Setting the Agenda: Influencing the European Commission Agenda: A literature study on the factors that determine agenda-setting in the European Commission

(1)

Setting the Agenda: Influencing the European Commission

Agenda

A literature study on the factors that determine agenda-setting in the

European Commission

Bachelor thesis

Thesis seminar BSc Internationale Betrekkingen en Organisaties 2019 - 2020 Agenda Setting and Policy Making in the European Union

Esther van Egmond 1815415

Leiden University

Supervisor: Dr. Leticia Elias Carrillo Word count: 7659

(2)

List of tables

Table 1. Literature used in this study 13

(4)

1. Introduction

Formally, the European Commission is the only agenda-setter in the European Union (Suvarierol, Versluijs, Mastenbroek, 2015, p. 66). Nevertheless it turns out that the European Commission is often influenced by other actors and factors, such as lobby groups, expert groups, and the other European institutions (Bouwen, 2009, pp. 32-34). The agenda-setting is the start of the policy-making process, an issue that needs to be seen as an issue of concern to come on the agenda (Young, 2015, p. 46). Some institutions have more receptive agendas to issues than others. In line with this has the European Union been labelled as an ‘agenda-setting paradise’ (Peters, 2001, p. 88). Because there are many access points to influence the European Union agenda and several actors are influencing the agenda which makes it a paradise for agenda-setting (Larsson & Trondal, 2005, p. 11). The European Commission is also an effective institution to put issues on the agenda which might not fall completely under the European Commission competences in the first place (Dür, 2015, p. 956). As said before, the agenda of the European Commission is often influenced, but what determines what reaches the European Commission agenda is still highly debated. This is because different factors and explanation are brought forward to explain agenda-setting in the European Commission (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, p. 289).

The current literature uses multiple theories as explanation for why some issues reach the European Commission agenda. For example, the multiple streams model (Herweg & Zahariadis, 2018, pp. 32-33), rationality theory and bounded rationality theory (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, pp. 289-290). The multiple stream model states that there are three streams – the problem, policy and politics stream – which needs to be coupled at the right time to get an issue on the agenda (Herweg & Zahariadis, 2018, pp. 33-34). The problem streams are all the issues that policymakers and citizens wish to change, the policy stream are the experts in a specific policy domain and their opinion. And last, the politics stream is the struggle of power and the consensus among the political arena (Herweg & Zahariadis, 2018, p. 33). The rationality theory argues that there are fixed preferences and through bargaining, every actor tries to maximize its power (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, pp. 289-290). Lastly, the bounded rationality theory states that the preferences are not fixed and that there are limitations to what each actor can deal with. Therefore, all the problems are constructed and based on the construction issues are seen as important or not (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, p. 290).

However, Princen (2007) argues that frames, institutional opportunities and constraints, and conflict expansion are the main explanation of getting issues on the European Union

(5)

agenda. Frames are described as the way an issue is presented to get it on the agenda (Princen, 2007, p. 30). Institutional opportunities and constraints means that the institutional framework might be more favourable to some interests than to others (Ibid.). With conflict expansion Princen (2007) means that the issue is brought to a greater group of participants. By doing this it can reach the agenda because a new group of people will pay attention to it and sees it as important (Princen, 2007, p. 29). According to Princen (2007, pp. 30-31) is conflict expansion not relevant in the European Union for the following two reasons. First, because there is a lack of public mobilization in the European Union. Second, the decision-makers are seen as less accountable than on the federal level (Ibid.). These three factors are often intertwined according to him (Princen, 2007, pp. 29-30). What is remarkable too is that Princen (2007, p. 27) sees the European Union as one venue, while other studies state that the European Union consists of multiple different venues (Princen, 2011a; Princen & Rhinard, 2006; Wendon, 1998; Stephenson, 2012). Venues are the institutional arenas in which the issue is placed (Princen, 2011a, p. 929). According to Baumgartner and Jones (1993) ‘venue-shopping’ is when the agenda-setter seeks the most favourable venue for their cause (Princen, 2011a, p. 931). In another article of Princen (2011, p. 119) he found that the different venues in the European Union are, for example, the member states, the European Parliament, the European Commission.

Frames, institutional opportunities and constraints (Princen, 2007) and venues (Princen, 2011a; Princen & Rhinard, 2006; Wendon, 1998; Stephenson, 2012) can be the explaining factors of what reaches the agenda of the European Commission. However, the current literature studies about these factors do not take into account all three factors at the same time, but focus on one or two factors only (Daviter, 2007; Princen, 2007). Therefore, in this paper a fourth category is added: multiple factors. In this category the literature which found that more than one factor determines the agenda-setting in the European Commission is discussed. Besides, some new articles are published about the agenda-setting in the European Commission. This paper aims to give a clear overview of the existing literature and combine all three factors. An in-depth literature study will clarify what factors play a role in the agenda-setting process of the European Commission. This will help further research to understand what is already known about the agenda-setting process and provide new insights for future research.

Knowing which factors might have an influence on the agenda-setting in the European Commission can give new insights on how the agenda can be influenced. Knowing this the European Commission and other actors, like the lobby and expert groups, can use these factors

(6)

to influence the agenda-setting process to their advantage. For example, a small NGO might not have the money resources to influence the agenda, but it can use the other factors in their advantage to go up against the bigger lobby groups.

