Managing Europe From Home: The Europeanisation of the Irish ...

The co-ordination ambition depends on the nature of the issue on the Brussels
agenda, the phase of the policy process and the national style in managing EU
business. A fourfold distinction between routine sectoral policy making, major
policy shaping decisions within sectors, cross-sectoral issues and the big bargains
is apposite. Departments can handle the routine business of dealing with
Brussels within clearly defined sectoral areas without engaging in too much interdepartmental
consultation ad co-ordination. In addition, the Irish system gives
individual departments considerable autonomy within their own sectors even on
the major shaping issues provided the wider system is kept informed. This is
often a problematic category in the Irish system. For example, the Department
of Finance is the lead department on taxation but an issue like energy tax
involves Finance, Environment and Public Enterprise. One official remarked that
‘Finance may have a problem, but they talk to DFA instead of Public Enterprise,
therefore, they are not getting a co-ordinated view’ (Interview 56, 12.02.02).
Water policy was another area where it was felt that the co-ordinating systems
were not sufficient. For the latter two categories, processes that go beyond
consultation are required and here the Irish system has put in place structures
and processes to ensure co-ordination. The co-ordination ambition in Ireland
could be defined as a high level of co-ordination on selected issues that are
accorded domestic priority.
The member states can achieve their co-ordination ambitions in a variety of
ways. Bartlett and Ghoshal offer a threefold categorisation of co-ordination
styles— centralisation, formalisation and socialisation (Bartlett and Ghoshal,
1989, 158-66). All organisations deploy a mix of the three processes of coordination
but one approach will usually dominate. A highly centralised system
involves ‘top down’ processes of co-ordination with issues pushed up the
hierarchy for deliberation, arbitration, resolution and strategic analysis. A highly
formalised system would be procedurally strong with extensive rules and
guidelines. A system that rests on socialisation relies on the development of
common understandings and norms. The Irish system utilises all three
approaches but the dominant mode of co-ordination on a day to day and week to
week basis is undoubtedly socialisation.
On the key national priorities, the Irish system engages in ‘selective
centralisation’ (Kassim 2002). The system will channel political and
administrative resources on the big issues. Three examples illustrate the capacity
of selective centralisation. In 1983 Ireland had a major problem with