeberg 1999b). The formal build-up of the central governmental apparatus is also logically revealed to impact upon actual decision behaviour government officials (Hammond 1986). This study basically argues that we have to unpack the organizational structure of the EU system in order to derive how domestic coordination processes are likely to be affected by it. In addition, we have to carve up the bureaucratic machinery of the nation state in order to unravel the dual institutional affiliations of domestic government officials, and ultimately to determine how different organizational structures are likely to affect modes of policy coordination. Organizational structures are seen as mobilizing particular modes of behaviour, identities, and role conceptions. Particular models of humankind and particular models of society embedding social interaction are perceived as moulded by particular principles of organization. Applying organization theory suggests going beyond a narrow sui generis view of the EU system to provide an understanding of'the unfamiliar with the help of familiar conceptual lenses' (Jonsson et al. 1998, 320; cf. Stone Sweet & Sandholtz 1998).

Based upon 160 questionnaires and 47 face-to-face interviews with Danish,

Norwegian, and Swedish government officials attending EU committees, the current study shows that officials attending Council working parties tend to coordinate inter-sectorally more frequently than officials attending Commission expert committees. (For a more thorough discussion of the concept of coordination, see note 1.) It is possible to hypothesize that officials attending Council working parties perceive the coordinating role of the MFA as fairly strong, whereas officials attending Commission expert committees tend to see the coordination role of the MFA as fairly weak.²

By comparing Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish officials attending EU committees, this study aims to test this hypothesis in countries with different forms of affiliation towards the EU: Norway as a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member, affiliated to the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement, and Sweden and Denmark as fullyfledged members. Hence, in order to test the robustness of the assumed relationship between EU committee affiliation and domestic coordination behaviour, the above hypothesis is studied under different conditions (EU membership versus EEA membership). Moreover. Sweden and Denmark are both included in this study because their length of EU membership differs. On the assumption that officials who have participated for long periods of time in EU committees are likely to be affected more strongly by these committees, as far as their coordination behaviour is concerned, than are newcomers in EU committees, both Swedish and Danish civil servants are included in this study.

In the following section some theoretical reflections are addressed in order to make different modes of coordination intelligible from a multiple institutional embeddedness point of view. Empirical data are then provided in the third section based on Danish. Norwegian, and Swedish civil servants participating within Commission expert committees (ECs) and/or Council working parties (WPs). These data cover officials employed within domestic ministries and agencies, as well as officials at the permanent representation to the EU of these Scandinavian countries. As suggested in the next section, the coordination behaviour of these officials is assumed to be affected by three major variables: (1) their EU committee affiliations. (2) the duration and intensity of participation within these committees, and (3) their domestic institutional affiliations.

A Theoretical Account of Multiple Institutional Embeddedness

The study of European integration and the "Europeanization" of domestic
bureaucracies has to an increasing extent been influenced by organization
theory perspectives (e.g. Buhner 1993: Cram 1997: Hix 1998: Olsen 1998:

Egeberg & Trondal 1999). Organizational theory has posed two major questions in the literature: first, whether institutions matter, and second, how institutions matter. This study goes beyond the question of whether institutions do matter (Weaver & Rockman 1993). In order to understand how organizational structures affect coordination processes, some microfoundationsbased cognitive organization theory are added in the following (cf. Trondal 1999a).

Domestic civil servants attending EU committees have multilevel institutional These officials are employed within domestic ministries and agencies, but at the same time participate on EU committees. Further, these officials have professional affiliations across different disciplines. Hence, domestic decision makers tend to be affected by multiple, partially contending, sets of information, premises, and considerations, reflecting their multiple institutional embeddedness. One important research task has to do with identifying the conditions under which decision behaviour is affected by different institutional affiliations. Studying government officials who are members of government institutions at different levels of governance, is possible to emphasize organizational linkages between government institutions as one vital scope condition affecting modes of coordination at the domestic level of governance. One central feature attached to multiple institutional affiliations relates to the formal linkages between organizations, and to the intensity and length of such linkages. In the following, these two dimensions are discussed separately.

Principles of Organization

Different modes of policy coordination may reflect the basic organizing principles underpinning institutional linkages between formal organizations.One argue that the EU system of governance in general and the web of EU committees and WPs in particular are organized according to two basic general principles of administrative life. Parallel to the sectoral and spatial institutional build-up of the domestic political-administrative apparatus (sector ministries and agencies versus foreign ministries), the EU Commission and the preparatory expert committees underlying it may be seen as exhibiting sectoral and functional principles.³ Conversely, the Council of the European Union and the web of WPs organized under it may be seen as exhibiting spatial and territorial principles of organization (Egeberg & Trondal 1999). Notwithstanding several contending organizing principles existing within the Commission and the Council of Ministers, it is argued here that the dominating and uppermost principles are those mentioned above. Sectoral principles tend to bias and skew coordination behaviour in sectoral directions. Being exposed to institutions organized by sector, the organizational members are systematically exposed to sectoral

information and stimuli. The area principle, on the other hand, is arguably
more likely to activate coordination behaviour that is more inter-sectoral in
character.

Coordination within and between government institutions may be either written or oral, or both. Oral coordination is arguably more likely when only a few actors are involved in the process, or if the actors share some fairly general interests, problems, or worldviews. Coordination through written documents is more likely when more actors are involved, where more conflicting interests are to be accommodated, and when more problems worldviews have to be taken into consideration. The first scenario is more likely to materialize within, and between, government institutions. Within government institutions officials tend to be fewer, and the number of problems, solutions, and identities tend to be fewer and more easily accommodated than in the inter-ministerial arena. This argument may also be applied to EU institutions: the EU Commission is sectorally organized, whereas the Council is organized according to an area principle, implying that different sectors are more frequently confronted. Thus, the use of written coordination documents is more likely to dominate decision processes within the Council of Ministers than within the EU Commission.

Taken together, government officials attending Commission ECs are likely to evoke intra-sectoral and oral modes of coordinating, whereas officials participating within Council WPs are more likely to evoke intersectoral written modes of coordinating. Domestic civil servants participating within both ECs and WPs are likely to evoke both these modes of coordination. Owing to the EEA agreement, Norwegian civil servants have access solely to Commission ECs, not to Council WPs. In the current study, Sweden and Denmark represent countries having participatory rights on both ECs and WPs. Thus, whereas inter-sectoral and written modes of policy coordination are likely to take primacy among Swedish and Danish officials, more intra-sectoral and oral modes of coordination are likely to be evoked by Norwegian government officials. However, when emphasizing how different organizational principles within different EU committees may affect coordination behaviour differently, Swedish and Danish EC participants also likely to evoke intra-sectoral and oral modes of coordination.