Therefore, this in-depth literature study aims to answer the following research question: What influences the agenda-setting process of the European Commission according to the existing literature?

To answer the research question, the two categories – frames and institutional opportunities and constraints – of Princen (2007) his framework are used. Next to this, the category venues (Princen, 2011) is taken into consideration as well. There is expected to have multiple articles that find a combination of these factors and therefore the fourth category is also analysed – multiple factors. These four categories are used to categorize the existing literature about the agenda-setting in the European Commission. It was chosen to use these categories because these are expected to explain agenda-setting in the European Commission from another perspective than the existing theories.

The literature study is structured as follows: first, the theoretical framework is discussed. The European Commission its background is given, the key concepts, the framework of Princen (2007) and venues (Princen, 2011) are explained. Second, the methodology of the paper is discussed. Third, an analysis of the chosen data is done. The articles are categorized in one of the four categories and discussed per category. Fourth and last, conclusions and limitations are discussed and suggestions for further research are given.

(7)

2. Theoretical scope

2.1. Background information about the European Commission

This chapter describes the background of the European Commission and how it makes decisions nowadays, in order to understand the legislation process. The European Commission consists of the College of Commissioners and the Commission president (Suvarierol, Versluis & Mastenbroek, 2015, p. 55). The College of Commissioners are 27 commissioners who all have a policy domain under their supervision. The College of Commissioners is overseen by the Commission president (Lelieveldt & Princen, 2015, p. 59). Next to this, the European Commission also manages the 33 Directorates-Generals (DG), which have knowledge on a specific policy domain, and eleven agencies (Suvarierol et al., 2015, p. 63). The agencies deal with the programs set up by the European Commission (European Commission, 2016).

The European Commission has different executive, implementation and controlling tasks (Suvarierol et al., 2015, p. 65). Only the executive tasks are of importance for this paper, because the focus of this paper is on the agenda-setting of the European Commission. The other tasks are not of relevance since those do not have direct influence on the agenda-setting (Ibid.). The executive tasks consist of setting up the yearly legislation programs, the green papers, and the white papers (Ibid.). In the legislation program, the European Commission states what it wants to achieve in the upcoming year. Green papers are points of discussion and white papers are specific proposals on a certain domain (Suvarierol et al., 2015, pp. 65-66). What is unique about the legislative role of the European Commission is that it is the only institution in the European Union that can propose legislation (Suvarierol, et al., 2015, p. 66). However, it shares competences on the foreign affairs, justice and police domains with the European Council (Ibid.). Although the European Commission has a monopoly on the proposal of legislation it does need to get support from member states, the European Council, member states, DGs and interest groups. Because these actors eventually make decisions on the proposals (Ibid.). Often, the European Commission even consults whether their proposal will be supported by the various actors (Ibid.).

2.2. Key concepts and definitions

One of the key concepts is agenda-setting. In this study is agenda-setting the process of deciding which issues are important enough to discuss and what issues get attention (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, p. 288). Agenda-setting can result in policy-making but it can also result in only a debate about the issue (Princen, 2011, p. 109). One might say that agenda-setting is only

(8)

successful when policy is formed on it. However, in this study it does not matter whether it is successful, but when the issue is seen as important enough to be discussed and get attention matters more (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, p. 288). This was chosen because it is not possible to decide whether the agenda-setting was successful in the scope of this study.

There are multiple agendas that can be studied. One distinction is between the public and political agenda. The public agenda is everything that the citizens think is important and should be discussed (Cobb, Ross & Ross, 1976, pp. 126-127). The political agenda is, what the decisionmakers pay attention to and discuss (Ibid.). Nevertheless, the distinction between the public and political agenda is less relevant in the European context because public involvement plays a smaller role (Princen & Rhinard, 2006, p. 1121). There is also the media agenda, which consists of the issues that the media pays attention to. However, this agenda is not always what the policy-makers pay attention to in the European Commission (Princen, 2011, p. 108). Nevertheless, these agendas might differ in what kind of issues are on the agenda, given that the public, media and the politicians might not pay attention to the same issues (Ibid.). This separation in agendas is initially used for countries, notwithstanding, it can also be applied to the European Union. The European institutions all have their agenda, these agendas can differ, but the agendas do not come about in isolation of each other (Princen, 2011, p. 109). In this paper, the focus is on the European Commission political agenda because the public and media agenda are less relevant in the European Commission. This is because these group have less leverage in the European Commission (Princen & Rhinard, 2006, p. 1121). And the political agenda consists of issues that might become policy.

The agenda is filled up with ‘issues’ but not every problem becomes an issue. An issue is according to Cobb and Elder (1972, p. 82): ‘A conflict between two or more identifiable groups over procedural or substantive matters relating to the distribution of positions or resources’. Because the political agenda is under study here, it becomes an issue when it receives serious consideration from the European Commission (Princen, 2011, p. 109).

2.3. The four categories

In this section, the two categories – frames and institutional opportunities and constraints – of Princen (2007) and the category of venues (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993) are discussed. Then the fourth category is introduced: Multiple factors.

