European Groups and the Policy

  • Terkel T. Nielsen
Part of the Studies in Comparative Politics book series (STCP)


One highly significant aspect of the process of integration in the European Community is the transfer of social sectors from the national political systems to the Community system. One such sector is agriculture. This article will focus on a limited, but significant part of the activities performed by the Community institutions: the collective decision-making process with reference to the common agricultural policy.


Member Organization Common Agricultural Policy Management Committee European Group European Economic Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See Dick Ramström, The Efficiency of Control Strategies. Communication and Decision-Making in Organizations, Stockholm, 1967, Chaps. 2 and 6 on the decision-making process.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. Leon N. Lindberg and Stuart A. Scheingold, Europe’s Would-Be Polity. Patterns of Change in the European Community, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970, on the agricultural sector in a Community context, pp. 141–81.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf. Lindberg and Scheingold, op. cit. on the political system and the problems of decision-making, pp. 64–100;Google Scholar
  4. Leon N. Lindberg, ‘Decision-making and Integration in the European Community’, International Organization, Vol. XIX, No. 1, 1965; Leon N. Lindberg, ‘The European Community as a Political System: Notes towards the Construction of a Model’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1967, which has inspired the present concept of EEC authorities.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See Werner Feld, ‘National Economic Interest Groups and Policy Formation in the EEC’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. LXXXI, No. 3, 1966, on the activities of the national groups.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See Giancarlo Olmi, ‘Common Organization of Agricultural Markets at the Stage of the Single Market’, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 5, 1967–68, on agricultural decision-making.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See David Coombes, Politics and Bureaucracy in the European Community. A Portrait of the Commission of the EEC, London, 1970, on the Commission as a European civil service, Chaps. 6 and 7; on the administrative, initiative, mediative, and normative functions of the Commission, pp. 234–42; and especially Chaps. 11 which treats the Commission as a bureaucracy with predominantly administrative and mediative functions.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    On the consultation of the European Parliament, see Olmi, op. cit. pp. 402–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karlheinz Neunreither, ‘Le rôle du Parlement européen’ in La décision dans les Communautés européennes, ed. by Pierre Gerbet and Daniel Pepy, Brussels 1969, p. 126.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Cf. Lawrence Scheinman, ‘Some Preliminary Notes on Bureaucratic Relationships in the European Economic Community’, International Organization, Vol. XX, 1966, on the ‘bureaucratic interpenetration’.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Christoph Bertram, ‘Decision-Making in the EEC: The Management Committee Procedure’, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1967–68, p. 262. A quantitative indicator of autonomy (defined as an input/output ratio) provides evidence that the autonomy of the Commission has increased from 1962 to 1967; the input/output ratio of telex messages of DG VI was in 1962 0•92 (230/250) and in 1967 0•52 (1400/2700), and this indicates ‘low’ and ‘high’ autonomy, respectively; data from Mitteilungen zur Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, 14/1967, Press and Information Service of the European Communities, p. 6.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    See Hartmut Kirstein, Les institutions communautaires, College of Europe, Bruges, 1968 (unprinted paper).Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    See Joachim-Friedrich Heine, ‘Wie entstehen die Rechtsnormen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft?’, Molkerei- und Käserei-Zeitung, 16/1967, Hildesheim, on the ‘Agri-telex’ procedure.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    On interest group activities see Dusan Sidjanski, ‘Pressure Groups and the European Economic Community’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 2, no. 3, 1967; andGoogle Scholar
  15. Jean Meynaud and Dusan Sidjanski, ‘L’action des groupes de pression’ in La décision dans les Communautés européennes, ed. by Pierre Gerbet and Daniel Pepy, Brussels, 1969Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Karl W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government. Models of Political Communication and Control, New York, 1966, p. 154.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Cf. Wilhelm Gieseke, ‘Die berufsständischen Organisational der Land-wirtschaft in der agrarpolitischen Willensbildung der EWG’, Agrarpolitik in der EWG ed. by Theodor Dams et al., Munich, 1968, p. 218, ‘nur die systematische Einschaltung auf alien Stufen der Beschlussfassung bringt Aussicht auf Erfolg’. Dr Gieseke occupies a high position in COPA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Government and Opposition Ltd 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terkel T. Nielsen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations