Are you Europeanised? The impact of European Integration on Dutch Civil Service 2006-2015

(1)

1

Are you Europeanised?

The impact of European

Integration on Dutch Civil Service

2006-2015

Master Thesis, August 2016

Author: Giulia Francaviglia (s1755412)

Supervisor: Dr. Caspar Van den Berg

Second reader: Dr. Anchrit Wille

Leiden University

Master of Public Administration

(2)

2

1 Introduction

1.1 Societal and academic relevance

European integration and its impact on national administration is a crucial topic for researchers as well as for society, in terms of policy makers and advisors, but also for political elites and public opinion. In fact, it became almost crucial to understand to what extent “Europe” penetrates the national structures of member states and, consequently, to what extent EU issues are incorporated in the domestic apparatus. Recent societal development such as the increasing importance of anti-Europe parties (e.g. Austria and Poland) and the turnout of Brexit referendum have strengthen the relevance of such topic, in particular among populist parties and supporters of a Euro-sceptic stance. It is straightforward to say that Europe influences decisions and processes of national governments of each member states, but to what extent and how it does it still represent an unanswered question. Moreover, civil servants are at the same time citizens, they to some extent actively reflect desires and the will of people, thus an analysis that specifically look at Dutch officials would be a contribution in a broader sense.

As it will be presented below, the emerging Europeanisation literature is a growing field that includes several disciplines (i.e. public administration, European studies, public policy studies, international relations); moreover, this literature is characterised by confusion and disagreement. Academic efforts have been trying to disentangle the different aspects of the European integration process and its impact to the national level, but more insights are still needed. Accordingly, the modest aim of this thesis is to fill some gaps in the “growth industry” of Europeanisation, by providing a quantitative measurement of Europeanisation. In fact, recent studies have sought to “measure” the impacts of European integration on national states by looking at legislation or, more generally, the entire policy process, but they have hardly obtained quantitative and comparable results (see Haverland, 2011, p. 850).

Moreover, we know little about the relationship between Europeanisation and civil servants. Mostly studies in this field are “policy oriented” (Vink & Graziano, 2008b, p. 11), and they usually focus the attention on a macro level (system), rather than on a meso and micro level (organisation and individual). According to Geuijen et al., there is little systematic knowledge on the broad involvement of national civil servants in EU–related activities, on who exactly they are, and what does it mean, in practical term, to be an “Eurocrats” (Geuijen, t Hart, Princen, & Yesilkagit, 2008, p. 23). Accordingly, Laffan (2006) points out that we barely know about officials and civil servants involved in EU activities, for instance their attitude, identities and career trajectories (Laffan, 2006). Nevertheless, these kind of studies would be crucial in

(5)

5 order to deepen and disentangle the overall understanding of EU-domestic dynamics (Connaughton, 2015, p. 200).

1.2 Research question

Hence, the dilemma came up and arise the question: what does it mean exactly Europeanisation? What does it refer to? How and to what extent does Europe influence member states? The purpose of this research is to address such questions by assessing changes brought about by European integration in an “old” European country, the Netherlands. That is, this paper would give some insights in the broad Europeanisation research and investigate how and to what extent EU impacts member states by looking at the core elements of national government, namely civil servants. By doing so, this contribution has sough to shed a light in the effective Europeanisation of Dutch officials in EU-related activities by measuring their practical involvement and by exploring the wide range of tasks that civil servants carry out when their work is affected by EU. Hence, the aim of this thesis is to draw a picture of the Europeanisation of civil servants by comparing surveys conducted in 2006 and 2015. Then, this thesis will zoom in on the impact of Europeanisation on the organisational structure, by assessing the degree of embeddedness of EU within organisation. In other words, the goals of this research are to find out to how and what extent EU penetrates the national system and thus lead to alteration in the overall organisational structure. In doing so, we will look at changes in the personnel policies, namely the role played by EU during the recruitment process and in the career ladder, and the priority that EU-related work receives during the normal functioning. Consequently, the research question states:

To what extent has ongoing European integration led to an increase in the Europeanisation of Dutch civil servants in the period 2006-2015 and what is its impact on the degree of embeddedness of EU within the organisation?

As already said, I will analyse data from a survey conducted among Dutch civil servants in two different periods: 2006 and 2015. These surveys offer the unique opportunity to assess the overall involvement of Dutch civil servants in EU-related activities and point out their European thinking, and to receive insights related to such activities and the organisational context within they operate. Moreover, these questionnaires allow us to perform a systematic cross-time analysis and evaluate the development of the Europeanisation process. This thesis took part in a capstone project called “The Europeanisation of Dutch Officials”; this created synergy offers the opportunity to five students to discuss and cooperate on the same topic and to create their own thesis.

(6)

6

1.3 Structure of this thesis

The reminder of this paper is organised as follows: in the second chapter theory is presented, which includes a general picture of Europeanisation literature and then the literature review about the relationship between European integration and civil service; at the end of this chapter the three main variables are conceptualised and the hypotheses presented. Consequently, the research design is explained in the third chapter, thus it entails explanation concerning data collection, differences between unit of analysis and unit of observation, the operationalisation of variables and, in conclusion, weakness and strengthen of this research. The fourth chapter implies the data analysis, it dedicates the first paragraph on the comparison of the abovementioned survey, then the relations between Europeanisation and degree of embeddedness will be explored and the last paragraph presents and discusses findings from interviews. During the analysis and in each paragraph, data are presented and findings are discussed. Finally, the conclusion chapter will highlight the main results.

(7)

7

2 Theory

In the following chapter, I firstly define and discuss the key concept of this work, namely Europeanisation. Then, I narrow down the discussion by providing a general literature review about Europeanisation and civil service, followed by a theoretical background for the three main variables of this thesis: European integration in the Netherlands, the degree of Europeanisation among Dutch civil servants and the degree of embeddedness of EU within the organisations. Finally, hypotheses are presented and argued.

2.1 Europeanisation: concept and definition

What is Europeanisation?