Princen (2007) his article Agenda-Setting in the European Union: A Theoretical Exploration and Agenda for Research reviewed the state-of-art of agenda-setting in the

(9)

European Union. He moves away from the European Commission as the only agenda-setter in the European Union (Princen, 2007, p. 23). He states that other actors play a role in the agenda-setting process (Ibid.). According to him, there are two ways in which issues can arise: Issue formation as external to the political process and issue formation as internal to the political process (Princen, 2007, p. 24). Issue formation as external to the political process means that the ‘issues arise from the international environment in which states operate.’ (Ibid.). Issue formation as internal to the political process means that ‘issues arise from the interests and activities of political actors’ (Ibid.). He argues that the second approach is more appropriate to explain agenda-setting in the European Union.

According to him the agenda-setting in domestic politics can be explained through conflict expansion as well (Princen, 2007, p. 29). Conflict expansion is the broadening of a conflict to a wider group of participants to make it reach the agenda (Ibid.). It relates to the way an issue is framed and in what institution it is placed. He is using venue-shopping of Baumgartner and Jones (1993, p. 30) to explain that some issues are placed in other venues to reach the agenda. Venue-shopping is placing the issue on the venue where a different set of arguments can be used (Ibid.). Baumgartner and Jones found that EU policymakers are less likely to be influenced by public opinion. This is a main aspect of conflict expansion and therefore conflict expansion does not work as well as in domestic politics (Princen, 2007, p. 31). Princen (2007, p. 34) found that the factors that do influence agenda-setting in the European Union are framing, institutional opportunities, and constraints. Conflict expansion is not as relevant in the European Union as in domestic politics as said before.

2.3.1. Frames

Framing is the defining and redefining of an issue (Princen, 2007, p. 30). Daviter (2007, p. 654) described it as: ‘Selecting, emphasizing and organizing aspects of complex issues according to an overriding evaluative or analytical criterion.’. So by changing the presentation of the issue, it might be possible to change the line of proponents and opponents, changing the majority so the issue can reach the agenda (Princen, 2007, p. 30).

Several aspects can determine if framing will be successful to get an issue on the agenda. The first one is the ‘window of opportunity’. According to the multiple streams model of Kingdon (1984), the window of opportunity is the time ‘in which people pay high attention to a problem, a viable solution exists, and policymakers have the motive and opportunity to select it.’ (Cairney & Zahariadis, 2016, p. 87). The window of opportunity can open because ‘focusing events’ took place, these are ‘political ‘events’ that may shift the balance of power in the

(10)

political system.’ (Princen, 2007, p. 30). The window opens suddenly and can close without getting an issue on the agenda (Cairney & Zahariadis, 2016, p. 90).

The second factor that can determine the success of framing is the ‘policy entrepreneur’. The policy entrepreneurs ‘are an organization, individuals or teams who seek to initiate dynamic policy change and are willing to invest their resources – time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money – in the hope of a future return’ (Kingdon, 1984, p. 122). The policy entrepreneur can play a role in opening the window of opportunity (Edler & James, 2015, p. 1254). Because of this, the policy entrepreneur can play an important role in the agenda-setting process. If the window opens an issue can be framed so it reaches the agenda and a decision is made about it (Ibid.).

2.3.2. Institutional opportunities and constraints

The second category of Princen (2007) is institutional opportunities and constraints. He states that the decision-makers work within an institutional framework that is more favourable to some interests than to others (Princen, 2007, p. 30). This institutional framework is expected to partly determine which issues come on the agenda, based on for example the preferences of decision-makers.

Conflict expansion is the broadening of the issue to new participants. An issue might benefit from a broader circle of actors who are involved because the broader circle might consist of more proponents (Princen, 2007, p. 29). While expanding an issue it goes from the expert groups to the ‘public at large’, to gain more support. In that way, an issue might reach the agenda because a new group of participants see the issue as important (Ibid.).

2.3.3. Venues

The last category is the venues. ‘Venues are the institutional forums in which decisions are taken on policies’ (Princen, 2011, p. 119). The different venues in the European Union are, for example, the member states, the European Parliament, the European Commission (Ibid.). Inside the European Commission the different DGs are seen as different venues (Ibid.). A venue can be more open to one issue than to another issue and therefore some issues might come easier on the agenda (Ibid.). Changing the venue in which the issue is put, can create the opportunity to reach the agenda (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, p. 291).

One sort of venue is the image-venue by Baumgartner and Jones (1991, 1993). According to them the actors are seeking, on the one hand, a favourable image and try to control this. And on the other hand, they try to alter the change in the position of the people who are

(11)

involved through finding the most favourable venue for their issues (Baumgartner & Jones, 1991, p. 1045; Wendon, 1998, p. 340). This was first found in the American federal system, but can also be applied to the European Union, and especially the European Commission. This was shown by Wendon (1998). He showed that both systems went through times of policy stability and policy change and therefore the two systems are more similar than different (Wendon, 1998, p. 340).

2.3.4. Multiple factors

According to Alexandrova and Carammia (2017, pp. 291-293), these factors are often found alongside each other and even intertwined. It is expected in this literature review that there is also a group of scholars who state that there is a combination of two factors or more that determine the agenda-setting. However, the current literature studies do not combine the different factors but merely focus on one factor (Princen, 2007; Daviter, 2007). But it is expected because to be found because the factors are also intertwined (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, pp. 291-293). Therefore this fourth category is also expected to be found in the literature.

