To investigate consistency, this dissertation seeks to find out if, how and with which results the EU and the member states coordinate their energy policies towards Morocco both internally and externally. To assess coordination, it is first of all necessary to identify a means for the measurement of coordination which is not an easy task as ‘for many decades, the measurement of coordination has been relatively weak’ (BIANCHI and PETERS, 2016:2). Indeed, as regards the measurement of coordination in governance, the focus has long been on the conceptualisation of governance, ‘rather than evaluating governance through consideration of outcomes’ (GREENWOOD, 2016:3). Nonetheless, several attempts have been made in the literature to measure coordination. Overall, two ways of measuring coordination qualitatively are proposed in the literature.
One way of measuring coordination is through the examination of mechanisms that are ‘dedicated to producing more coordination and integration’ (BIANCHI and PETERS, 2016:2) such as networks, collaboration and hierarchy (GREENWOOD, 2016:9; PETERS, 2018:5). Whilst networks generally refer to coordination from the bottom-up, collaboration refers to the process of creating a common framework or understanding of the coordination problem, which will then help the different actors to solve the issue. Contrary to networks, it is thought to be more difficult to achieve as it concerns ideas. However, if successful, it is considered a more effective means for coordination than networks. Hierarchy in turn refers to centralised priority setting, either through central organisations, i.e. supervising organisations or through cabinet committees or ministries that bring together a number of other ministries or related organisations (PETERS, 2018:5-8).
Another way of measuring coordination is through the examination of the different levels of coordination that may be achieved, with one important contribution in this regard coming from
- 33 -
Les Metcalfe, who in 1994, and in order to understand coordination with the EU, developed a nine-point scale of coordination ranging from ‘negative’ to ‘positive’ coordination. Based on the assumption that ‘individual organizations act independently and evolve means of managing coordination in response to increasing interdependence’ (METCALFE, 1996), this scale varies from independent decision-making by ministers to a unified strategy. And whilst it is a good starting point for the examination of coordination, it does, however, present several shortcomings. For example, whilst in theory, achievement of the highest levels of the scale depends on the effectiveness of its lower levels (METCALFE, 1996), in practice, this is not necessarily true as achievement of the lower levels does not automatically mean an overall successful outcome. On the contrary, not every coordination process results in a coordinated outcome (DEBAERE, 2015:27), which may indeed also be a by-product of consultation, for example, rather than the result of any intentional actions (DEBAERE, 2015:23). Further, Bianchi and Peters (2016:2) note that the ‘classification’ of particular situations remains unresolved and application of the scale to real cases largely depends on the individual judgement of the researcher. Finally, as pointed by Debaere (2013:44), the scale mixes up coordination outcomes (in fact, Levels 1, 4 and 6-8 are outcomes) and processes.
Yet, the Les Metcalfe scale is still useful to this research as it clearly illustrates the different processes, highlighting notably the ‘exchange of information’ and ‘consultation’ mechanisms (GEBHARD, 2017:110). Indeed, coordination generally starts with the sharing of information and data and then increasingly moves towards ‘identifying issues of common interest, setting a joint agenda, the exchange of good practices and joint decision-making’ (EUHES, 2007:24). Here, and inspired by Metcalfe’s process categorisation and based on the empirical research, this thesis will construct a six-point scale of possible processes: 1) no interaction, 2) information sharing, 3) consultation, 4) search for consensus, 5) establishment of common parameters/priorities and 6) unified strategy. Given that every process has a certain outcome (DEBAERE, 2013:45), these results will be applied against three different outcome categories (see Figure 2):
1. No coordination: no coordination is as has been shown before, a possible outcome that can occur when coordination processes fail, or when the actors involved in these processes are not interested in achieving a coordinated outcome (DEBAERE, 2013:43). It may be linked to no interaction, as well as to information sharing, as it ‘does not aim to end in a common EU position’ (DEBAERE, 2013:45).
2. Limited coordination: limited coordination may be linked to consultation, as it aims to end in a general EU position.
3. Extensive coordination: extensive coordination is linked to the search for agreement and consensus. Its aim is to reach a specific or detailed EU position.