Next, when studying government officials having multiple institutional affiliations at different levels of governance, it is necessary to pay heed to how these levels interact. Hence, we need to trace how administrative life is formally organized at both levels of governance, and how each level of governance is formally linked together. In the following it is argued that coordination processes within domestic government institutions may be affected by EU committees, conditional upon: (1) the degree of compatibility

in organizational structures across levels of governance, and (2) individual
and institutional seniority at both levels of governance.

Institutional Compatibility

The impact from organizational principles that exist at different levels of governance may be conditioned by the degree of institutional compatibility across these levels of governance (March & Olsen 1995; Knill & Lenschaw 1998; Coporaso et ah 1999; Knill & Lehmkuhl 1999). The impact of institutional reflects the compatibility of cognitive shortcuts and scripts being systematically presented to the decision makers. I argue that institutional interpenetration - and thus the potential for domestic government to be affected by institutional dynamics within EU institutions

- is more likely to emerge if government apparatuses at each level of governance are rather similar. I have argued elsewhere that the Commission ECs, on the one hand, and domestic-sector ministries and agencies, on the other, are in general organized along the same sectoral lines. Similarly, Council WPs and domestic foreign ministries may be seen as organized according to an area principle (Trondal 1999a). Thus, the coordination behaviour chosen by government officials employed within sectoral ministries and agencies is likely to reflect institutional dynamics within Commission ECs more strongly than institutional dynamics within Council WPs. The inverse relationship is likely among officials employed within the MFA attending Commission ECs. Instead of studying officials from the MFA, however, this study covers officials at the permanent representation to the EU. Permanent representations are formally organized under the auspices of the MFA; thus they embody territorial principles of organization. Officials at the permanent representation are more likely to attend EU committees more extensively than are officials in the domestic MFAs.

This article considers several primary institutional affiliations. Most important are civil servants who are employed within domestic ministries and agencies. Ceteris paribus, owing to the vertical despecialized ministryagencystructure Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, I argue that governmentofficials at the agency level are more likely to evoke intrasectoralmodes coordination than are officials employed at the ministry level. Conversely, officials at the ministry level are more likely to evoke territorial and inter-sectoral modes of coordinating. Further, officials at the permanent representations to the EU are likely to evoke inter-sectoral modes of coordination more frequently than are officials within the 'home administration', i.e. officials employed within domestic ministries and agencies.Moreover, permanent representations are internally organized into sectoral and diplomatic realms. Inter-sectoral modes of coordination

are arguably more likely to be enacted among officials in the latter than in the former institutional realms. This is due to the fact that different organizational principles are uppermost within different realms at the permanent representations (Trondal 1999a). Further, officials in top-rank positions are more likely to enact inter-sectoral modes of coordination than officials in medium-rank positions. Finally, officials are likely to be presocializedfrom training even before entering the domestic bureaucracy, except before entering EU committees. The current study considerslawyers, social scientists, and officials with more technicaltraining, as biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Generally. I argue that law, economics, and social sciences are more cross-sectoral in character than are technical disciplines. Thus, intra-sectoral modes of coordination are likely to accompany training in technical disciplines, whereas more inter-sectoral modes of coordination may accompany training in law. economics, and the various social sciences.

Duration and Intensity of Cross-Level Participation

Protracted and intensive participation within EU committees and working parties may add to the effect of (1) organizational principles and (2) institutional compatibility. Ceteris paribus, senior participants within EU institutions are more likely to be affected by the institutional dynamics dominating these committees than are officials who are newcomers to the EU arena (Beyers 1998). Duration and intensity of attending EU committeesmay affect the extent to which the participants are affected by the organizational principles underpinning these committees. Theoretically,seniority intensity of participation within EU committees may affect ways of acting through cognitive processes whereby civil servants are systematically exposed to particular sets of information. The impact from particular organizational principles may be further strengthened by intensiveand exposure to these principles (Lindberg 1963. 287). Hence, individual seniority at the EU level is likely to condition the extent to which domestic coordination processes are affected by institutional dynamics within EU committees. Individual seniority has to do with length of service within particular institutions. These propositions are ceteris paribus in character.⁴ Furthermore, within each nation state, different government institutions have participated at the EU level for different periods of time. Institutional seniority has to do with the length of time one institution has interacted with another. Hence, officials employed within government institutions who are senior participants in the EU arena are more likely to become Europeanized when it comes to their coordination behaviour than are officials within institutions who are newcomers to the European arena. Similarly, officials from old EU member states are likely to

be Europeanized more easily than officials from new member states (Beyers
1998). Therefore, individual and institutional seniority at the EU level may
impinge upon the extent to which processes of Europeanization may occur.

To sum up the main arguments put forward in this section, the following propositions may be highlighted. Inter-sectoral modes of coordination are most likely to be evoked among domestic government officials educated in law, economics, or social sciences, who participate in Council WPs, who have participated for a long time, who generally participate intensively, who are employed at the permanent representation to the EU - especially within top-rank positions and within the diplomatic realm of this institution

- and who are senior officials within this institution. Conversely, intrasectoral of coordinating are more likely to accompany domestic government officials educated in technical disciplines, who participate within Commission ECs, who participate intensively, who have participated for a long time, who are employed within domestic-sector ministries or agencies - especially within medium-rank positions - and who have shorter lengths of service within these institutions.

Methodology and Data

In order to test the robustness of the assumed relationships between EU committee affiliation on the one hand and coordination behaviour on the other, data from countries with different forms of affiliation to the EU have been systematically selected. The principal rationale behind this comparative design is to show that particular institutional affiliations embedding servants may be a more adequate explanatory factor regarding domestic coordination processes than the dichotomy between EU membership and non-membership (EEA membership). Moreover, in order to minimize noise from possible intervening variables, countries that are 'sufficiently' similar have been selected (Anchar 1993, 118): Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Norwegian government officials have participatory rights within approximately 50 percent of the Commission ECs. Norwegian civil servants are, however, formally excluded from participating within Council WPs. Their Danish and Swedish counterparts, the other hand, have additional participatory rights within the Council WPs. Secondly, in order to study the impact of individual and institutional seniority within EU committees, both Denmark and Sweden are included in this study, despite their having almost identical forms of affiliation to the EU. Danish officials, however, may be expected to have, on average, longer tenure within EU committees than their Norwegian and Swedish colleagues (cf. Trondal 1999b).