Because these factors are only discussed elaborately by Princen (2007) and especially the multiple factors have not been examined yet. Therefore, in this paper the different factors are combined and the fourth category is added. This will create a complete overview of the factors that have influence on the agenda-setting in the European Commission. The following research question is answered in the this literature study: What influences the agenda-setting process of the European Commission according to the existing literature?

(12)

3. Methods

In the following section, the method of this study will be discussed. First, the choice for the case researched – European Commission – is explained. Second, the procedure of how the literature is collected is described. Third, the concepts are operationalized. Fourth, the analysis of the literature is discussed.

3.1. The European Commission

In theory, the European Commission is the only institution that can propose legislation (Suvarierol, et al., 2015, p. 66). The European Commission chooses on what it proposes legislation. Every five year a new European Commission is chosen. Each one of these focus on different policy domains that are put the agenda (Ibid.). Because of the powerful role of the European Commission in the legislation process, the agenda of the European Commission is interesting to study, given that it decides on what legislation is proposed (Ibid). Besides this, the European Commission has proven from different studies to be influenced by other factors (Alexandrova & Carammia, 2018, p. 291).

3.2. Collecting literature

The articles and book chapters that are used for this study are obtained through the Leiden University Library and Google Scholar. The initial search terms were “European Commission” and “Agenda-setting”. After the first articles were found a backward snowballing technique was used to find more articles. The backward snowball technique entails that articles from the references are looked up and these are examined (Wohlin, 2014). In this way, the prominent articles in the research field are found and added to the literature. For the literature study is chosen to use journal articles and book chapters, as long as there was scientific research done by the scholar.

Almost all the articles were published in different years, ranging from 1998 to 2018. Because the literature on influencing agenda-setting in the European Commission was found to be limited, it was chosen to study all this literature. Although all the articles are from different years, it was not expected to give any problems since all the articles research the European Commission in the later years of its existence. The European Commission has not changed significantly since its establishment (Princen & Lelieveldt, 2015, pp. 16-18), so the time frame was not a relevant criterion to select articles on. It gave a broad range of articles and book chapters which all together show a broad range of factors that influence the agenda-setting process in the European Commission.

(13)

After all the articles were collected the selection process was based on whether the article was about the European Commission which was influenced in its agenda-setting process. The literature had to give results based specifically on the European Commission because several articles also examined the European Parliament for example. Other institutions that were taken into account in the study, were not a problem as long as there were results on the European Commission specifically. Besides this, the articles had to research the early stages of the policymaking stage, so either the agenda-setting or the policy-formulation phase.

It was decided not to focus only on the agenda-setting phase because this gave limited results. Therefore, also articles that focused on the policy-formulation process were chosen. The policy-formulation process is taken into account because according to Young (2015), the European Commission has a central role in agenda-setting and policy formulation. Therefore it has a say in the European Union policies even if its role in decision-making on the policy is limited (Young, 2015, p. 55). Another point is that the policy formulation and agenda-setting do not always happen in sequence, therefore it can be difficult to separate the two stages of the policy cycle (Young, 2015, p. 47). So in this study, the policy formulation is also researched as long as there is no decision made yet. Table 1. provides an overview of the articles that are used in this study.

(14)

3.3. Categorizing the literature

On the articles and book chapters that were found a qualitative analysis was executed. The literature is categorized by analysing the texts and identifying the dominant factors. These factors could be either mentioned by the author or based on the indirect mentioning of a factor. The 20 articles that fitted these criteria were then categorized. The three categories that were used are framing, institutional opportunities and constraints, and venues (Princen, 2007; Princen, 2011). However, it is expected that articles claim that it was a combination of multiple of these factors, so a fourth category is added: multiple factors.

The articles either used one of the terms: venues or framing. These two can be claimed to be established concepts in the literature. The institutional opportunities and constraints were harder to find because this category - under which different aspects of the institutional framework can fall – is more vague and often not directly mentioned by scholars. An article was placed under this category, when it found that the institutional framework was the influence on the European Commission agenda-setting. If the scholar mentioned more than one factor as the deciding factor the article is placed under the multiple factors category. However, only if the scholar mentioned specifically that there is not one dominant factor it was placed under the fourth category. Table 2. provides the articles and how they are categorized.

(15)

(16)

4. Analysis of the articles

As discussed before, the articles are categorized in one of the four categories: framing, venues, institutional opportunities and constraints, and multiple factors. In this section, the articles and chapters are discussed along the categories.

4.1. Framing

Framing is ‘selecting, emphasizing and organizing aspects of complex issues according to an overriding evaluative or analytical criterion’ (Daviter, 2007, p. 654). So framing is changing the issue context to make it a key issue for the institution at stake (Daviter, 2007, p. 655). According to several scholars, framing is the main factor why issues are put on the agenda (Edler & James, 2015; Aydin, 2014; Maltby, 2013). In the literature, there are different perspectives on framing and the European Commission agenda-setting.

