AVALUACIÓ HEURÍSTICA

Based on the aforementioned arguments concerning economies of scale, in a naive approach one could argue that saving potentials are the same for every task conducted by a diplomatic mis- sion. Such a methodology, however, suffers from various drawbacks since both the aims of the several diplomatic tasks as well as the underlying costs differ between and within EU member states. The question thus is which tasks or sections of a diplomatic mission are best suited for communitarisation and which are not?

According to an expert survey that has been accomplished with various current and former ambassadors, an exemplary structure of an exemplary representation (see Table 1) has been derived. Based on this survey, the main functions of diplomatic missions are assigned to the sections consular services, political relations, economic relations and trade promotion, offi cial development aid, military mission, cultural relations, administration, security services, press, management, and other services.

Obviously, these functions differ with respect to their likely feasibility of full communitarisa- tion. Political relations as well as the conduct of economic and trade promotion can have many aspects that are specifi c for each EU country. Thus, even in the case of an EU embassy with 27 fl ags, especially countries with high ambitions for an independent foreign policy or specifi c interests in economic relations might like to draw on their own separate and additional staff to fulfi l the related tasks. The same holds true, albeit to a lesser extent, for development aid and

Case Study 2: Embassies

cultural missions. Country-specifi c issues are less relevant for administration, consular services like the visa application procedure, or the mission’s security services. For these functions, fewer obstacles exist for reaping economies of scale.

Information on the division of personnel on the different sections of an exemplary EU repre- sentation is shown in Table 1.3 _{All fi gures are based on expert assessments of both current and} former ambassadors for an exemplary EU diplomatic mission of a large, medium, and a small EU country. There are obviously enormous differences concerning the overall staff and its division, both between and within different EU member countries. Nevertheless, this assessment can provide important insights in the different weights of functions in the diplomatic area. As can be seen from the table, the proportionally largest share is administration which accounts for approximately one-third to 40 percent of a diplomatic mission’s staff. According to the second and the third expert, security services only account for approximately one percent of the total staff, whereas the fi rst expert assesses security services as a part of administration.

3 _{In case of a one-man diplomatic mission, we assume that the division of personnel of different sections is equivalent to the apportionment of time the}

consular spends on the different tasks.

Functions Expert 1* Expert 2 Expert 3

Consular services 10 15 13

Political relations to host country 10 6 18

Economic relations, trade promotion 10 12 17

Offi cial development aid 5 8 18

Military mission 15 4 1 Cultural relations 10 4 1 Administration 30 42 31 Intelligence – 1 – Security services – 1 1 Press 10 – – Management – 5 – Other – 2 –

Notes: Expert 1 refers to a large, Expert 2 refers to a medium and Expert 3 refers to a small EU country. * Security is part of administration. Table 1: Average distribution of staff in an exemplary representation

Case Study 2: Embassies

However, although there are some remarkable differences concerning the different expert assess- ments of several sections, such as military missions or cultural relations, some important simi- larities emerge. Both the assessed shares of personnel working in the sections consular services or administration are comparable across the different expert assessments. Taken together, these sections account for 40 percent to approximately 55 percent of an exemplary mission’s overall staff.4 _{The results thus underline that a substantial share of an exemplary diplomatic mission’s} staff is working in sections for which there is a strong case that communitarisation is feasible. These weights will be used in subsequent quantifi cation. A further caveat must be stressed from the beginning: Wage levels and an employees’ remuneration differ across different functions and between different nations. In most Eastern European and Asian missions, for instance, the consulate section is by far the largest section of a representation. Most of the employees, however, are regional staff and are remunerated according to the wage levels of the local market. In a developing country it is thus possible that the mission’s consul alone is more expensive than the total regional staff employed. The same also holds true for the remaining administrative tasks.

In addition, one has to account for wage differentials on the national and the supranational level. If, for instance, most of the employees of a common EU diplomatic mission are paid with EU- wages, the saving potential shrinks as compared to a situation with national wages to the extent EU wages exceed the average wages of national staff across EU member countries. For instance, EU offi cials who have to leave their home country to fulfi l their specifi ed tasks in the European Commission earn a 16 percent expatriation allowance (Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), Art 69). Additionally, Gräßle (2013) has shown that there is a huge difference in net earnings between national and EU offi cials. That is, to end up with the net income of a European offi cial, the gross income of a national public servant must increase by additional Euro 6,337.92.5 _{We will come back} to this problem in our conclusions.

4 _{This also holds if one includes security services to administration, which is done by Expert 1.}

5 _{This difference stems from both differences in taxes and special allowances. The figure refers to grade 16, age bracket three and compares European and}

Case Study 2: Embassies

Quantification of European added value