The influence of the European Union (EU) on national political systems, administrative structures and policies is a triggering phenomenon that has received a growing attention from scholars in the last decades. The main statement is that “EU matters in the daily political life of national bureaucrats, politicians and the wider public” (Lenschow, 2006, p. 56), thus the increasing importance of the European integration process and the subsequent adaptation caused by its impact on member states pose new theoretical challenges. Scholars from different fields such as international relations, EU studies, and comparative politics started exploring and analysing problems related to the implementation of EU policies and law and its effect on the national systems, as well as investigating to what extent the EU can be portrayed as opportunity or constrain at the national level (Berg, 2011; Vink & Graziano, 2008b). Research on this topic is an “academic growth industry” (Olsen, 2002, p. 921) that has blown fresh air into the old debates within European studies on the European integration and governance, as well as in public administration and comparative literature (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004). The Europeanisation approach implies a step forward in the classic integration theories, it focuses its attention principally on the domestic level and provides a “European route to the study of national politics” (Vink & Graziano, 2008a, p. 4). Traditional theories of integration were not able to deal with the new developments at the European level, the analysis of this political situation required different tool kits, thus the Europeanisation research became the solution to fill the gap by tackling the conceptual issues of analysing the consequences of integration on the domestic structures and institutions (Caporaso, 2008, pp. 24–27). The early strand of Europeanisation literature was characterised by studies on the politico-administrative adaptation of member states to EU membership (e.g. Kassim, Peters, & Wright, 2000; Rometsch & Wessels, 1996) that represented the threshold for studies primarily on the domestic implementation of EU policies, then on the constrains and opportunities that EU

(8)

8 represents for national political actors and finally on outcomes produced by European integration process (Lenschow, 2006). Moreover, this scholarly interest realised the importance to assess national political dynamics as a part of an integrating Europe, a broader context in which domestic actors deal with both national and European pressures (Vink & Graziano, 2008b). In sum, Europeanisation research addresses questions on the process of national transformation aimed by European integration and supported by political interests of national actors; it affects issues such as accountability, effectiveness, and responsibility, as well as it causes shifts in power constellations and their capacity (Lenschow, 2006, p. 68). As it will be explained below, Europeanisation research has the desire to explain how domestic polity, politics and policy change in this context, but in doing so it has been facing with a great deal of challenges. For instance, the impact of European integration could affect different national domains, such as policy field and administrative structures, thus it would be hard for researchers to isolate the specific casual mechanism and explain such process (Lenschow, 2006). In addition, it is not clear the “direction” of Europeanisation, some authors understand it as a top-down process, meanwhile others explain it as a bottom-up process or, in a more comprehensive way, as both. As a result, recent books related to the Europeanisation research agenda offer a comprehensive overview of the theoretical reflections and the empirical knowledge, but mostly posit new questions referring to the conceptual, theoretical and methodological gaps of this still-growing literature (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003; Goetz & Hix, 2001; Risse, Cowles, & Caporaso, 2001; Vink & Graziano, 2008b).

Definition

The main theoretical challenge concerns the conceptualisation of the term “Europeanisation”. The theoretical debate denotes confusion and disagreement, it has produced a variety of competing definitions of the term “Europeanisation”, defining it as a “faddish” concept (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003, p. 1) that has a limited utility as an organizing concept (Kassim et al., 2000, p. 238). That is, there is no all-encompassing theory of Europeanisation (Jordan & Liefferink, 2004, p. 2) and the basic meaning of this concept is characterized by a variety of definitions and interpretations (see P. Graziano & Vink, 2013; Olsen, 2002; Radaelli, 2000; Vink & Graziano, 2008b).

Broadly speaking, Europeanisation is not understood as a theory, but rather as a “phenomenon that needs to be explained” (Vink & Graziano, 2008a, p. 12) and a range of theoretical approaches have been trying to do it by, as a first step, providing a workable definition (Bulmer, 2008). Risse et al. (2001) emphasise that this process implies “the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance” (Risse et al., 2001, p. 3), they acknowledge that Europeanisation involves the interactions among different level of governance by creating new formal and informal institutions. This definition suggests a prominence on the origins of European governance, rather than a focus on the national impact

(9)

9 and possible adaptation outcomes (Radaelli & Pasquier, 2008). As it will be argued below, Europeanisation should be drawn as a “cycle” rather than as an “arrow”, it implies both direct and indirect influences, and both vertical and horizontal process; thus, the definition provided by Risse et al. (2001) entails only one side of the coin. For the purpose of this research, the definition of Europeanisation follows the statement of Radaelli (2003), who considers it as:

“the process of (a) construction (b) diffusion and (c) institutionalization of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘way of doing things’, and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidate in the EU policy process and then incorporate in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures, and public policies” (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003, p. 17). This definition is an “encompassing one” (Bulmer & Burch, 2005, p. 863), it implies the interaction among different levels of governance and it understands Europeanisation as an interactive process, but it needs some clarifications. EU policy process should not be understood as merely EU decisions, by contrast it represents a “political space” in which different transmission process, such as socialisation and knowledge diffusion, may occur (Radaelli & Pasquier, 2008, p. 37). Another possible misunderstanding of this definition concerns the sentence “first defined and consolidate in the EU policy process”. Domestic actors could see Europe as a resource and re-use its inputs to implement their own policies, or produce more pressures at the European level (Pasquier, 2005), thus Europeanisation is not a uni-directional reaction to impulses from Brussels. Finally, the insight from Radaelli (2003) refers to a discursive dimension of such concept, as a set of ideas and an interactive process, thus pattern of adaptation are results from cognitive and normative activities performed by policy makers (Radaelli & Pasquier, 2008, p. 38).

Process

Examining the literature closely, it is evident the huge debate about the “direction” of Europeanisation. Arguably, the main issue regards whether the dynamics are defined in hierarchical terms, thus member states seek conformity to a “supranational” power, or it should include also the horizontal mechanisms, through which actors shared beliefs, ideas and good practices (Bulmer, 2008, p. 51).

The first stream of research define Europeanisation as top-down process under which the influence of European decisions affects the political and administrative structures as well as the logic of national policy-making (Héritier, 2001; Risse et al., 2001). It is mostly related with the misfit/fit of the national model with the EU requirements (Bulmer, 2008), a theoretical framework that will be explained in the following paragraph. A clear example is the extent to which EU policies could influence the national policy goals and the choice of political instruments (Lenschow, 2006), that the hierarchical impact of European integration implies “responses to pressures coming down from Brussels” via transposition and implementation (Radaelli & Pasquier, 2008, p. 37).

(10)

10 The bottom-up process could be better explained by the term “uploading” (Börzel, 2002). It refers to the possibility that member states may try to implement and transfer their national model to the EU level because it could lead to less adaptation costs during the “downloading” process (Börzel, 2002). This idea can be defined as building European capacity by constructing the EU system of governance (Bulmer, 2008, p. 48); according to Olsen (2002), Europeanisation as a process entails the development of institutions at the European level, the dynamic of exporting forms of political organization, and the Europeanisation as a political unification process (Olsen, 2002, pp. 923–924).