The first strand of research states that framing is the dominant factor to determine what comes on the agenda of the European Commission. Edler and James (2015, p. 1263) found that strategical framing can be successful when the window of opportunity is open. They found that the Commissioners can work as a policy entrepreneur in the European science and technology agenda and that their role can be determining for the agenda-setting (Edler & James, 2015, pp. 1262-1263). In line with this is the article of Aydin, who also states that it can be successful when the window of opportunity opens (Aydin, 2014, p. 155). Aydin (2014, p. 142) examined state aid policies which were framed in a single market frame. The DG Competition and the Commissioner on competition strategically framed the issue, acting as the policy entrepreneur (Aydin, 2014, p. 155). Both these articles suggest that framing can only be successful for agenda-setting when the window of opportunity is open. In this small time frame, the issue has to be framed in the right way to be put on the agenda. Another scholar who states that the window of opportunity should be open to have successful framing is Maltby (2013, p. 441). He explained it through the multiple streams model of Kingdon (1984) (Ibid). What he found was that in the case of the energy security policy the problem and policy stream could be coupled. Because of the coupling of the problem and policy stream the energy security policy could reach the agenda when the window of opportunity was open (Ibid.).

All three articles found that for successful framing the policy window should be open. However, Aydin (2014) and Maltby (2013) found that by changing the existing frames it was possible to get the issue on the agenda (Aydin, 2014, p. 155; Maltby, 2013, pp. 441-442). With Edler and James (2015, p. 1263) it was a focusing event – the 9/11 attacks – that opened the window of opportunity. In this window, the European Commission – as a policy entrepreneur

(17)

– framed the issue so that it came on the agenda. In the other two articles, the opening of the window was used to reframe the issue by the European Commission (Aydin, 2014; Maltby, 2013).

Fligstein (2001, p. 263) also states that the European Commission can act as a policy entrepreneur. The commissioners used the successful framing of the Single Market Program and made use of the crisis in the early 1980s (Fligstein, 2001, p. 282). Another article that found that a window of opportunity is needed to bring an issue successfully on the agenda was the article of Rhinard (2010, p. 175). He found that for the biotechnology issue to be put on the agenda that the window of opportunity needed to be open and the strategic framing fitted (Rhinard, 2010, pp. 173-175). The DGs framed the issue so that it was competing and therefore came on the agenda (Ibid.).

Some other group of scholars’ states that framing is the dominant factor, but they found that frame competition plays a role as well. Frame Competition is when there are different frames of which only one can be used and therefore competition exists (Mörth, 2000, p. 174). Mörth (2000, pp. 185-186) is one of these scholars, she found in her research about the defence industry and equipment that frame competition is a necessary component for the European Commission. Frame competitions is also created due to how the European Commission is shaped (Ibid.). Approaching the European Commission from a multi-organizational perspective, it showed that the frame is not static and can be changed (Mörth, 2000, p. 175). Rhinard (2010, pp. 174-175) found in the biotechnology case that besides the window of opportunity, it was more important to have competing frames. His case proved that the first frame that was employed, was not successful. But when the frame changed the issue came on the agenda (Rhinard, 2010, p. 173).

Another article that presented the importance of competition is from Daviter (2009). In his article, he showed that competition can explain the frame shifts that happened in the biotechnology domain (Daviter, 2009, pp. 1136-1137). Because of this competition, the frame changed, and by changing the frame the issue reached the agenda (Ibid.). This was partly done by the proponents of the biotechnology domain in the European Commission, to reframe the issue to their advantage (Daviter, 2009, p. 1136). These articles explained that framing is an important factor to get an issue on the European Commission agenda. However, the frame competition also played a role, without frame competition these issues might not have reached the agenda.

(18)

Grugel and Iusmen (2013, p. 90) found that in the case of the Children’s right the European Commission failed to set the agenda. This was because there has been a shift in consensus to dissensus (Grugel & Iusmen, 2013, pp. 84-85). Partly because it failed to frame the issue in a way that would fall in the competences of the European Commission, while working with the interest groups (Grugel & Iusmen, 2013, p. 90). But also a part of the reason was the conflict between the DG Justice and DG External Relations (Grugel & Iusmen, 2013, p. 81). Hennessy (2011, p. 595) found a similar outcome based on her study of the pension market integration. When the European Commission fails ‘to restrict a crowded agenda, reframe policy issues, build coalitions, and apply certain institutional solutions to cross-border problems,’ it will prevent the agreement. When the agenda was controlled by a supranational power – the European Commission – it relied on the framing, educational and agenda restricting strategies to get the issue on the agenda (Ibid.).

Out of the twenty articles and chapters, nine found that framing is an important factor to get issues on the agenda of the European Commission. There are factors that play a role in getting an issues on the agenda through framing. As shown there is a group of scholars who stated that the window of opportunity had to be open. This could be opened through a focusing event or with the help of the policy entrepreneur. The other group found that frame competition was necessary. From the nine that focused on framing, six found that the window of opportunity with the policy entrepreneur or focusing event was important. So framing and reframing can get an issue on the agenda, it is however more likely to reach the agenda in combination with an open window of opportunity. Besides, framing was found to be used in policy domains where the European Commission does not have full competences, so reframing the issue gave the possibility of having competences on these domains.

4.2. Institutional opportunities and constraints

The second category of factors that have an impact on the European Commission agenda are institutional opportunities and constraints. The institutional opportunities and constraints are the issues that reach the agenda because the decision-makers work within an institutional framework that is more favourable to some interests than to others (Princen, 2007, p. 30). In the data these group consisted of the inside and the outside actors that influence the agenda-setting. Most scholars found that the institutional opportunities and constraints are intertwined with other factors for influencing the agenda (Hartlapp, et al, 2013; García, et al., 2018).

