Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Book Review: Learning and Change in European Foreign Policy. The Case of EU Special Representatives , by Cornelius Adebahr. (Nomos Publishers, 2009)

Book Review: Learning and Change in European Foreign Policy. The Case of EU Special... BOOK REVIEWS Cornelius Adebahr, Learning and Change in European Foreign Policy. The Case of EU Special Representatives (Nomos Publishers, 2009), ISBN: 9783832947217, 267. Investigating the relatively unknown field of European Union (EU) special representatives (EUSRs), this book is the result of an in-depth empirical investigation to unveil their role and how they can inform research on the EU from an organizational learning perspective. The study, which should be read as the results of a PhD research, questions whether the EU, as an organization, is able to learn from EUSRs as an instrument of foreign policy, and if so, why and how this learning is taking place. Chapter 2 pertinently analyses previous experiments of special envoys or representatives, the `oldest instrument of inter-state diplomacy' (p.15) since Antique Greece and Machiavelli. Adebahr looks at the cases of US and UN special representatives and identifies their main functions. On this basis, he rightly justifies the case selection for the research. Those comparative elements with EUSRs are nonetheless not taken further in the study. They could have had some implications for EU's international identity and be useful to formulate policy recommendations. The theoretical framework exposed in Chapter 3 is designed to understand whether the instrument of EUSRs has led the EU to do some organizational learning. The `rewriting of rules' and the `result of reflection' are identified as mechanisms acting at four different levels: structural (EU's organizational setup), procedural (cooperation between EU bodies and decision-making process), operational (coordination in the field and with third parties) and ideational (strategic and policy perspective). Then, in a second step the author investigates whether this leads to actual change, and if not, what are the barriers to this lack of organizational change. In this phase policy and institutional levels come under scrutiny. Resistance and institutional constraints are identified as potential barriers to change. Following the empirical study developed in Chapters 4 and 5, Adebahr concludes, from an organizational learning perspective, that there is no individual learning by the EUSRs and that `the EU learns what it wants to learn' (p. 213). EU's organizational culture is the main barrier to change identified. Another interesting aspect raised by the study is that most of EU learning is dominated by an `internal focused learning' (p. 206). EUSRs are therefore important actors when it comes to EU internal foreign policy-making. This is quite surprising given that EUSRs interact often with third parties. One could have expected that the external environment, third countries or international organizations could have shaped their role more strongly. They act nonetheless as `boundary spanners' by bridging the gap between internal decision-making and the external environment as well as between the political boundaries of conflict management (p. 227). This is quite a useful conclusion for the European External Action Service, where a lot remains to be done on the internal/external dimensions of European foreign policy. From an organizational change perspective, EU institutional structures and procedures and resistance to change act are the main filters. In reality it seems that one of the main filters is EU Member States, especially when it comes to organizational change. This link with Member States would merit future research, especially when it comes to the interdependence between the different layers of the EU as an organization. This is even more relevant since the characteristics of EU organizational culture regarding EU foreign policy will probably evolve with the European External Action Service. While the study looks in detail at the different learning processes, it is difficult to identify which instruments at the disposal of EUSRs (i.e., networks, administration, etc.) are actually most successful to propel change. This would be useful to know in the perspective of the multi-level type of governance that is the EU and CFSP/ESDP decision-making. As rightly put by Zito and Schout, `with its diversity of actors, layers and phases (including uploading, downloading and implementation) the EU also offers multiple obstacles to learning and implementation' (A.R. Zito & A. Schout, `Learning Theory Reconsidered: EU Integration Theories and Learning', Journal of European Public Policy 16, no. 8 (2009): 1103­1123). These obstacles are not clearly identified, which might come from the fact that the book ambitions to look at all the EUSRs deployed between 1996 and 2007. A possible selection of more delimited case studies could have helped to highlight some of the micro-processes at hand. BOOK REVIEWS Timing and sequencing are other important elements of the analysis. The author looks at the different phases for the creation and expansion of the role of EUSRs in Chapter 1 (formalization 1999­2001, expansion 2002­2005, consolidation and new tasks 2006­2007) and applies them systematically throughout the study. Temporality and sequencing are indeed important factors for organizational learning at the structural and procedural level (K. Goetz & J.H. Meyer-Sahling, `The EU Timescape: From Notion to Research Agenda', Journal of European Public Policy 16, no. 2 (2009): 325­336). A future avenue for research could be to explore further how time and learning processes relate. In a nutshell, the main added value of this research is that it considers organizational learning as a `dependent variable' and applies it to the under-researched area of EUSRs. The book, built on a strong methodological endeavor, comes out with conclusions which are relevant both for academics and policy-makers. Learning processes are complex mechanisms to understand and to foster. This book therefore brings some refreshing perspective to European foreign policy studies and is timely in the light of the reconfiguration of European diplomatic service. Sarah Wolff The Netherlands Institute for International Relations `Clingendael' http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Foreign Affairs Review Kluwer Law International