In order to control for the potential impact of policy-sector affiliation, and also to limit the empirical scope of this study, standardized questionnaires been distributed to civil servants at the ministry and agency level within the environmental sector and within the health and safety at the workplace sector in the three Scandinavian countries. This survey was conducted from summer 1998 until spring 1999. The response rate is 79 percent, giving 160 respondents. Additionally, almost similar questionnaires distributed to all government officials at the permanent representations the EU of these three Scandinavian countries. This study was conducted from fall 1998 until spring 1999. The response rate of this survey is 53 percent, giving 49 respondents. Officials from the permanent representations the EU are included in this study partially owing to a priori expectations regarding intensity of attending EU committees, and partially because the permanent representations formally embody territorial principles organization. In addition, 47 face-to-face qualitative interviews were carried out during the spring of 1999. Officials in these interviews were selected from the Survey sample above.⁵ The following empirical analysis is mostly based on statistical data. The interview data is included in the analysis in an effort to provide additional support for the statistical analysis.

The Empirical Record: Europeanization of Domestic Coordination Processes

This section illuminates how different institutional linkages across levels of governance are likely to affect domestic modes of coordinating EU-related dossiers, as perceived by the civil servants themselves. The first part of this section reveals how processes of policy coordination within the domestic government apparatus reflect different forms of affiliation to EU committees. next part of the section statistically controls for the duration and intensity of participation within EU committees. The final part shows how coordination processes reflect primary institutional affiliations at the domestic level of governance.

Secondary Institutional Embeddedness: Different Committee Affiliations in the EU

Past and contemporary research have revealed that domestic coordination processes are at least two-dimensional in character; intra- and inter-sectoral (Metcalfe 1994; Rometsch & Wessels 1996; Hanf & Soelendorp 1998; Trondal 1998; Egeberg & Trondal 1999: Harmsen 1999). Whereas some scholars observe policy fragmentation and sectorization of domestic EU

policy processes (Hopkins 1976; Burnham & Maor 1994; Dimitrakopoulos 1995; Dehousse 1997; Siedentopf & Ziller 1998), other scholars report cross-sectoral coordination processes as the central mode characterizing EU policy making at the domestic level of governance (Spence 1993; Rometsch & Wessels 1996; Bulmer & Burch 1998). When comparing the three Scandinavian countries, intra-sectoral modes of coordination are observed in Norway after the EEA affiliation in 1994 (Trondal 1996, 1998, 1999c; Egeberg & Trondal 1997, 1999), whereas coordination processes have tended to oscillate between intra- and inter-sectoral modes more prominently within the Danish and Swedish central administrations subsequent to their EU membership (Dosenrode 1993; Nedergaard 1994; SOU 1996:6; Statskontoret 1996:7; Trondal 1996; Jacobsson 1999). In the following, different modes of coordination are shown to reflect institutional affiliations towards different EU committees.

It is argued that the general amount of policy coordination is likely to be greater among civil servants participating within Council WPs than among officials attending Commission ECs. Moreover, it is expected that officials solely participating within ECs engage in coordination processes less often than officials also participating within WPs. In the remainder of this section, several different dependent variables are applied to measure coordination behaviour. The overall rationale for using several different operational measures for coordination is to detect particular patterns: if several dependent variables coincide with predicted patterns, the test is shown to be fairly robust.

Table 1 provides an overview of general coordination efforts, paying particular heed to different coordination techniques. It reveals that the usage of clearances between governmental institutions is more frequent among WP participants than among officials participating within ECs. However, the general amount of inter-sectoral coordination is also fairly high among officials participating within ECs. This may partially be due to the contending principles of organization within ECs, but it may also reflect primary institutional affiliations at the domestic level of governance (cf. the next section). Additionally, it may be due to the large usage of informal clearances among EC participants. Supporting this interpretation regarding techniques utilized for coordination, Table 1 shows that WP participants utilize formal coordination arrangements more frequently than do participantswithin Conversely, participants within ECs use informal coordinationarrangements frequently than do participants within WPs. Similarly, Table 1 reveals that written instructions are used more frequently among officials within WPs than among officials attending ECs. These observations are also supported in qualitative interviews: whereas officials negotiate under rather clear, written instructions within WP meetings, more unclear, often implicit mandates tend to accompany negotiations within

EC meetings (sources: interviews; cf. Statskonsult 1999:6). The relative propensity to apply written problem notes, frame notes, and instructions varies greatly between the two classes of committee participants. However, no significant differences are identified between the two classes of committee participants regarding the extent to which written instructions, problem notes, or frame notes tend to affect the positions taken by participants during committee meetings.

The above findings are clearly supported by Table 2: officials participatingwithin

patingwithinWPs perceive their instructions as being considerably more clear than do those participating within ECs. Table 2 also reveals that the general amount of perceived leeway or behavioural discretion relating to modes of proceeding, 'positions' to follow, roles to evoke, etc., is significantlygreater officials participating within ECs than among officials participating within WPs (cf. Table 10). As seen from the qualitative interviews, the amount of behavioural discretion available to the participantsseems more extensive within the ECs than within the WPs.⁶ At the permanent representation to the EU, the same tendencies are revealed regarding modes of coordinating. Moreover, going beyond Table 2, officials participating within ECs report their positions to be based upon professionalexpertise extensively than among their colleagues participatingwithin Furthermore, 'national interests', as a catalyst for determining their positions, are ascribed greater importance among officials attending WPs than is professional expertise. The inverse pattern is revealed among EC participants. Hence, the general amount of inter-organizational coordination behaviour seems to be affected significantly by the institutionalembeddedness EU committees.

In the remaining part of this section, more systematic attention is devoted to how coordination behaviour is moulded differently within ECs and WPs, paying more thorough attention to intra- and inter-sectoral modes of coordination. One initial empirical expectation, derived from the above theoretical discussion, would be that inter-sectoral modes of coordinating may reflect institutional dynamics within Council WPs, whereas intrasectoral of coordinating are likely to accompany dynamics to a greater extent within the Commission ECs. Intra-sectoral modes of coordination, are also likely to be affected by institutional dynamics within Council WPs; intra-sectoral modes of coordination may, to some extent, precede inter-sectoral coordination efforts: when coordinating across policy areas, officials may need to coordinate intra-sectorally in order to allow for ex post facto cross-sectoral coordination. Hence, institutional dynamics within WPs are likely to foster domestic coordination efforts more broadly - be it intra- or inter-sectorally - to a larger extent than institutional dynamics within ECs. A second important distinction to be made is that institutional dynamics within ECs are likely to foster intra-sectoral modes of coordination to a far greater extent than inter-sectoral modes of coordination. Finally, written modes of coordination expected to accompany the territorial principles of organizations underpinning WPs, whereas oral modes of coordination are more likely to reflect sectoral principles embedded within ECs.