The first strand is scholars who state that the agenda from the European Commission is influenced by other actors. There are inside actors, who are part of the European Union, like

(19)

the European Council (Häge & Toshkov, 2011). But also actors from outside of the European Union, like the public opinion and companies (Haverland, de Ruiter, & van de Walle, 2018).

Häge and Toshkov (2011, p. 20) argue that the agenda of the European Commission is bounded by decisions and opinions of the European Council. This is because the European Commission wants to prevent gridlock in the European Council (Ibid.). Another actor that was found to influence the agenda from the inside of the European Union, is the Commission president (Müller, 2017). Presidents have a preference about what comes on the agenda (Müller, 2017, pp.139-140). Müller showed that all three presidents used as cases had a preference and were more likely to put certain issues on the agenda (Ibid.).

Hartlapp, Metz, and Rauh (2014, p. 1) examined the conflict and power roles inside the European Commission. It turned out that the European Commission choices are sometimes influenced by the European Parliament and the European Council (Hartlapp, et al., 2014, p. 8). However, at other times the choices are picked because of the member state preferences (Hartlapp, et al., 2014, pp. 6-7). The internal dynamics in the European Commission and the European Council influence each other (Hartlapp, et al., 2014, pp. 8-9).

The outside actors are only discussed by Haverland, de Ruiter, and van de Walle (2018, pp. 328-329). They examined agenda-setting through the lens of public opinion. The European Commission has been seeking out public opinion through a special Eurobarometer more often (Haverland, et al., 2018, p. 333). The outcome of these special EBs must be published, so this makes it a powerful source to get influence in an area where the European Commission has shared competences (Haverland, et al., 2018, p. 342). One can expect that the European Commission might use it as a way to gain creditability to put an issue on the agenda (Ibid.).

Only four scholars found that the institutional opportunities and constraints were the dominant factor that influence agenda-setting. However, institutional opportunities and constraints can influence the European Commission agenda-setting. The literature showed that there are other actors from inside the European Union which were taken into account because then the proposal would have less resistance later in the process of policy-making (Häge & Toshkov, 2011, p. 20). Besides these, there were also actors from outside the European Union. The European Commission seeks out more public opinion on domains where it does not have full competences to gain the possibility to put an issue on the agenda. The institutional opportunities and constraints were mostly used to prevent gridlock in other institutions.

(20)

4.3. Venues

The third category is scholars that focus on the venues in which the issue is placed. Venues are ‘the institutional forums in which decisions are taken on policies’ (Princen, 2011, p. 119). Venues are often linked with how the issue is framed (Princen, 2011; Princen & Rhinard, 2006). In this section, the articles that suggest that venues are the main reason for why issues reach the agenda are discussed. Although these are the only scholars specifically emphasizing the venues in which the issue is placed, almost all the articles focus indirectly on the venues. Because when conflict expansion happens or if the issue is placed under another DG it is already changing venues. However, almost none claim that it is the main factor for influencing the agenda-setting process.

The first scholar who belongs to this group is Wendon (1998, p. 340), who examined the image-venue in which the European Commission placed the social policy. He found here that the European Commission can sometimes act as a policy entrepreneur (Wendon, 1998, p. 344). The European Commission enlarged the institutional venues where social issues are considered and can reach the agenda (Wendon, 1998, p. 350). Another article is of Stephenson (2012). He found that the images and venues where the issues are put in create a spillover and therefore it gives the possibility to reach the agenda (Stephenson, 2012, p. 812). Spillover is the expansion and intensification of policy integration through the policy process (Stephenson, 2012, p. 801). He examined the policy of railroad transport in the general European Union policymaking process through different career stages (Stephenson, 2012, p. 797). And he found that the venues and the image in which it is placed cannot be separated (Stephenson, 2012, p. 812).

Only two scholars found that the venues were the main factor that influenced the agenda. Venues were especially used if the issue had more chance of reaching the agenda under another DG. But venues could also be used if the issue did not fall completely under the European Commission competences. When the venue changed and the perspective, due to changing venues, the issue could fall under the competences.

4.2. Multiple factors

The last category does not come from the literature that is the basis for this literature study. However, it was already mentioned by Alexandrova and Carammia (2018, p. 291) that the categories are intertwined and therefore often used alongside each other. Therefore this last category is added.

(21)

First, there is the group who states that it is a combination of framing and institutional factors. García, de Wolff, and Yilmaz (2018, p. 33) marked that framing was needed to overcome institutional constraints, and issue expansion was needed. They illustrated that the decision for the Erasmus+, which is a European Union programme to support education, training, youth, and sport in Europe, was tactical chosen (European Commission, 2019a). Instead of a single program, the Erasmus+ was more likely to succeed because of the internal bureaucratic politics and because it is an established program (García, et al., 2018, pp. 33-34). It was chosen to frame it in a larger program so the sports policy could get funding. Here the institutional framework was tactically used in combination with framing (Ibid.). The other article which claimed that it is a combination of these factors is Hartlapp, Metz, and Rauh (2013). They are researching the combination of issue framing and internal decision-making structures with the case of the European Integration domain (Hartlapp, et al., 2013, pp. 437-438). They demonstrated that the different bureaucratic roles - the DGs - within the European Commission have uneven opportunities and constraints in getting their preferred frames in a legislative proposal (Ibid.).