The European Union can be understood as an institutional environment in which member states co-exist and, consequently, influence each other. According to this, Europeanisation is presented as an horizontal process through which an inter-state transfer or diffusion is enact (Lenschow, 2006). The EU provides arenas for such communication, it enables leaders and national policy-makers to exchange ideas and opinion. Devices such as the Open Method of Coordination or the internal market facilitate the learning process by providing room for competition and adaptation across member states (Lenschow, 2006). In this view, the concept of Europeanisation involves the horizontal transfer of policies, structures and procedures (Bomberg & Peterson, 2000; Bulmer & Radaelli, 2004). In addition, Vink and Graziano (2008) define this horizontal process as the indirect effects of the impact of European integration, it occurs when/where there is no direct EU pressures (i. e. EU regulation) or any formal imposition from Brussels (Vink & Graziano, 2008a, p. 10).

The last way of explaining this concept is the most comprehensive, because to some extent it encompasses all the previous “directions”. Europeanisation can be defined as a “two-way road” (Börzel, 2002; Bulmer & Burch, 2005; Radaelli & Pasquier, 2008) or a discursive context. This process involves that domestic actors and structures do not only react to European inputs (i. e. top-down process), but also address such inputs by either inducing a bottom-up change at the European level or by using them in domestic politics or for exploit new opportunity structures (Bulmer & Radaelli, 2004; Lenschow, 2006). From a macro-point of view, member states adjust their structures and institutions to EU requirements, but at the same time they seek to influence European processes according to their interests and institutional traditions (Héritier, 1995).

Thanks to insights from political science, studies of Europeanisation classify its effects and outcomes in the three traditional levels of political regime, namely polity, politics and policy (Börzel & Risse, 2003; Vink & Graziano, 2008a). Polity includes administrative and judicial structures as well as all the intra-governmental relations; politics implies public opinion, interest groups and political parties; policy refers to norms and goals, the variety of policy instruments, the organizational structures and actors networks (Lenschow, 2006, p. 61) . These three categories should help researchers to disentangle the impact of EU at the domestic level, but empirically it is evident an interrelation between them; for instance, European policies could

(11)

11 challenge both the national policy goals and the administrative structures (Knill & Lenschow, 2005). The overlap of effects upon polity, politics and policy is related to several methodological issues and problems of operationalisation. Authors have been trying to find a common measure of the adaptation and transformation through which national states face with, but the lack of a shared theoretical framework, the nested outcomes that are produced and the interrelation between domains touched by such process, get these issues more complicated. A common stream through the Europeanisation research assesses Europeanisation by considering the depth of the change and adaptation, ranging them in a scale from retrenchment (domestic institutions resist to change), then inertia, absorption, accommodation and, finally, a fundamental transformation (positive adjustments) (Berg, 2011; Börzel & Risse, 2003; Héritier, 2001; Lenschow, 2006).

Mechanisms of Europeanisation

Studies on European integration and the broad process of Europeanisation have pointed out a variety of mechanisms through which explain why and to what extent domestic polity, politics and policy undergo changes that result in adaptation. A neo-institutional approach characterises almost without exception the literature on the explanation of domestic changes caused by Europeanisation, by suggesting different competing models of explanation (Bulmer, 2008). This approach is based on the assumption that “institutions matter” and it differs from the “classical” institutionalism principally for its definition of institutions: this concept implies both the formal and informal rules, both routines and beliefs. Exploring the literature closely, EU-sation researchers follow three main institutional strands: the rationalist perspective, the historical institutionalism and the sociological/normative strand (Vink & Graziano, 2008a). These three different logics emphasise different aspects of the change processes and of the casual mechanisms related to them, thus authors should combine them in a comprehensive theoretical framework rather than seen them as mutually exclusive (Börzel & Risse, 2003; Börzel, 2002; Vink & Graziano, 2008a). Rational choice institutionalism puts the responses of domestic political actors in the centre of the analysis, institutional settings are opportunity structures toward which domestic actors could purse and enable their preferences. According to this, pattern of adaptation at the domestic level are influenced by interests of national actors and how they “use” developments at the European level in order to achieve policy objectives (Bulmer, 2008; Knill, 2001). Historical institutionalism emphasises the temporal dimension, it explores the adaptation process at different time by highlighting the “path dependency” of such process and by searching “critical junctures” that trigger the existing equilibrium (Bulmer, 2008, p. 50). Finally, sociological institutionalists shape institutions as norms, ideas, discourse and organizational culture, thus they look at the transmission mechanisms such as socialisation and learning process as dynamics of change. Hence, socialisation regards actors acquiring ideas and preferences by “internalising norms, values, and principles’ embodied by the groups or institutions that are important to their personal disposition”

(12)

12 (Hooghe, 2001, p. 14). The pattern of adaptation at the domestic level are created around national perceptions of the European issue, domestic actors behave within EU institutions as well as within national institutions, and thus the transmission of ideas could lead to change. (Bulmer, 2008, p. 50). In other words, the national domains can be defined as Europeanised “if the discourse within these spaces evade the boundaries of certain national debates and assume transnational, European points of views” (Nitoiu, 2013, p. 33). The sociological institutionalism will be applied in this work in order to explain the institutional adaptation and link the several mechanisms by which Europeanisation occurs, because it relies seriously on social influence, discourses, and the “soft law” (norms and principles).

Following the neo-institutional approach, Börzel and Risse (2000; 2003) offer an interesting contribution in which they explain the domestic adaptation of national structures through rational-choice and sociological institutionalism. The former asserts that domestic actors are goal-oriented, that they are characterised by a specific set of preferences and consequently act in an instrumental fashion. Thus, the change is considered as an opportunity and is grounded on a balance between costs of adaptation and potential benefits. In turn, sociological institutionalism defines Europeanisation as a discursive context that carries along with new norms, values and ideas. Domestic actors are framed by these structures of meaning, and following a logic of appropriateness individuals share “understanding of what is the right things to do” (Lenschow, 2006, p. 63). Börzel and Risse (2000; 2003) combine these two explanatory paths and provide a theoretical framework to understand why and how national actors respond to European inputs and impulses.(Börzel & Risse, 2003).