Tables 3 and 4 show the relative proportion of officials conducting interorganizationalclearanceswith
MFA, and intra-organizational clearanceswithother
within their own governmental institution.

The figures presented in Table 3 are not perfectly comparable to the figures presented in Table 4. However, they reveal some interesting differences. As expected, participants within WPs utilize clearances more frequently than participants within ECs - both intra-sectorally (Table 4) and intersectorally(Table3). participating within ECs conduct clearances more frequently intra-sectorally than inter-sectorally. Lægreid (1999, 25) also reveals that tendencies towards intra-sectoral modes of policy coordinationaremore within the Norwegian central administrationthanare coordination efforts - owing to Norwegian officials being solely affiliated to the Commission ECs. In Denmark and Sweden, inter-sectoral modes of coordination are reported to be more widespread (Nedergaard 1994; SOU 1996:6; Statskontoret 1996:7: Lægreid 1999). This difference between Norwegian officials, on the one hand, and Danish and Swedish officials, on the other, is due largely to the additional institutional embeddedness within Council WPs among the latter. However, Danish and Swedish officials who participate solely within ECs report a generally low frequency of inter-sectoral coordination efforts - especially towards the MFA - compared with Danish and Swedish officials attending WPs (source: interviews).⁷ As such, the EC-WP nexus is shown to affect domestic coordination processes more strongly than the sheer dichotomy between EU membership and EEA membership. Finally. Table 3 shows

that clearances with the MFA take place more frequently among officials at the permanent representation than among officials within the home administration. This may be a result of the faet that permanent representativesembodyterritorial, thus cross-sectoral, roles more fully than officials within the home administration.

Coordination more generally involves contact patterns with other governmental institutions. Table 5 reveals how participation within differentEU may be reflected in contact patterns within the domestic administrative fabric. The upper half of Table 5 relates to intersectoralmodes coordination. Consistent with prior observations in this section, one of the most striking observations from Table 5 is the differences between the two classes of committees: inter-sectoral contact patterns are more frequent among officials attending WPs than among officials participatingwithin Clearly, contacts with the MFA, which is the ministry formally embodying territorial principles of coordination, are significantly more frequent among WP participants than among EC participants. Officials participating within ECs have more frequent contacts with other sectoral ministries than with the MFA, save the domestic parliament or the national political leadership. Lægreid (1999, 20-1) observes the same tendency: inter-sectoral contact patterns and coordination efforts are more

widespread within the Danish and Swedish government apparatus than within the Norwegian bureaucracy, due to their different form of affiliation towards the EU (cf. Sundstrom 1999). When intra-sectoral contact patterns are added to this picture, the tendency from Table 4 is repeated in Table 5: those participating within ECs make relatively more frequent use of contacts with other government institutions within their own policy sector than with government institutions in other policy areas. However. WP participants have intra-sectoral contacts more frequently than EC participants, that is. with hierarchical subordinated agencies and with hierarchical superior ministries within the same policy area (cf. Trondal 1999c).

Finally, modes of policy coordination may be measured by how civil servants perceive the relative importance of different government institutions.Contact do not provide any understanding of the perceived importance of these contacts. Table 6 reveals how civil servants perceive

the relative importance of different domestic government institutions - both inter- and intra-sectorally. Consistent with the figures presented in Table 5, Table 6 shows that the relative importance attached to different government institutions reflects diverse institutional embeddedness within EU committees.Officials within ECs seem to attach greater importance to government institutions within their own policy sector, and considerably less importance to institutions in other policy fields, compared with officials attending WPs.

The analysis so far thus seems to confirm our main hypothesis, emphasizing the organizational principles underpinning EU committees affect the actors within them. Most importantly, however, this analysis reveals how diverse institutional embeddedness within the EU system of governance affects decision processes within domestic bureaucracies differently. above analysis, however, still does not provide any understanding to what extent EU committees contribute to resocializing domestic decision makers. To this end, the next section analyses the relative impact of the length and intensity of participation within these committees.

Length and Intensity of Participation across Levels of Governance

'[Negotiations [within ECs and WPs] sometimes last for years and take place among almost the same set of delegates . . . ' (Neyer 1998, 159). As such, a socialization dynamic may come into force. On average, Danish civil servants have participated for a longer period of time within EU committees than have their Norwegian and Swedish counterparts.⁸ Whereas Denmark joined the EU in 1973, Sweden became an EEA member in 1994, and a fully-fledged EU member in 1995. Similarly, Norway has been formally affiliated to the EU, through the EEA agreement, since 1994. On this basis, the data sets have been divided into two parts: those officials having participated since before 1994, and those officials who entered EU committees after 1994. Based upon this division, Table 7 reveals significant correlations between modes of coordination and length of participation within EU committees.⁹ In the following analysis, not every correlation is presented, but the general tendencies are highlighted.

The usage of written instructions and problem notes as coordinating tools seems generally to relate negatively to the sheer length of participation within ECs and WPs: senior participants within EU committees are less likely to use binding written mandates. On the other hand, those officials who have participated within WPs since before 1994 seem to coordinate to a lesser extent intra-sectorally compared with officials who are newcomers within these committees. Similarly, officials at the permanent representations,who participated for longer periods of time within ECs, seem to

have less frequent contacts with the political leadership at the domestic level than those who have participated for shorter periods of time within ECs. Thus, as expected, when exposed to different EU committees for longer periods of time, officials are more easily affected by the uppermost principlesof present within these committees. Hence, duration of participation seems to strengthen and further the impact resulting from the uppermost principle of organization.

In addition to the effect of individual and institutional seniority within EU institutions, one may add the impact resulting from the sheer intensity of the participation of domestic officials within EU committees, measured by the number of committees they attend, the number of formal and informal chaired, the degree of activity regarding giving oral presentations within these meetings, etc. Generally, intensity is assumed to correlate positively with the degree to which officials are affected by the organizational principles that are uppermost within these committees. One important finding is that modes of coordination appear to be most strongly affected by the number of committees that officials attend. The number of meetings and the degree of activity during these meetings correlate less strongly with particular modes of coordination behaviour.¹⁰

Table 8 clearly indicates how the impact from particular principles of organization within EU committees is strengthened and furthered by the sheer intensity of officials' exposure to these principles: officials participating many ECs seem to coordinate more rarely inter-sectorally than do officials participating in fewer ECs. Similarly, officials participating within many WPs seem to coordinate less intra-sectorally than do officials participating within fewer WPs.

The analysis so far seems to confirm our main theoretical propositions: the duration and intensity of exposure to certain organizational structures - even though these structures are of secondary nature and embedded within collegial arrangements at the EU level of governance - seem to further and strengthen the impact of these structures. This section has shown that: (1) secondary institutional embeddedness does indeed impact on modes of acting among the participants, and (2) the intensity and length of participationat EU level has an independent effect on the extent to which coordinationbehaviour affected by secondary institutional embeddedness.