Another combination is found by Littoz-Monnet (2012, p. 508), here conflict expansion, framing, and institutional constraints played a role. Because of the successful conflict expansion, the successful framing of the creativity frame and the fact that it imposed a solution for multiple issues in the European Commission, made this a successful case to reach the agenda (Littoz-Monnet, 2012, pp. 519-520). The issue would never reach the agenda of the DG Culture if it was not for the combination of these three factors (Ibid.).

Although only these scholars name specifically that multiple factors determine the agenda-setting process in the European Commission, other scholars also mention the combination of multiple factors. It was found that the venues were often intertwined with the framing of the issue. For example the image-venue (Wendon, 1998; Stephenson, 2012) is a combination of framing and venues. But these two scholars found that venues is the dominant factor that influenced the agenda-setting in the European Commission. However, scholars name it not directly as framing or venues-shopping, therefore it was not placed under this category. For example, Daviter (2009) focused on the framing argument, but also the venue in which the issue was placed had a role in the agenda-setting process (Daviter, 2009, p. 1131). But, because it is not mentioned directly it was not taken into account here. The study of Daviter (2009) is not the only one that does this, and therefore most studies show that the factors do not influence the agenda in isolation, but are intertwined.

(22)

Three studies specifically named that the factors are intertwined. The combination consisted mostly of framing with institutional opportunities and constraints. Most of the literature did not name specifically multiple factors that influence the agenda-setting of the European Commission. Yet, most scholars name vaguely that there is a combination of the three factors that were discussed in this paper.

(23)

5. Conclusion and discussion

From this literature study, different factors that influence the agenda-setting in the European Commission came forward. This study aimed to give an overview of the existing literature and categorize it. The research question of this study was: What influences the agenda-setting process of the European Commission according to the existing literature? As expected, multiple factors influence agenda-setting. But despite that, it was possible to separate them into three existing categories and one new category. The four categories were: framing, venues, institutional opportunities and constraints, and multiple factors. These categories came forth from the research of Princen (2007), Baumgartner and Jones (1993) and Princen (2011). The multiple factors category was found because the categories are often intertwined. These categories were expected to encompass all the different sorts of factors that determine the agenda-setting process.

From this literature study it came forth that the framing is often ascribed as the most important factor for agenda-setting in the European Commission. Framing was found together with an open window of opportunity, which was opened through a focusing event or a policy entrepreneur. Nevertheless, the institutional opportunities and constraints can also play a role in setting the agenda in the European Commission. Especially actors from inside the European Union could influence the agenda. Venues are found to be less relevant in the European Commission, only two scholars named these as the main factor. Even though, venues were not named as dominant factor, some scholars stated it as a by-effect of their main factor. For example, the frame was changed and therefore the venue was changed as well. The added category was found in three articles specifically, but as said before, often the other factors were mentioned as a by-effect. So the factors that influenced the agenda-setting process of the European Commission according to the existing literature were mostly framing, and in some extent the different factors combined. Framing was found in most articles as dominant factor to influence the agenda and even in the multiple factors it was found as one of the explaining factors.

Although the limitations of this study were tried to keep at a minimum, some limitations still occurred. The literature used as data is only obtained through the Leiden University Library and Google Scholar. Using the backward snowballing technique (Wohlin, 2014), it increased the possibility of missing literature. There might be more literature, but for this study, it was not possible to access all the existing literature. Besides that, this literature study its theoretical framework was mostly based on a few scholars. This makes it quite limited

(24)

to what the study is based on. In this literature study there has been chosen to do an in-depth study of known factors however it could be that other factors are applicable too.

Nevertheless, this study contributes to the existing literature in a way that gives an overview of a broad amount of the existing literature. Besides this, it categorized the different factors of agenda-setting under three main categories. It creates a basis for further research and shows on what points the existing literature is lacking, for example the combination of factors. This was shown to be present in almost all the articles. Even so, only a few named specifically that there were more than one factor that influenced the agenda-setting in the European Commission. Knowing that it can be a combination of factors that influence agenda-setting in the European Commission the different actors that try to influence agenda-setting can use these factors in their advantage.

For further research, a comparative study can be employed. Such a study might give new results because almost all the articles used in this literature study were single case studies. Most of the scholars used cases from a specific policy domain, so the question remains if the European Commission can also influence the agenda-setting in other policy domains as well. Another point for research is that the European Commission is influenced by inside and outside actors, but this influence is not examined elaborately.

It displayed that the three sorts of factors are intertwined, however, most scholars only researched one or two factors at the same time. Nevertheless, the interaction between the three is often left out which can be interesting for future research. And lastly, the issues almost all but one reached the agenda (Grugel & Iusmen, 2013). The question remains therefore what factors influence keeping issues off the European Commission agenda?

With this literature study, actors – expert groups, lobby groups and other individuals who wish to get an issue on the European Commission agenda – can chose which strategy is most effective to influence the agenda-setting progress. It might be beneficial for a lobby group to reframe an issue so it can fall under the competences of the European Commission. Or with the help of a policy entrepreneur to open the window of opportunity to get the issue on the agenda.