Moreover, a relevant explanatory model is represented by the so-called “goodness of fit” hypothesis, it suggests that institutions may act mostly as constrains and obstacles to such transformation (Haverland, 2011; Knill, 2001; see Risse et al., 2001). It states that European integration produces adaptation pressures mediated by domestic-level factors and triggers the current situation in order to produce some effects at the domestic level, but also that such impulses must be moderate, otherwise national institutions would be more likely to resist (i.e. strong pressure) or would avoid and neglect the transformation (i.e. small pressure) (Knill, 2001). This theoretical model was further developed by Risse et al. (2001) and Caporaso (2008); they emphasise that the degree of fit (or misfit) between the European requirements and the national domain should not be considered as the solely mechanism of Europeanisation (Caporaso, 2008, p. 29). Mediator factors, such as domestic formal and informal institutions or veto groups, would facilitate and ultimately produce the outcomes. The most important feature of this explanatory model is that it represents a “non-recursive structure”, in which all the variables included (European integration, goodness of fit, mediator factors and outcomes) are endogenous and produce feedback that affect each variables (Caporaso, 2008, p. 33). Hence, this model posits the need of a comprehensive understanding of Europeanisation, in which different variables are observed simultaneously. It is also important to notice

(13)

13 that the misfit and the related adaptation pressure, in some cases, are not necessary for Europeanisation to occur (Bulmer, 2008, p. 53). As said before, direct and indirect pressures influence the adjustment process, Europe does not offer a “standard template” in every field (i.e. horizontal process). Alternative frameworks such as the Open Method of Coordination could facilitate Europeanisation also in absence of the misfit. Following a sociological institutionalist path, mechanisms such as policy framing, socialisation and learning transfer affect the discourse, ideas and cultures of domestic actors, and consequently lead to change at the domestic level (Knill & Lehmkuhl, 2002; Radaelli, 2000).

2.2 Europeanisation and civil service

Literature review

Empirical works related to the Europeanisation of polity, politics and policy represent attempts to shed a light in the blurred theoretical context, which, as said before, is characterised by confusion and disagreement. The majority of empirical research conducted in the last decades was predominantly “policy oriented” (Vink & Graziano, 2008a, p. 11), thus academic studies mostly investigated the influence of EU governance upon the domestic level, such as on policy-making process, policy instruments and policy goals (see Adshead, 2002; Bulmer & Radaelli, 2004; Héritier, 2001; Jordan & Liefferink, 2004; Vink & Graziano, 2008b). So far, the scholarly interest focused its attention on a macro level rather than exploring changes on administrative structures, processes and behaviours (i.e. changes in civil service organisation) (Mastenbroek & Princen, 2010, p. 154). Moreover, Europeanisation related to national civil servants is barely examined, and to some extent was not labelled as Europeanisation (Bulmer, 2008, p. 55). This lack is surprising, because civil servants are both the core of domestic public administration and influential players at the EU level (Berg & Schmidt, 2016); they are involved in EU-related activities as well as represent the “vehicle” through which ideas, culture and perceptions could be spread; they shape the meanings and understandings of EU issues and facilitate the alternative frameworks through which Europeanisation occurs. Therefore, individuals in the public service have become essential in European Affairs (Lægreid, Steinthorsson, & Thorhallsson, 2004, p. 366). Hence, the following paragraph provides an excursus of empirical works that have taken into account seriously changes on the national executives and, consequently, the impact of EU matters on individual civil servants.

During the 1990s, an increasing range of research started dealing with adaptation of national administrations, thus how national governments respond to European integration, in particular relating to the EU membership requirements and the enlargement process. In doing so, the substantive focus of this literature has been on a hypothetical convergence and homogenization among countries in their

(14)

14 governmental structures and procedures (Page & Wouters, 1995; Rometsch & Wessels, 1996, p. 329). Nevertheless, empirical findings and further theoretical developments posit that domestic administrations adapt differently in “a mixed pattern of similarity and difference” (Kassim et al., 2000, p. 235), and provides diversity in responses to EU engagement (Laffan, 2006).

Since the beginning of 2000, empirical studies on Europeanisation of national executive turn their attention on the work of civil servants and, more generally, on the meso-level (organisation) (i. e. Bulmer & Burch, 2005; Egeberg & Trondal, 1999; Lægreid et al., 2004; Laffan, 2006; Mastenbroek & Princen, 2010; Meyer-Sahling & Van Stolk, 2015). It is noteworthy to say that the majority of studies that entails national civil servants as unit of analysis are grounded around the idea of the European Administrative Space. These academic endeavours address questions relating to the concept of the European Public Servant, as officials working at the EU level, and “New Eurocrats”, as national public servants who deal with EU issues (see Geuijen et al., 2008; Leidenfrost & Stilberg, 2011). The main topics investigated are whether or not these individuals will produce a shared European administrative identity, and whether or not EU member states should build a collective administrative culture (Connaughton, 2015; see Overeem & Sager, 2015).

Going back to studies on Europeanisation of national executive, a relevant insight in this topic is provided by Laffan (2006), who compares three EU countries (Ireland, Finland and Greece) in order to assess the impact of the European integration on executive government and identify the variables that can explain the pattern of adaptation. He posits that national executives represent the focal point in such adaptation process because they act as “translator devices” between the European and the domestic level (Laffan, 2006, p. 688). Moreover, his theoretical framework entails the division of national executive in three main institutional components where Europeanisation occurs: structure, process and agents. Such classification will characterise the following works (Mastenbroek & Princen, 2010; Meyer-Sahling & Van Stolk, 2015). Most existing studies on governmental adaptation are qualitative, thus it is evident the need of more quantitative works that allow scholars to systematically measure the impact of EU and enable comparisons (Mastenbroek & Princen, 2010, p. 155). Lægreid et al. (2004) tried to fill this gap by analysing how EU membership and exposure to political and economic cooperative European institutions could lead to changes in national institutional and administrative settings (Lægreid et al., 2004). They conducted a survey among the heads of departments in two European countries, namely Finland and Sweden, and two no-European countries, Norway and Iceland. Throughout this comparative work, Lægreid et al. assessed the general affectedness of the EU (as result of both membership and agreements), the degree of involvement in EU networks, and the structural and cultural implication of the EU. An important finding from this study states that “membership matters’ but does not determine the adaptation pattern” (Lægreid et al., 2004, p. 362). They acknowledge that domestic adaptation could be the result of a national tradition of international interactions, thus countries that have experienced international cooperation and are

(15)

15 characterised by interconnectedness between international and domestic actors would be more likely to undergo changes in their domestic structures and practices. In turn, Europeanisation could be facilitate through this channel, and may produce a strong impact that influences the national administration and bring to “European path” country such as Norway (Egeberg & Trondal, 1999; Lægreid et al., 2004).