The next section aims at uncovering how the relationships presented so far
are filtered and modified by the different domestic institutional affiliations
embedding these officials.

Primary Institutional Embeddedness

Generally, primary institutional affiliations are likely to affect modes of coordination fairly strongly (Egeberg 1999a; Knill & Lehmkuhl 1999). This section discusses how domestic institutional embeddedness affects modes of policy coordination. More precisely, this section illuminates the independent (controlled) effect of domestic institutional affiliations. Thus, the control variable in this section is 'form' of affiliation towards EU committees'.

Past research on decision-making behaviour among Norwegian civil servants reveals that the ministry-agency nexus may be significant for understanding modes of policy coordination (Lægreid & Olsen 1984; Christensen & Egeberg 1997). I have argued that cross-sectoral modes of coordination are more likely to be evoked among officials at the ministry level than among officials at the agency level. Moreover, at the permanent representations to the EU, formally embassies under the auspices of the MFA, systematic attention to cross-sectoral coordination is formally institutionalized. officials within the diplomatic realms of these representations are more likely to enact cross-sectoral modes of coordination than are officials within the sectoral realms - the latter are delegates from domestic-sector ministries. Additionally, I have argued that institutional compatibility across levels of governance is likely to condition these effects to some extent: owing to institutional compatibility, officials within domestic agencies are likely to be affected by the institutional dynamics within ECs more strongly than are officials at the ministry level, except for officials within the diplomatic realms at the permanent representation. officials at the ministry level, and especially officials within the diplomatic realms at the permanent representation, are likely to be affected by decision impulses from the WPs to a greater extent than are officials within the sectoral realms of the permanent representation, except for officials within domestic agencies. Table 9 largely confirms the majority of these propositions.

Consistent with the above propositions. Table 9 reveals that crosssectoralmodesof — especially through the MFA - are more frequent at the ministry level than at the agency level. Table 9 also shows that this effect is present under different statistical conditions, for example when controlling for EU affiliation. However, the first variable in the table clearly indicates the dual-role expectations juxtaposed by these officials.

Owing to contending principles of organization present within both ECs and WPs, officials at the ministry level are expected to act like 'government officials' and 'expert representatives' within both ECs and WPs. Notwithstandingtheseconflicting expectations, Table 9 clearly indicates how cross-sectoral modes of coordination are strengthened as one moves from the agency level to the ministry level. Similarly, when controlling for EU committee affiliation, the impact of domestic institutional affiliation turns out significantly negative regarding whether positions are 'based on professionalexpertise'.Consistent these observations, officials within the diplomatic realms at the permanent representations to the EU evoke crosssectoralmodesof more frequently than their colleagues within the sectoral realms at the permanent representations. Hence, Table 9 identifiespositiverelationships domestic institutional affiliations and

modes of coordination, notwithstanding diverse committee affiliations at
the EU level.

Effects stemming from institutional compatibility are not clearly reflected in the data: when controlling for EU affiliation, the sign of the relationships between the ministry /agency variable, on the one hand, and coordination behaviour, on the other, remains the same.¹² Support for the compatibility thesis would require that the sign of these correlations varied across the EC-WP nexus. Such co-variation is not revealed in the data (cf. below). However, the strength of some correlations varies across the EC-WP axis. This may provide some support for the compatibility thesis. Because the signs of many correlations are largely equal across the EC-WP dichotomy, some of the observations in the first part of this article, which reveal how different committees at the EU level affect coordination behaviour differently, may be spurious to some extent. It is neither possible nor necessary to test for spuriousness in the current analysis. It is not possible because in the questionnaire the EU affiliation variable is merged with each dependent variable.¹³ Secondly, testing the relative explanatory power of forms of EU affiliation, on the one hand, and domestic institutional affiliations, on the other, is not necessary because these independent variables are not strongly correlated (the ministry-agency variable correlates only at r = —0.05 with EC participation, whereas the ministryagency correlates at r = 0.16* with WP participation; *p < 0.05). This may indicate that the two major independent variables of this study have independent explanatory powers with respect to domestic coordination behaviour.

When controlling for rank, the same tendency as in Table 9 is repeated in Table 10: officials in top-rank positions seem to engage in cross-sectoral modes of coordination more frequently than officials in medium-rank positions, of their diverse European institutional embeddedness. Additionally, one may expect officials who have a lot of behavioural discretion (coded 1) to be more easily affected by their participation on EU committees than officials who have less behavioural discretion at their disposal (coded 2). Table 10 indicates these relationships.

Clearly, officials who perceive their behaviour as fairly regulated by norms and rules report their positions to be clear. These officials also seem to coordinate more frequently - both intra- and inter-seclorally - than officials who have a lot of behavioural discretion at their disposal. Conversely,officials a lot of behavioural discretion at their disposal 'often choose which positions to follow". Similarly, officials at the EU representationsreport rule following accompanies high awareness of the interests of their home country. Officials reporting their decision behaviour to be governed by rules and practices to a fairly great extent, or more, also tend to coordinate actively with the MFA. compared with officials whose

behaviour is perceived as fairly, or more, discretionary. These tables, thus, indicate the major role played by domestic government institutions in moulding coordination behaviour among domestic government officials. Moreover, this effect is also significant when controlling statistically for EU committee affiliation.

Moreover, government officials are highly presocialized even before entering formal positions within ministries and agencies, except before entering EU committees. Prior professional training may continue to affect modes of acting also after officials are assigned formal positions within highly formalized organizations like domestic ministries and agencies. Table 11 takes into consideration prior professional training among civil servants, be it law, economics, various social sciences, or more technical disciplines such as biology, physics, etc. Relating to the sectoral-territorial

dimension of coordination in Table 11, law, economics, and social sciences are perceived as representing cross-sectoral disciplines (coded 1), whereas technical disciplines are seen as representing more sectoral professions (coded 2).^I4

Table 11 shows, foremost, that educational background and professional affiliations do have impact upon modes of policy coordination: lawyers, economists, and social scientists tend to coordinate more frequently crosssectorally,irrespective the EU committee that they attend, than do technicians.Conversely, tend to coordinate intra-sectorally to a larger extent.¹⁵ For example, lawyers, economists, and social scientists at the permanent representation who participate on ECs tend to coordinate cross-sectorally (applying national positions, paying heed to signals from the political leadership), whereas technicians are more geared towards intra-sectoral coordination behaviour (contacts with other ministries and domestic agencies, importance attached towards other domestic agencies), irrespective of which committees they attend. Thus, modes of policy coordinationtend vary according to educational background as much as

committee affiliation. However. the upper half of Table 11 also gives support to a compatibility hypothesis: officials participating within WPs tend to enact cross-sectoral modes of coordination more extensively if their educational background is compatible with the organizational principles within the WPs, i.e. cross-sectoral in nature (law, economics, and social sciences).