- 34 -
Figure 2: Six-point scale for the measurement of coordination
Unified strategy
Establishment of common parameters/priorities
Search for consensus
Consultation Information-sharing No interaction N o co or di na tio n Li m ite d co or di na tio n Ex te ns iv e co or di na tio n
Source: Own elaboration based on METCALFE (1996).
Although coordination does not equal consistency (given that the latter depends on a variety of factors), assigning the process results to the above categories is a primordial step as it will allow for indications as regards the existence of consistency to be identified, whereby it will be based on Marangoni (2014:57-58), and distinguish between three levels.
1. Low consistency (inconsistency)/coordination: Low consistency describes situations in which some or all of the provisions of a policy/approach ‘contradict the primary objective(s)’. An indication of the existence of low consistency or inconsistency as regards coordination is the absence of any coordination mechanisms.
2. Medium consistency/coordination: Medium consistency refers to situations in which the provisions of a policy/approach ‘do neither contradict the primary objective(s) nor significantly add to its (their) achievement’ (MARANGONI, 2014:58). An indication of the existence of medium consistency as regards coordination is limited coordination.
3. High consistency/coordination: High consistency qualifies situations in which all the provisions of a policy/approach ‘fully support and further strengthen’ this policy’s ‘primary objective(s)’ (MARANGONI, 2014:57). In this light, it is associated with extensive coordination, as the latter presumes that all levels of the coordination process have been achieved, all accomplishments that, in turn, reduce the likelihood
- 35 -
of coordination failures. To be more precise, the achievement of the highest levels or coordination reduces the likelihood of coordination failures such as redundancy or gaps, failures that may otherwise lead to inconsistencies.
Against this background, this dissertation will measure coordination on the basis of existing coordination instruments, combining the two abovementioned approaches, and a) identify and examine the underlying formal and informal mechanisms in place that contribute or may contribute to coordination and b) and based on the author’s definition of coordination as a process, examine the different levels of coordination that may be achieved. To do so, it will make use of a social (or organisational) network analysis (SNA)80 which will help to detect
relationship structures and interactions between the actors involved in EU energy governance towards Morocco (STEKETEE, MIYAOKA and SPIEGELMAN, 2015:461). The tool used hereby is net-mapping, which, based on participatory interviews with core stakeholders of the related field, contributes to a better understanding of a situation in which many different actors influence outcomes (SCHIFFER and WAALE, 2008) and focus is on the supranational, intergovernmental, national and sub-national levels.
Actors of coordination: Building on the results of empirical research, this analysis will, as
regards the horizontal dimension, focus on the most relevant EU institutions and investigate how they interact bilaterally and multilaterally with each other. As for the vertical dimension, the analysis will examine interaction between the EU institutions and the member states. Finally, as for the diagonal dimension, it will focus on interaction between the above-mentioned actors and sub-national or non-state actors.
Levels of coordination: Consistency is sought at different layers of governance and to find out
which coordination processes actually take place and where they occur, this dissertation will map coordination of EU energy policies towards Morocco across two levels: the regional or EU multilevel system and the local or third-country level, whereby focus will be both on strategic/policy and functional coordination aspects.
To find out whether and to which extent the different stakeholders involved in EU energy governance towards Morocco cooperate with each other in a coordinated way, the research focus will be two-dimensional, i.e. it will take into account both hard and soft facts. In fact, whilst hard facts deal with real existing coordination measures, soft facts actually seek to shed light upon the perceptions of the actors presented above on the current state of policy coordination. Analysing coordination from the third-country perspective is of utmost importance here, as local views can reveal important aspects that are not necessarily observable in Brussels or are not meant to be seen there.
80 ‘Social network analysis (SNA) is used for measuring and analyzing the structural properties of networks of interdependent dyadic
relationships. Such relationships can be interpersonal relationships like advice seeking, friendship, or trust that characterizes interactions between individuals; or interorganizational networks that characterize the relationships between organizations as a whole – including relationships, such as joint collaborations, resource exchange, information exchange, or even membership in common organizations (e.g., trade associations)’ (STEKETEE, MIYAOKA and SPIEGELMAN, 2015:461).
- 36 -