Finally, two relevant quantitative research on the Europeanisation of civil servants should be mentioned. Mastenbroek and Princen in 2010, and Mayer-Sahling and Van Stolk five years later, they add two crucial studies based on individuals as unit of analysis. Both articles present the same theoretical framework based on the three above-mentioned institutional components of Europeanisation, with some minor modifications: structure, culture (process) and staff (agents). Mastenbroek and Princen (2010) provide an explanatory analysis of the Europeanisation of Dutch central government, by assessing the involvement of civil servants in EU-related activities, the importance of EU in personal management, and the “tasks and roles” performed by them in a European context (Mastenbroek & Princen, 2010). The study of Mayer-Sahling and Van Stolk (2015) regards four new member states of Central and Eastern Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia) and relies on the same framework applied to the Netherlands. In addition, in this comparative analysis they distinguish between the scope of Europeanisation, thus the incorporation of EU in the three above-mentioned dimensions, and the patterns of Europeanisation, namely the internal ordering of the three components (Meyer-Sahling & Van Stolk, 2015, p. 231).

2.3 European integration

European integration is an all-encompassing term that entails the broad process of economic, legal, political, cultural and societal integration in Europe. It finds its root seventy years ago in its specialisation of the coal and steel industries, and since today has broaden its scope by evolving in the European Union and increasing EU competences in numerous policy areas. Yet, European integration is a “process whereby competences are shared across EU member states or delegated to supranational institutions” (Schimmelfennig & Rittberger, 2015, p. 37). Some scholars have used the term of European integration as analogous of Europeanisation, but we should make a distinction between these two concepts. The former refers to a broad phenomenon and entails political and policy developments at the supranational level, whereas the latter is concerned with the consequences at national level, thus the domestic impact of the European integration process (Bulmer & Lequesne, 2013, p. 12).

Arguably, it is hard to describe the European integration process in one simple sentence, it compromises different dynamics and interrelated processes, and EU member states have different interpretations of

(16)

16 such process. Then, it is a hard challenge to gather and find out all the triggering elements and mechanisms that produce and feed such process. Yet, this paragraph deals with the phenomenon of European integration applied to the Netherlands. Generally speaking, it is straightforward to acknowledge further developments in the European project, the EU entails fundamental elements such as the free movement of persons and the absence of borders in the internal market that are vehicles of integration; on the other hand, recent crises (i.e. financial crisis in 2008) threaten this trend. Hence, in the following section the “Dutch case” will be analysed, in order to highlight elements that could both facilitate and limit the integration process.

To begin with, public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping and supporting (or not) the overall process of European integration (Hooghe, 2003); moreover, political elites and public servants are reflection of attitude that comes from the citizens. The Netherlands has long been one of the main supporter of the European integration among member states, it has been one of the most “federalist” that has pushed for the developments in the European cooperation also in terms of more supra-national power for EU institutions (Harmsen, 2008, p. 316). However, it seems that this image was undermined during the referendum of June 2005, when 61.5% of Dutch rejected the European Constitution. This important political signal implied a shift in the Dutch attitude toward European integration, from a loyal and optimistic stance to a more sceptical posture. That is, public opinion became critical toward the EU supra-national powers, and consequently political elites started framing the European project by emphasising its limits (Harmsen, 2008, p. 321). Despite the shift from a loyal pro-federation to a critical stance, in the period after 2005 Dutch parties barely took an Euro-sceptic position, intended as an explicit opposition toward the European Union, but they rather defined themselves as Euro-realist (Harmsen, 2008, p. 320). Here we can find the very expression of the “Dutch pragmatism”, an attitude that will characterised the political approach toward EU until today and that entails a combination between realism and optimism, where a widespread awareness of limits related to EU comes together with an optimistic support, resulting in a sober pragmatism (Steunenberg & van den Bogaert, 2016). Consequently, even though the referendum might represent a break in the Dutch historical support toward cooperation, this Euro-realism discursive frame implies a balance between pros and cons, it means that political discourses stressed both the benefits and the limits of further integration. Hence, it is misleading to define this stance as Euro-sceptic, it was built on the motto “more and less Europe”. In other words, this attitude aims to increase the cross-border cooperation in specific areas where communitarian policies could be more effective (i.e. agriculture, environment), but at the same time to maintain as national policy areas that to some extent characterise a country and its relationship with citizens, for instance social policies and welfare state. Consequently, we cannot assert that Dutch political discourses and public opinion moved in an opposite direction from a deepening cooperation, a basic commitment toward integration is not contested and the Netherlands still presents a widespread support toward EU and its institutions. Indeed, in a survey conducted by

(17)

17 Eurobarometer in November 2015 in order to assess the public opinion among European citizens about Europe and its institutions, the Netherlands results as one of the most EU supporter. That is, 42% of respondents reveal trust in the European Union, whereas the EU average is 34%; additionally, the question “Do you feel that you are a citizen of EU?” received 67% of positive answer, whilst the EU percentage is 64% (Eurobarometer, 2015b). Finally, a different survey conducted in Spring 2015 shows that the Netherlands is one of the most optimistic country when it comes to think about the future of European Union; Dutch citizens have increased this positive attitude (71% in 2015, 68% in 2014), the scores stands above the EU average, which is 58% in 2015 (Eurobarometer, 2015a). These values suggest that the Netherlands, considering the public opinion, is still a promoter of European integration, thus it is straightforward to acknowledge developments in the integration process.

This positive attitude was partially confirmed during the last election of the Tweede Kamer in 2012. Parliamentary election in September 2012 implied a moment of truth, it provided a clear picture of the ground gained by this critical attitude toward EU. Examining the political manifestos and results, the major party elected was the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), followed by the Labour Party (PvdA), where both are strongly supporter of further European integration. By contrast, an explicit Euro-sceptic party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), also obtained crucial seats in the parliament and gained 10% of votes; its campaign was characterised by a fierce opposition toward more Europe, PVV is hostile to EU and possible enlargement, in particular when we talk about Muslim county (e.g. Turkey) (PVV, 2012). Finally, all the other minor parties elected in the Tweede Kamer, such as Socialist Party, Christian Democratic Appeal, and GreenLeft, are limpid expression of the Euro-realist stance. In other words, these parties are pro-EU, as promoter of developments in the European project in specific policy areas, whereas other field (welfare, health) should remain a national domain. In sum, the composition of the Dutch parliament reflects the balance of positive and negative attitudes toward EU grounded on a solid support, which outline and reaffirm the typical Dutch pragmatism on European issues. It shows that there is broadly pro-EU stance that entails room for a deepen integration, with a widespread awareness of its limits, thus Euroscepticism is a minority understood as “a sign of irresponsibility” (Wiersma & Schout, 2012, p. 38).