Since we are left with some statistically significant bivariate relationships in which some of the independent variables are related, multiple regression analyses are provided in an effort to unveil spuriousness. It has been shown above that it is not necessary to unravel the relative explanatory potential of EU committee-affiliation because this variable does not correlate significantly with domestic institutional variables (e.g. the ministry-agency variable). In Tables 12-18, we measure the relative explanatory potential of (1) intensity and duration of participation within EU committees, and (2) primary institutional affiliations.

First, the following two independent variables turn out to be equally significant in the multiple regression analyses: (1) the sheer number of committeesthat attend, and (2) the level of discretion available at the domestic level. These are the only variables indicating the relative impact of primary and secondary institutional affiliations. Tables 12 and 13 indicate that the relative explanatory power of these institutional affiliations is fairly

similar. According to Tables 14-18, which look at the relative explanatory potential of different primary institutional affiliations, the ministry-agency nexus turns out to be the most important, closely followed by the degree of behavioural discretion. Formal education is shown to reveal more spuriousnessthan former variables. So, Tables 12-18 show the importance of the ministry-agency affiliation when explaining modes of coordination within domestic bureaucracies.

Conclusion

Studies of public administration have contributed only marginally to our understanding of how different institutional affiliations may affect decision behaviour (Egeberg 1999b). This study suggests ways of filling this gap. Our initial argument emphasized primary institutional affiliations as vital cues for affecting decision behaviour within government organizations. However, this analysis also identifies conditions under which secondary institutional affiliations at the EU level of governance may affect domestic coordination processes. I argue, basically, that under conditions of (1) institutional compatibility (2) intensive and protracted cross-level participation, domestic processes may reflect secondary institutional embeddedness among domestic civil servants. Moreover, I argue that different organizational - domestically as well as within EU committees - are likely to affect modes of coordination differently.

The empirical analysis supports these arguments to a considerable extent. Regarding principles of organization, inter-sectoral modes of coordination are evoked more frequently among officials participating within Council WPs than among officials attending Commission ECs. Moreover, the differencesbetween and WPs are furthered and strengthened when officials have participated intensively and for protracted periods of time within EU committees. However, notwithstanding these observations, this study also indicates the pivotal role played by domestic institutions when it comes to their effect on coordination behaviour among civil servants. The present study reveals that domestic institutional affiliations have an independentcasual upon domestic coordination processes, even when statistically controlling for EU committee affiliation. When controlling for EC-WP affiliations, Pearson's r tends to vary according to the domestic institutional affiliations among the officials. This observation does not support the institutional compatibility thesis. The empirical support of the compatibility thesis is rather weak: variations in the strength of some relationships are observed. However, the signs of most relationships are the same along the EC-WP axis. The multiple regression analysis, however, indicates that the relative explanatory values of intensity and length of

participation within EU committees. on the one hånd. and domestic institutional affiliations, on the other, are fairly equal. Thus. despite providing clear indications of processes of Europeanization of domestic coordination processes, the current analysis also shows how 'responses to integration requirements are filtered - and even conditioned - by a prior state of affairs" at the domestic level of governance (Spanou 1998.469).

---

NOTES

1. The present study uses the coordination behaviour evoked by civil servants as an operational measure of policy coordination more broadly. The general aim is to study the latter through measuring the former. Inter-sectoral modes of coordination. I argue, involve linkage processes across policy sectors as far as actors, problems, solutions, consequences, role conceptions, and identities are concerned. In the current study, inter-sectoral coordination resembles horizontal inter-ministerial coordination processes, intra-sectoral coordination resembles both horizontal coordination processes within each government institution, and vertical coordination processes within each government institution and between the ministry level and the asency level. Moreover, my definition of coordination is also two-dimensional as regards techniques applied: coordination may involve (1) proactive processes geared to outlining written and clear-cut mandates and instructions, or (2) reactive processes and anticipated reactions not geared to outlining any written instructions. Whereas the first process tends to fosterlbrmally binding mandates, the second process tends to produce unclear mandates. Whereas the process towards producing imperative mandates is based upon notions of institutions as coupled, sectorally coordinated systems of governance, the notion of unclear mandates rests upon notions of institutions as uncoupled, segmented, and inter-sectorally fragmented government systems (Olsen 1988. 162-70).

2. The current article analyses how different organizational principles as embedded within the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers - affect modes of coordination. term 'Europeanization' denotes processes by which domestic coordination processes are affected significantly by institutional dynamics within Commission ECs and/or Council WPs. The modus opcnmdi of the Commission and the Council is different; they are located at different phases of the decision-making cycles of the EU machinery. However, the present article does not make any efforts to theorize decision phases. Organizational principles are put to the fore in this study partly because easily than from the notion of decision phases.

3. Whereas a huge body of literature conceives of the EL! system as a novel and partially 'mysterious' polity not resembling anything seen before 1 argue that the ELI system to a great extent reflects the structures of nation state polities. 1 thus reason against arguments stressing that the 'European Community is a political entity that does not fit argument does not ignore idiosyncrasies of the EU system as being supranational, multinational, and multilevel. The basic arguments laid out here, however, do stress the similarities of the EU polity and other polities. Still, due to this polity being described as unique, novel, and 'mysterious' (Bartolini 1997), and faced with an assumed lack of appropriate concepts and categories for the understanding of this polity (Coombes 1970, 101; Jachtenfuchs 1997, 40), one vital step in this enquiry must be to carve this polity into empirically meaningful and theoretically fruitful categories.

---

3. Whereas a huge body of literature conceives of the EL! system as a novel and partially 'mysterious' polity not resembling anything seen before 1 argue that the ELI system to a great extent reflects the structures of nation state polities. 1 thus reason against arguments stressing that the 'European Community is a political entity that does not fit argument does not ignore idiosyncrasies of the EU system as being supranational, multinational, and multilevel. The basic arguments laid out here, however, do stress the similarities of the EU polity and other polities. Still, due to this polity being described as unique, novel, and 'mysterious' (Bartolini 1997), and faced with an assumed lack of appropriate concepts and categories for the understanding of this polity (Coombes 1970, 101; Jachtenfuchs 1997, 40), one vital step in this enquiry must be to carve this polity into empirically meaningful and theoretically fruitful categories.