This study illustrated that there are different factors that influence the European Commission agenda. These factors cannot be seen as separate factors that influence the European Commission agenda-setting. Besides that, the existing literature is lacking on points on which future research can focus. It gives an overview of the literature. Showing that further

(25)

research is still needed to fully comprehend the different factors that influence the agenda-setting process of the European Commission.

(26)

6. Bibliography

Alexandrova, P. and Carammia, M. (2017). Agenda Setting in the European Union. In N. Zahariadis & L. Buonanno (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of European

public policy. Routledge.

Aydin, U. (2014). Issue framing in the European Commission: State aid policy and the single market. Comparative European Politics, 12(2), 141–159.

Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.

Bouwen, P. (2009). The European Commission. Lobbying the European Union: Institutions,

actors, and issues, 19-38.

Cairney, P., & Zahariadis, N. (2016). Multiple streams approach: a flexible metaphor presents an opportunity to operationalize agenda setting processes. In Handbook of public policy agenda setting. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cobb, R.W., Ross, J.K. and Ross, M.H. (1976) ‘Agenda building as a comparative political process’, American Political Science Review 70(1): 126–38.

Daviter, F. (2007). Policy framing in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 654–666.

Daviter, F. (2009). Schattschneider in Brussels: How policy conflict reshaped the

biotechnology agenda in the European Union. West European Politics, 32(6), 1118– 1139.

Dür, A., Bernhagen, P., & Marshall, D. (2015). Interest group success in the European Union: When (and why) does business lose?. Comparative Political Studies, 48(8), 951-983. Edler, J., & James, A. D. (2015). Understanding the emergence of new science and

technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy, 44(6), 1252–1265.

European Commission. (2016, December 5). How the Commission is organised. Retrieved April 29, 2020, from

(27)

European Commission. (2019a, October 22). What is Erasmus+? Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/about_en.

Fligstein, N. (2001). Institutional Entrepreneurs and Cultural Frames - The case of the European Union’s Single Market Program. European Societies, 3(3), 261–287.

Grugel, J., & Iusmen, I. (2013). The European Commission as guardian angel: the challenges of agenda-setting for children’s rights. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(1), 77–94.

Häge, F. M., & Toshkov, D. (2011). Anticipating Resistance: The Effects of Member State Preferences on the European Commission’s Agenda-Setting Activity. Limerick Papers in Politics and Public Administration, 1, 1–24.

Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2013). Linking Agenda Setting to Coordination

Structures: Bureaucratic Politics inside the European Commission. Journal of European Integration, 35(4), 425–441.

Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2014). Which Policy for Europe: Power and Conflict inside the European Commission (Issue September).

Haverland, M., de Ruiter, M., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Agenda-setting by the European Commission. Seeking public opinion? Journal of European Public Policy, 25(3), 327– 345.

Herweg, N. and Zahariadis, N. (2017). The Multiple Streams Approach. In N. Zahariadis & L. Buonanno (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of European public policy.

Routledge.

Kingdon, J., 1984. Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown, Boston.

Larsson, T., & Trondal, J. (2006). Agenda setting in the European Commission: how the European Commission structure and influence the EU agenda. EU administrative

governance, 11-43.

Lelieveldt, H., & Princen, S. (2015). The politics of the European Union. Cambridge University Press.

Littoz-Monnet, A. (2012). Agenda-Setting Dynamics at the EU Level: The Case of the EU Cultural Policy. Journal of European Integration, 34(5), 505–522.

(28)

Commission policy entrepreneurship and increasing supranationalism. Energy Policy, 55, 435–444.

Mörth, U. (2000). Competing frames in the European commission - the case of the defence industry and equipment issue. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(2), 173–189.

Müller, H. (2017). Setting Europe’s agenda: the Commission presidents and political leadership. Journal of European Integration, 39(2), 129–142.

Peters, B.G. (2001). ‘Agenda-setting in the European Union’. In J. Richardson (ed.), European Union: Power and Policy Making. New York: Routledge: 77–94.

Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 21–38.

Princen, S. (2011). Agenda Setting. In E. Versluis, M. van Keulen, & P. Stephenson (red.), Analyzing the European Union Policy Process (pp. 107-131). Macmillan International Higher Education.

Princen, S. (2011a). Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 927–943.

Princen, S., & Rhinard, M. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7), 1119–1132.

Rhinard, M. (2010). “Hijacking in Progress”: EU Biotechnology Laws, 1980-1990. In Framing Europe: The Policy Shaping Strategies of the European Commission (pp. 141– 175).

Stephenson, P. J. (2012). Image and venue as factors mediating latent spillover pressure for agenda-setting change. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(6), 796–816.

Suvarierol, S., Versluis, E. & Mastenbroek, E. (2015) De Commissie en de Agentschappen: een Europese Superregering?. In A. Van der Vleuten (red.), De Bestuurlijke Kaart van de

Europese Unie (pp. 55- 76). Bussum: Coutinho.

Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., & Young, A. R. (Eds.). (2015). Policy-making in the European

Union. Oxford University Press, USA.

Wendon, B. (1998). The commission as imagevenue entrepreneur in EU social policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(2), 339–353.

(29)

Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a

replication in software engineering. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 231–330.

Setting the Agenda: Influencing the European Commission Agenda: A literature study on the factors that determine agenda-setting in the European Commission