Going back to the very process of integration, there are different indicators that allow us to posit the deepening of the European integration process. Legislating is the prime activity of the EU, thus it affects the national system and enhances the integration process through the implementation and transposition of EU legislation. In a study conducted by Bovens and Yesilkagit, the scholars analyse the impact of European directives on the entire amount of national legislation, and their findings show that 12.6% of the total amount of legislation comes from EU transposition (Bovens & Yesilkagit, 2010, p. 61). This value is apparently low, but indeed, it should be considered as an indicator of “more Europe”. First, it is in line with findings from similar research conducted in several EU member states, notably the EU impact on legislation

(18)

18 in Austria is 10.5%, in the United Kingdom is 15.8%, and in Denmark is 14% (Christensen, 2010; Jenny & Müller, 2010; Page, 1998). Then, this study implies only the implementation outcomes, thus it does not consider the entire amount of laws that could find their origins in EU directives, but only regulations entirely produced by EU inputs. As the authors have admitted, the research design could influence findings; a similar research conducted by the Asser Institute that has used a different research design shows a stronger impact of EU legislation on the Netherlands. For instance, results from Bovens and Yesilkagit demonstrate that, talking about the Agriculture Ministry, only 18% of environmental rules came from EU, whereas the Asser Institute posits that 66% of such rules had European origins (Bovens & Yesilkagit, 2010, p. 69; T.M.C Asser Instituut, 2006). Furthermore, this study examines only directives that were valid on 31 July 2003, thus it should be considered as a snapshot rather than a comprehensive picture of the Dutch legal system and its impact from the EU.

However, we should bear in mind that there are different instruments through which EU influences the national system, namely treaties, jurisprudence from the European Court of Justice, regulations and case law. For instance, the ECJ and its role in the enforcement of regulations have produced a large amount of new legislation and amendments in the Netherlands (Bovens & Yesilkagit, 2010, p. 68). Additionally, other indirect influences may enhance the integration process, for instance the union as such, understand as an international area in which member states cooperate, offers the opportunity for national governments to imitate and emulate other members, thus incrementing the homogenisation (Radaelli, 2000). Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon enacted in 2008 provides a new legal and institutional framework in the EU, by increasing power and competences at the European level.

In conclusion, it turned out that there are several elements supporting the deepening of European integration process in the Netherlands. Despite the increasing Euro-scepticism attitude among Europe, Dutch citizens are the most promoters of further Europe; consequently, political elites reflect demands and attitude of the public opinion, thus also in the government we found out a broadly pro-Europe stance, in spite of the growing diffusion of anti-Europe parties. Finally, the “classic” instruments of the integration process such as regulations, the union as such and the freedom laid down by the EU (i.e. movement of persons) enhance the development of the European project.

2.4 Degree of Europeanisation

According to the previous paragraph, European Integration and Europeanisation are usually deployed as synonymous, but it is crucial to define the differences between these two terms. European integration

(19)

19 process is concerned with developments at the supranational (EU) level, whereas Europeanisation of the central government implies the manner and mode in which EU issues affect and penetrate the logic of domestic public administration, hence the implications of the European integration process at the national level. Then, Europeanisation is an all-encompassing concept, it entails an interactive process where there is a mutual influence between the European and the national level that leads to change in polity, politics and policy. As presented at the beginning of this chapter, the conceptualisation of the term may vary, it means that different perspectives and understandings of this concept could be put under the umbrella of Europeanisation. Yet, in order to assess the development of such phenomenon in a comprehensive manner, the degree of Europeanisation of Dutch civil servants will be measured from two different points of view: its depth and its breadth. The former refers to the overall EU involvement of individuals, whereas the latter includes the different EU-related activities and the extent civil servants are involved in them. For the purpose of this research, the conceptualisation and the analysis do not distinguish the EU involvement of Dutch civil servants looking at their different administrative job types and at the diversity within departmentes, thus it does not divide EU involvement per policy sector. It is worth to notice that previous researches point out that the organisational context within individuals work could facilitate or constrain their activities, in terms that Europeanisation is uneven across departements and sectors (Berg & Schmidt, 2016; Geuijen et al., 2008, p. 41). Moreover, different policy sectors require different relationshipt with European institution, as an example employees in Foreign Affairs surely carry out more EU-related activites. For instance, the Geuijen et al. study of the Dutch civil servants classifys the national departments in three categories on the basis of the working hours spent on EU-activitites. Yet, organisations such as the Ministries of Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, Transport-Public Works and Water Management, and Economic Affairs are labelled as “Eurocratic bulwarks” because more than 50% of the individuals is involved in EU issues. Then, they pinpoint the “Eurocratic runners-up” (between 30 and 40% of civil servants involved in EU-work), and finally the “national champions” (Geuijen et al., 2008, pp. 43–4). Findings from this research show that the Europeanisation of civil servants depends on different variables, one of them is the organisational context, because some policy sectors (i.e. agricolture and foreign affaris) are more interconnected with the EU institutions. In other words, individuals working for instance in a “national champion” organisation may have a lower degree of Europeanisation than indivials from “Eurocratic bulwars”, due to their organisational context (see also Berg & Schmidt, 2016; Laffan & O’Mahoney, 2007). As I said before, this research analyses the population of civil servants with no distinction between organization within core executive, but on the other hand it is relevant to bear in mind that within the general central government such degree of Europeanisation could differ.

(20)

20 The degree of Europeanisation of Dutch civil servants refers to the extent to which individuals are affected by EU. Hence, an increasing (or decreasing) relevance of European issues is firstly reflected in the management of structure in terms of roles and tasks that then will influence the daily work. It means that the daily organisational system would change in order to cope with new EU challenges, for instance changing the allocation of personnel resources and the amount of civil servants assigned to EU-related tasks and roles (Lægreid et al., 2004, pp. 357–8). Consequently, the object of this analysis is to look at the depth of Europeanisation by assessing the daily work of civil servants. To what extent EU business has been absorbed in the organisational structure? Does such process lead to changes in the involvement of officials in the Dutch public administration? Talking about the depth, it is straightforward to say that the goal is to measure to what extent the EU penetrate the domestic system. Yet, civil servants could be defined as the last step to reach when it comes to adjustments in the public administration, they are the core elements of national structure thus their involvement in EU-related work indicate how far the Europeanisation goes. If we think at the national system as a hierarchy, Dutch officials lay on the basis of the pyramids, they are the “smallest” elements in such system. Hence, when it comes to analyse the depth of Europeanisation, the amount of time that they spend on EU-related activities provides a clear signal of the EU involvement and, consequently, Europeanisation.