4. Another hypothesis could be that length of service within EU committees reduces the need for coordinated instructions due to increased knowledge and feeling as regards appropriate solutions and positions. However, this hypoiluvsis has weaker empirical support than the hypothesis suggested here (cf. Table 7).

5. Certain biases always accompany data based upon systematic selection of samples. In our data set officials at medium-rank positions loom large compared with officials in top-rank positions. Moreover, officials from the agency level ure also more adequately represented in the sample compared with officials from the ministry level. Similarly, officials from the sectoral realms at the permanent representations ure overrepresented compared with officials from the diplomatic realms. However, we do not have any universe against which to compare our samples. Available empirical findings indicate that our sample does not deviate significantly from any tentative universe of committee participants (Trondal 1999b).

6. Forty percent of the officials who participate solely on cxpert committees report their decision behaviour to be governed by rules and practices to a fairly great extent. or more. On the other hånd. 52 percent of those ollicials participating within both ECs fairly great extent, or more.

7. Time pressure is reported as one additional hindrance for coordination (source: interviews).

8. In our sample from the home administration. 51 percent of the Danish officials entered ECs before 1990. whereas only 5 percent of the Norwegian officials and 2 percent of the Swedish officials enlered these committees before 1990. Regarding participation within WPs, all of the Swedish officials entered these committees for the first time after 1994 (when Sweden became an EEA member). whereas most of the Danish officials entered WPs long before 1994.

9. Owing to systematic selcetion of data. signilicance does not tcll us anything about any universe. On the contrary. significance may tell us something about the robustness of the relationships tested. Moreover. owing to the low A', and vvith the aim of studying only fairly robust relationslnpv IV;irson\ /' \;ilncs ih;il air not significant at the 95 percent level or that are lower than 0.40 are not shown in the tables presented here. On this basis, the likelihood for random errors is reduced.

10. Those officials participating in many EU committees also seem to take part in many formal meetings (Pearson's r = 0.23", N = 159: "p < 0.07). Moreover. those taking part in many committees are also generally senior participants (Pearson'sr = 0.34". N = 159).

11. Pearson's ;¦ = 0.32". S = 148 within the domestic bureaucracy.

12. However. the strength of some relationships dilfers along the EC WP axis, as expected from the compatibility thesis. For example. contacts with other ministries are conducted more frequently among ollicials at the ministry level attending WPs than among ministry officials attending ECs (variable 3). The same tendency occurs with officials who attach importance lo olher mmistncs (variable and who have contacts with the MFA (_\ai iab!c 71.7_1. I malh . oliiuals al I h!' nniiislr\ }r\ c\ al!cnchuy WCs rcpoi i coordinating more frequently with all relevant ministries than do officials at the ministry level attending ECs. These observations, thus, support the compatibility thesis somewhat. However. the signs of the relationships are the same along the EC WP nexus, thus going counter to the compatibility thesis.

13. A test of the independent. non-spurious. explanatory status of EU committee alliliation This test is not done here hecause il would render only fcu Linils in somc ol ihc cclls (cspecially among ministry ollicials).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article is financially supported by the ARENA programme (Norwegian Research Council). University of Oslo. An earlier version of the article was presented at the 12th NOPSA Conference, Sweden, 19-21 August 1999. The author is indebted to Shrin Ahlbåck. Svein Andersen, Jan Beyers, Simon Buhner, Jeffrey T. Checkel. Morten Egeberg. Bengt Jacobsson. Ann-Cathrine Jungar, Tobias Krantz. Per Lægreid, Goran Sundstrom. Frode Veggeland. and two anonymous referees for valuable comments. Thanks to Knut A. Christoffersen for technical assistance.

REFERENCES

Anchar, D. 1993. 'Comparative Research in the Nordic Countries: Overcoming Ethnocentrism?',
Political Studies 16(2). 107-26.

Bartolini, S. 1997. 'Exit Options, Boundary Building, Political Structuring', unpublished
manuscript, European University Institute, Florence.

Beyers, J. 1998. 'How Supranational is Supranationalism? National and European Socialization
Negotiators in the Council of Ministers'. Acta Politico 33(4), 378-408.
Buhner, S. J. 1993. 'The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutional Approach",
Journal of Public Policy 13, 351-80.

Bulmer, S. J. & Burch, M. 1998. 'Organizing for Europe: Whitehall, The British State and
European Union', Public Administration 76, 601-28.

Burnham, J. & Maor. M. 1994. 'Converging Administrative Systems. Recruitment and
Training in EC Member-States', working paper, LSE. London.

Christensen, T. & Egeberg, M. 1997. 'Sentraladministrasjonen - en oversikt over trekk ved
Departementer og direktorater', in Christensen, T. & Egeberg. M.. eds. Forvaltningskunnskap.
TANO Aschehoug.

Coombes, D. 1970. Politics and Bureaucracy in the European Community. A Portrait of the
Commission of the E.E. C. London: Allen & Unwin.

Coporaso, J., Cowles, M. G. & Risse, T. 1999. 'Europeanization and Domestic Change',
unpublished manuscript. University of Washington, Georgetown University, and European
University Institute. Florence.

Cram, L. 1997. Policy-Making in the European Union: Conceptual Lenses and the Integration
Process. London: Routledge.

Dehousse, R. 1997. 'European Integration and the Nation-State', in Rhodes, M.. Heywood. P. & Wright, V., eds. Development in West European Politics. Houndmills: Macmillan. Dimitrakopoulos, D. 1995. 'The Development of The Policy Formulation Process on EC Affairs in Greece: Political and Administrative Considerations", paper presented at the second Pan- European Conference on International Relations. Paris. 13-16 September.

Dosenrode. S. Z. 1993. 'Den optimale minimallosning: Danmarks administrative tilpasning
til EF', Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift 74(4). 454-65.

Egeberg, M. 1999a. 'Transcending lntergovernmentalism? Identity and Role Perceptions of
National Officials in EU Decision-Making", Journal of European Public Policy 6(3).
456-74.

Egeberg, M. 1999b. 'The Impact of Bureaucratic Structure on Policy-Making". Public
Administration 77(1). 155 70.

Egeberg, M. & Trondal. J. 1997. 'Innenriksforvaltningens og den offentlige politikkens
"internasjonalisering". in Christensen. T. & Egeberg. M.. eds."Forvaltnmgskwmskap. Oslo:
Tano Aschehoug.

Egeberg, M. & Trondal, J. 1999. 'Differentiated Integration in Europe: The Case of the
EEA Country Norway", Journal of Common Market Studies 37(1). 133-42.

Hammond, T. H. 1986. 'Agenda Control. Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic
Polities', American Journal of Political Science 30(1), 379-420.

