Evidence for a developing international policy capacity seems to originate largely from the level of EU policy. Before accession to the EU, domestic ministries’ resources and areas of policy interest were very limited. Membership of the EU brought forward an expansion of ‘foreign policy’, traditionally belonging solely to the MFA’s competence, to include issues which fell under domestic government departments but which started to gain an external dimension (Tsitouridis, 1986: 861). As a result, certain parts of the Greek domestic administration became part of a large European network of cooperation (Kavakas, 2000: 147). A special provision of Law 445/1976 established EC Affairs Services in Greek domestic ministries, that is offices in charge of EU affairs designed to constitute firstly, the ministries’ core for information and research on EC-related issues and secondly, the linkage between technical ministries and the MFA. The role of these services however, was soon downgraded and limited to linkages with the MNEC on economic issues of (Anastopoulos, 1986: 645).
The first signs of the development of European policy capacity were manifest in the creation of European sections in the ministries of Economy, Agriculture, Industry and Energy, Trade, Employment, Public Works, Transportation, Social Services, Culture and Sciences. Later in the 1990s, similar structures were created in most of the Greek ministries that took the form of European Union affairs offices (Interview, no 28). These offices functioned as repositories of information and
constituted linkages with the Ministry of Coordination12 (MCo) which was in charge of coordinating European policy until 1981 when the task was transferred to the MFA (Tsitouridis, 1986: 863).
Despite the initial importance attached to the aforementioned EC and later EU inter-ministerial offices with regards to developing European policy making capacity, in practice they were less effective. It has been documented that the majority of such offices were merely limited to exchanging information with the PeRepGr and their functions and competence were far from that of policy making (Interview, no 28).
In research conducted in the early 1990s (Minakaki, 1992: 38) officials from a number of ministries outside the MFA or the MNEC, suggested that in terms of policy formulation, policy communication and coordination in the area of foreign and European policy, there was amongst other things, a high degree of centralisation in the MFA as well as lack of information sharing on behalf of the two leading ministries, the MFA and the MNEC with the rest of the ministries regarding economic and technical policy13. This model in European policy making crystallised the centrality of the MFA and MNEC as the main channels in European and other international policy processes. Minakaki (1992: 38) describes the following linear process in European policy making and communication.
Ministry X – MFA/MNEC – PeRepGr – EU – PeRepGr – MFA/MNEC – Ministry X In terms of communication and consultation of certain European policies there is a linear if not circular pattern which follows this model:
EU – PeRepGr - MFA / MNEC – Ministry X – MFA - PeRepGr – EU In most cases policy has already been formulated in the second stage by the PeRepGr and is then transmitted to the headquarters (HQ) in Athens and in turn to the concerned technical ministry (Interview, no 2; 6). The tendency to formulate
12
Which was later replaced in European policy coordination by the MFA
13
polices at the level of the PeRepGr in direct communication with the technical ministry concerned becomes more and more regular (Interview, no 6).
The limited European policy capacity of domestic government departments, albeit more developed than international policy capacity, has shifted the weight of EU and also of international policy formulation to the PeRepGr, which is discussed in the following section. A number of interviews conducted at the PeRepGr in three consecutive years from 2007 to 2009 stressed a twofold deficiency in terms of domestic ministries’ European policy capacity. Such deficiency lies both in the malfunction of departments for EU affairs in domestic ministries and in the lack of their qualitative representation in the PeRepGr14. This deficiency coupled with the majority of domestic ministries’ ‘slow- speed’ performance and administrative pathology poses significant limitations to the development of European as well as international policy capacity (Interview, no 2; 8).
The increasing number of issues with a European or international dimension in technical or else vertical ministries’ preoccupations is not without implications, qualitative and quantitative alike, for the ways in which the structures for their management are organised (Makridimitris and Passas, 1993: 11). Therefore, not surprisingly the cross-cutting dimension of European policy is at odds with existing vertical organisation. The same applies to the MFA and MNEC, which Makridimitris and Passas (1993: 12) characterise as horizontal ministries15. As a result the aforementioned implications become manifest in the augmentation of foreign and European policy bureaucracy within and without the MFA, with the PeRepGr constituting a prime example.
14
Three interviewees referred to the report of Stavros Dimas (European Commissioner for the Environment) on the poor Greek environmental policy and measures. This was an illustrative example of a case whereby the lack of a department for EU affairs was felt as despite the need to cover existing posts with experts in the ME (YPEXWDE) those posts were vacant. It was
emphasised that it is a matter of urgency for the Greek government to have the right people, ie policy makers and consultants at the right positions. This report and the Greek reaction is bound to poison the relations between Greece and the Commission.
15
This characterisation is accepted only if it refers to their preoccupations which are horizontal and are becoming more so. As far as their structure and operation is concerned both ministries are hierarchical and vertical
Despite the nominal European policy making capacity constituting the dominant trend in most home departments some ministries such as the Ministry of Mercantile Marine and the Ministry of Agriculture have functioned quite effectively in policy making and policy-uploading to the EU. The Ministry of Agriculture has always maintained significant direct relationships with the Union’s institutions and participates actively in EU policy formulation. Part of its effectiveness is due to the disproportionately large resources it has received from the central Greek government unlike other ministries, in order to enhance representation in the PeRepGr but also in other key missions abroad (Interview, no 3; 28). The Ministry of Agriculture was one of the first ministries to attach a large number of officials and consultants to overseas missions and to create an office for Agriculture Consultants which secured large amounts of European funds when mostly needed in the early 1980s (Tsitouridis, 1986: 863).