Breadth

However, the European integration process leads to changes not only in the overall involvement, but it influences also the type of activities that they perform. That is, the second element that characterised the degree of Europeanisation refers to the breadth of the phenomenon, it seeks to explain the broad variety of ways in which the EU may have consequences on domestic structures by looking at the range of activities that such impact consequently requires. In the previous paragraph, it was explained that Europeanisation could penetrate and reach the daily work of Dutch officials by increased the amount of hours that they spend on EU issues; on the other hand, a greater involvement in EU issues requires new kind of tasks to perform. Following the distinction made by Bulmer and Burch (2005), I distinguish between task for projection and tasks for reception in terms of two institutional responses to EU issues. The former category may be labelled as bottom-up activities and implies questions about the participation in working groups and meeting at the European level, the consultation with international colleagues and the preparation of the Dutch input into EU-level meetings. The latter refers to top-down tasks and entails the consideration of EU policies during the national process of policy-making, the transposition of EU policies and their practical implementation and enforcement. All in all, Europeanisation process could be drawn as a cycle or a two way street, thus these two categories of activities may encompass the entire process. Overall, the breadth of Europeanisation implies the importance of the abovementioned activities during the civil servants’

(21)

21 functioning and, more precisely, the amount of EU-related activities that each individual performs. This different perspective may allow us to highlight the adjustments brought about by Europeanisation.

In sum, the degree of Europeanisation will be analysis from two different point of views: its depth and its breadth. In doing so, I will first investigate the extent to which Dutch civil servants are involved in EU issues by measuring the working hours that they spend on them. Then, Europeanisation brings different kind of activities in the daily work, thus I will assess the importance of such activities.

2.5 The degree of embeddedness

The Europeanisation process, as presented in this section, is a triggering phenomenon that poses new challenges to member states by penetrating in the domestic logics, and by stimulating adaptation patterns upon “policy and machinery” (Bulmer & Burch, 1998, p. 602). Focusing on the central government, the impact of the institutional development of the European Union can be seen also upon traditional national domain such as the public service, thus a crucial indicator of adaptation in the administrative structure could be represented by the recruitment and training patterns (Maor & Stevens, 1997, p. 532). In other words, human resource practices and personnel policies in the national public service are subjected to change as a result of an ongoing process of European integration. How do the Dutch central government support EU-related activities and to what extent a “European experience” is relevant in the development of the career?

The relationship between employment issues of national civil service and European integration has received very little attention from scholars for two main reasons. Firstly, the EU has no direct regulatory competence on the national employment structures and policies, by contrast the civil service “has been most influenced by the respective national traditions and histories and which for a long time was least affected by European integration” (Bossaert, Demmke, Nomden, Polet, & Auer, 2001, p. 3). Secondly, since several years the public employment has been subject of the influence of processes such as modernisation, privatisation, globalisation and all the reforms related to the New Public Management (Maor & Stevens, 1997). Indeed, it is difficult to completely isolate an “EU-effect” from other changes (Bulmer & Burch, 1998, p. 602), and, in turn, to address the origin of such changes specifically to Europeanisation.

Despite the little attention received by research in the field of public administration and European studies, the national civil service per se is a highly dynamic sector that has undergone substantial changes through developments in organisational and societal context (Overeem & Sager, 2015; Van der Meer, 2010). Traditionally, the public service is characterized by specific ethos and principles (hierarchical organisational

(22)

22 structure, clear and stable career paths, formalisation) that shape, for instance, the governments’ employment frameworks (Demmke, 2015, p. 449). Nowadays, boundaries between public and private sector are becoming blurred, due to the introduction of new business-like values as a consequence of the NPM reforms (see Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006; O’Toole Jr & Meier, 2011; Schedler & Proeller, 2000). It implies an increasing influence from market, social partners and non-state actors expressed in changes in the organisational behaviour. For instance, public tasks became to be carried out by external service providers, internal hierarchies were reduced and public working conditions were aligned with the private sector (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000). In this context, national public service opens up to the influence of international politics and dynamics, thus also the European integration process (Demmke, 2015, p. 450). Hence, Europeanisation affects the daily work of civil servants by reshaping and reorganising the domestic structure in accordance with the EU system of governance (Berg & Schmidt, 2016). A relevant insight of this perspective is provided by the book “The new Eurocrats: national civil servants in EU policy-making”. Geuijen et al. (2008) present a clear snapshot of the Dutch civil service in 2006; in this analysis they acknowledge a shift from the classic model of diplomatic representation to a new one as an indicator of the increasing Europeanisation of national civil service (Geuijen et al., 2008). In other words, they point out changes in tasks performed by civil servants and related to the international affairs, they posit that the new model of diplomatic representation entails diplomacy as task for policy-makers rather than a distinct role per se, thus foreign and domestic policy often overlap rather than maintain specific boundaries; the diplomatic service turns into a non-hierarchical structure rather than an exclusive matter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Berg & Schmidt, 2016; Geuijen et al., 2008). In sum, the Gueijen et al. research offers us an explicit example of how the national civil service is subjected to change due to external processes such as Europeanisation.

The degree of embeddedness refers to the extent to which the “Europe” has been absorbed by the administrative and organisational system, and to what extent EU became mainstream. In order to perform such analysis, the degree of embeddedness is defined using three different indicators: the importance of EU skills during the recruitment process, the relevance of EU knowledge in the development of career, and the priority given to EU-related work. The first two aspects regard the HR practices and personal management, which are important tools of national governments that may seek to stimulate a “European way of thinking” among civil servants (Smith, 2001, p. 147). In turn, the recruitment and training patterns affect the staff working practices, which imply formal rules, informal conventions, procedures and guidelines and refer to the process that facilitate the daily functioning of the organisation (Bulmer & Burch, 1998, p. 604). Hence, the extent to which EU plays a key role in the field of personal management is a straightforward indicator of the degree of embeddedness of EU within the Dutch public service. In addition, EU-related work may receive lower priority then national matters, as a consequence that Dutch civil servants do not “think European” (Jordan, 2003, p. 263). Yet, the precedence dedicated to EU issues shows

(23)

23 to what extent the EU is absorbed in the national administrative culture (Mastenbroek & Princen, 2010, p. 157), thus the third elements of the degree of embeddedness involves whether EU-related work receives the same priority as domestic tasks.