Hanf, K. & Soetendorp, 8., eds, 1998. Adapting to European Integration. Small States and
the European Union. London: Longman.

Harmsen, R. 1999. The Europeanization of National Administrations: A Comparative Study
of France and The Netherlands', Governance 12(1), 81-113.

Hayes-Renshaw, F. & Wallace, H. 1997. The Council of Ministers. New York: St Martin's
Press.

Hix, S. 1998. 'The Study of the European Union II: The "New Governance" Agenda and
Its Rivals', Journal of European Public Policy 5(1), 38-65.

Hopkins, R. F. 1976. 'The International Role of "Domestic" Bureaucracy', International
Organization 30(3), 405-32.

Institut fur Europåische Politik. 1989. Comitology - Characteristics, Performance and Options.
Preliminary Final Report, Bonn.

Jachtenfuchs, M. 1997. 'Conceptualizing European Governance', in Jørgensen, K. J., ed.,
Reflective Approaches to European Governance. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Jacobsson, B. 1999. 'Europeiseringen och statens omvandling', in Goldmann. K. et al., eds,
Politikens internationalisering. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Joerges, C. & Neyer, J. 1997. 'From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative Political Processes: The Constitutionalisation of Comitology', European Law Journal 3(3), 273-99. Jonsson, C, Bjurulf, 8., Elgstrom, 0., Sannerstedt, A. & Stromvik, M. 1998. 'Negotiations in Networks in the European Union', International Negotiations 3, 319-44.

Knill, C. & Lehmkuhl, D. 1999. 'How Europe Matters. Different Mechanisms of Europeanization',
Integration Online Papers 3(7).

Knill, C. & Lenschaw, A. 1998. 'Coping with Europe: The Impact of British and German
Administrations on the Implementation of EU Environmental Policy', Journal of European
Public Policy 5(4), 595-614.

Lindberg, L. N. 1963. The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

Lægreid, P. 1999. -Forvaltningens Europatilpaning i Norden', LOS-senter Notat, 99/31,
Bergen.

Lægreid, P. & Olsen, J. P. 1984. 'Top Civil Servants in Norway: Key Players - On Different
Teams', in Suleiman, E. N., ed., Bureaucrats and Policy-Making. New York: Holmes &
Meier.

March, J. G. & Olsen. J. P. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.
March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. 1998. 'The Institutional Dynamics of International Political

Orders', International Organizations 52(4), 943-69.

Metcalfe, L. 1994. international Policy Co-ordination and Public Management Reform',
International Review of Administrative Sciences 60, 271 90.

Nedergaard, P. 1994. Organiseringen af Den europæiske Union. København: Handelshøjskolens

Nedergaard, P. 1995. 'Organisational Processes of the European Commission: Legitimacy
and Efficiency', CORE working paper 4/1995.

Neyer, J. 1998. 'The Standing Committee for Foodstuffs: Arguing and Bargaining in
Comitology', in Van Schendelcn, M. P. C. M., ed., EU Committees as Influential Policymakers.
Ashgate.

Neyer, J. 1999. 'Justifying Comitology: The Promise of Deliberation', paper presented at the
ECSA Sixth Biennial International Conference, 2-5 June, Pittsburgh.

Olsen, J. P. 1988. 'Representativitet og politisk organisering', in Olsen. J. P., ed., Statsstyre
og Institusjonsutforming. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Rometsch, D. & Wessels, W., eds. 1996. The European Union and Member States. Towards

Sbragia, S. M. 1993. "The European Community: A Balancing Act', Publius 27(3), 23 38.
Siedentopf, H. & Ziller, J. 1998. Making European Policies Work. The Implementation of

SOU 1996:6. Eli ar med EU. Svenska statstjcimtemdns erfarenheter av arbete i EU.
Stockholm.

Spanou, C. 1998. 'European Integration in Administrative Terms: A Framework for Analysis
and the Greek Case', Journal of European Public Policy 5(3), 467-84.

Spence, D 1993. The Role of the National Civil Service in European Lobbying: The British
Case', in Mazey, S. & Richardson, J., eds, Lobbying in the European Community. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Statskonsult 1999:6. Norsk deltakelse i EU-komileer. En oversikt over trekk ved Forvaltningens
deltakelse i komiteer og ekspertgrupper under Europakommisjonen. Oslo.

Statskontoret 1996:7. EU-medlemskapets effekter på svensk statsforvaltning. - Samordning,
organisation och arbetsformer i statsforvaltningens EU-arbete. Stockholm.

Stone Sweet, A. & Sandholtz, W. 1998. -Integration, Supranational Governance, and the Institutionalization of the European Polity', in Sandholtz. W. & Stone Sweet. A., eds. European Integration and Supranational Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. Sundstrom, G. 1999. Att tala med en rost. En studie av hur EU-medlemskapet påverkar Samordningen inoin Regeringskansliet. Stockholm: Department of Political Science. University of Stockholm.

Trondal, J. 1996. 'Tilknytningsformer til EU og nasjonale samordningsprosesser. En studie
Av norske og danske departementer', ARENA working paper 15.

Trondal, J. 1998. 'Byråkratisk integrasjon: EU-kommisjonens ekspertkomiteer som
transformative enheter'. Nordisk administrativt tidsskrift 79(3), 274-301.

Trondal, J. 1999a. 'On Administrative Integration across Levels of Governance: A
Theoretical Account on Principles of Organizations', unpublished paper. Department of
Political Science. University of Oslo. Oslo.

Trondal, J. 1999b. 'Towards Theoretical Robustness: On Refutation. Causality and the
Comparative Method', unpublished paper. Department of Political Science. University of
Oslo, Oslo.

Trondal, J. 1999c. "Mellom politisk styring og faglig uavhengighet: En studie av norske
direktoraters europeisering'. Nordiske organisasjonsstudier 1(3). 31-58.

Van Schendelen. M. P. C. M. 1996. 'EC Committees: Influence Counts More than Legal
Powers', in Pedler, R. H. and Schafer. G. F.. eds. Shaping European Law and Policy. The
Role of Committees and Comitologv in the Political Process. Maastricht: EIPA.
Van Schendelen. M. P. C. M. & Pedler, R. H. 1998. 'Are EU Committees Influential?", in
Van Schendelen, M. P. C. M., ed., EU Committees as Influential Policymakers. Aldershot:
Ashgate.

Weaver. R. K. & Rockman, B. A. 1993. Do Institutions Matter.' Government Capabilities in
the United States and Abroad. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Wessels. W. 1998. 'Comitology: Fusion in Action. Politico-administrative Trends in the EU
System'. Journal of European Public Policy 5(2). 209-34.