2.6 Analytical framework

In this final section, hypotheses are presented. The purpose of this thesis is firstly to add a cross-time dimension to the previous studies on the Dutch civil service, by analysing differences in the degree of Europeanisation. Then, it will be investigated the relationship between the degree of Europeanisation and the degree of embeddedness of EU issues within the organisations.

H1: An ongoing European integration process in 2006 and 2015 has led to an increase in the Europeanisation of Dutch civil servants in 2015

Broadly speaking, the ongoing European process has intensified its effects from 2006 to 2015 as a result, for instance, of the Treaty of Lisbon, an increase of EU laws and EU regulations implemented at the national level, and an ongoing mutual exchange between national and European institutions. Literature suggests that the national public service is subjected to change to the European integration process (i. e. Berg, 2011; Demmke, 2002; Overeem & Sager, 2015), and also findings from the previous researches on the Netherlands support this statement (Geuijen et al., 2008). Hence, European integration is mostly defined as the major source of state transformation (Trondal, 2007). Moreover, Europeanisation is a two-way process (presented above), which displays its effects by “downloading” EU issues through implementation and enforcement of EU laws as well as by “uploading”, which refers to activities performed by individuals toward the EU level (i. e. preparation of Dutch inputs, participation in working groups). Following the sociological institutionalism, Europeanisation can be defined as “the emergence of new rules, norms, practices, and structures of meaning to which member states are exposed and which they have incorporate their domestic practices and structures” (Börzel & Risse, 2003). Hence, Europeanised institutions frame structures of meaning, provide interpretations and understandings of EU matters, thus the involvement in European arena produce a reshaping of beliefs and ideas among domestic actors, and these European values incrementally become internalised by individuals (Beyers, 2010, pp. 909–10). Arguably, the cultural and normative environment influence civil servants, they interact within institutions both at the national and European level through a transmission process that entails “the constitutive dynamics of social learning, socialization, routinization, and normative diffusion” (Checkel, 1999, p. 545). This interaction relies on the “logic of appropriateness”, which refers to actor behaviours driven by rules that are “seen as

(24)

24 natural, rightful expected, and legitimate” (March & Olsen, 2004, p. 3). From a sociological institutionalism perspective, norms and values produced by Europeanisation are spread among institutions and, in turn, agents through processes of socialisation and learning are subject of change that results in norm internalisation (Börzel & Risse, 2003). The EU represents an arena that promotes such process, but at the same time an institutional environment “already Europeanised” that could facilitate the European socialisation (Connaughton, 2015, p. 201). Consequently, a pre-existing degree of Europeanisation in 2006 facilitates the overall process and increases the extent to which Dutch civil servants are involved in EU-work, thus consequently, Europeanised.

Talking about the Netherlands, in the previous paragraph we have seen which elements could facilitate or limit the European integration process, thus the Europeanisation of Dutch civil servants. Despite the spread of Euro-sceptic thoughts among Europe, Dutch public opinion and political discourses addressed differently their criticisms toward EU. Rather than reject as a whole the EU, they are characterised by a “Dutch pragmatism” that involves both positive and negative attitudes. As presented before, in spite of the negative referendum in 2005, Dutch citizens are still the most “European” among member states. Finally, the election in 2012 has confirmed this attitude, political elites that have got seats in the Tweede Kamer are mostly pro-Europe, but on the other hand there is a widespread awareness of the limits of further European integration. Finally, recent economic and political crises could represent a breaking in the integration process because they arise questions about the identity of union, but conversely such crises were inputs of further developments in cooperation (Steunenberg & van den Bogaert, 2016, p. 4).

In sum, the increasing predominance of EU issues and an ongoing process of European integration will lead to an increase in the degree of Europeanisation among Dutch civil servants. The expectations will consider the depth of Europeanisation, thus the overall EU involvement will arise because of the abovementioned causes, then the breadth of Europeanisation, in terms of activities that officials perform. Such activities are institutional responses of EU, tasks of projection and reception that could become more mainstream among civil servants, caused by the deepening of the European integration process and by indirect influences, such as socialisation and transmission of ideas in an international arena.

H2.a: If the degree of Europeanisation increases from 2006 to 2015, the degree of embeddedness of EU within organisation will increase

H2.b: If the degree of Europeanisation decreases from 2006 to 2015, the degree of embeddedness of EU within organisation will decrease

(25)

25 When it comes to formulate hypotheses, we should bear in mind that empirical findings could either support or reject the theoretical expectation. Hence, the following expectations assume that there is a relationship between the degree of Europeanisation and the degree of embeddedness of EU within organisation, in terms that the extent to which EU affects Dutch civil servants will influence the organisational structure. If the empirical test will show an increase of Europeanisation, in turn the embeddedness of EU would be more relevant. By contrast, a decrease of the degree of Europeanisation will be reflected in a decrease of the degree of embeddedness.

These hypotheses are primarily based on findings from the research made by Geuijen et al, they assert that “greater degrees of Europeanisation lead to better organisational facilitation which may in turn be expected to strengthen EU-related work in the organisation again” (Geuijen et al., 2008, p. 148). In other words, it implies that Europeanisation affects overall organisations within individuals’ works, thus the personnel management, in our case the recruitment patterns and the importance of EU experience in the development of the career, and the priority given to EU matters. A broad increased importance of EU issues among individuals, which is reflected in the increase of the degree of Europeanisation, will cause changes in the organisational behaviour of the civil service, which in turn refers to the degree of embeddedness of EU within the organisation. As described above and following the sociological institutionalist stream, Europeanisation has brought new norms, beliefs and ideas that influence both institutions and agents through transmission process such as socialisation, thus a higher degree of Europeanisation means a higher importance of EU-related matters. In turn, the expectation implies that this increasing importance of EU issues is embedded within the organisation (civil service). The degree of embeddedness could be understood as the responses to the Europeanisation process, thus changes in the personnel management and in the priority given to EU-related work is linked with the deepening of such phenomenon.

On the other hand, this explanation could be read on the other way around. That is, less importance of EU-related activities during the daily work of Dutch officials, which means less EU involvement of individuals, will in turn cause changes in the organisational behaviour of civil service. Hence, the priority given to EU-related work may decrease in favour of national tasks, because of the low importance of EU matters. Moreover, EU skills and European experience may not play a crucial role during the recruitment process and the career path, because in their job civil servants do not carry out many EU activities or such tasks represent a little part of their functioning. In sum, a broad decrease of Europeanisation will lead to a decrease of the degree of embeddedness of EU within organisation.

Are you Europeanised? The impact of European Integration on Dutch Civil Service 2006-2015