Book Review: Learning and Change in European Foreign Policy. The Case of EU Special Representatives , by Cornelius Adebahr. (Nomos Publishers, 2009)

Wolff
European Foreign Affairs Review , Volume 16 (1) – Feb 1, 2011
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/book-review-learning-and-change-in-european-foreign-policy-the-case-of-rXKEdeltoB

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer Law International
ISSN
1384-6299
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS Cornelius Adebahr, Learning and Change in European Foreign Policy. The Case of EU Special Representatives (Nomos Publishers, 2009), ISBN: 9783832947217, 267. Investigating the relatively unknown field of European Union (EU) special representatives (EUSRs), this book is the result of an in-depth empirical investigation to unveil their role and how they can inform research on the EU from an organizational learning perspective. The study, which should be read as the results of a PhD research, questions whether the EU, as an organization, is able to learn from EUSRs as an instrument of foreign policy, and if so, why and how this learning is taking place. Chapter 2 pertinently analyses previous experiments of special envoys or representatives, the `oldest instrument of inter-state diplomacy' (p.15) since Antique Greece and Machiavelli. Adebahr looks at the cases of US and UN special representatives and identifies their main functions. On this basis, he rightly justifies the case selection for the research. Those comparative elements with EUSRs are nonetheless not taken further in the study. They could have had some implications for EU's international identity and be useful to formulate policy recommendations. The theoretical framework exposed in Chapter 3 is designed to understand whether the instrument of EUSRs has led the EU to do some organizational learning. The `rewriting of rules' and the `result of reflection' are identified as mechanisms acting at four different levels: structural (EU's organizational setup), procedural (cooperation between EU bodies and decision-making process), operational (coordination in the field and with third parties) and ideational (strategic and policy perspective). Then, in a second step the author investigates whether this leads to actual change, and if not, what are the barriers to this lack of organizational change. In this phase policy and institutional levels come under scrutiny. Resistance and institutional constraints are identified as potential barriers to change. Following the empirical study developed in Chapters 4 and 5, Adebahr concludes, from an organizational learning perspective, that there is no individual learning by the EUSRs and that `the EU learns what it wants to learn' (p. 213). EU's organizational culture is the main barrier to change identified. Another interesting aspect raised by the study is that most of EU learning is dominated by an `internal focused learning' (p. 206). EUSRs are therefore important actors when it comes to EU internal foreign policy-making. This is quite surprising given that EUSRs interact often with third parties. One could have expected that the external environment, third countries or international organizations could have shaped their role more strongly. They act nonetheless as `boundary spanners' by bridging the gap between internal decision-making and the external environment as well as between the political boundaries of conflict management (p. 227). This is quite a useful conclusion for the European External Action Service, where a lot remains to be done on the internal/external dimensions of European foreign policy. From an organizational change perspective, EU institutional structures and procedures and resistance to change act are the main filters. In reality it seems that one of the main filters is EU Member States, especially when it comes to organizational change. This link with Member States would merit future research, especially when it comes to the interdependence between the different layers of the EU as an organization. This is even more relevant since the characteristics of EU organizational culture regarding EU foreign policy will probably evolve with the European External Action Service. While the study looks in detail at the different learning processes, it is difficult to identify which instruments at the disposal of EUSRs (i.e., networks, administration, etc.) are actually most successful to propel change. This would be useful to know in the perspective of the multi-level type of governance that is the EU and CFSP/ESDP decision-making. As rightly put by Zito and Schout, `with its diversity of actors, layers and phases (including uploading, downloading and implementation) the EU also offers multiple obstacles to learning and implementation' (A.R. Zito & A. Schout, `Learning Theory Reconsidered: EU Integration Theories and Learning', Journal of European Public Policy 16, no. 8 (2009): 1103­1123). These obstacles are not clearly identified, which might come from the fact that the book ambitions to look at all the EUSRs deployed between 1996 and 2007. A possible selection of more delimited case studies could have helped to highlight some of the micro-processes at hand. BOOK REVIEWS Timing and sequencing are other important elements of the analysis. The author looks at the different phases for the creation and expansion of the role of EUSRs in Chapter 1 (formalization 1999­2001, expansion 2002­2005, consolidation and new tasks 2006­2007) and applies them systematically throughout the study. Temporality and sequencing are indeed important factors for organizational learning at the structural and procedural level (K. Goetz & J.H. Meyer-Sahling, `The EU Timescape: From Notion to Research Agenda', Journal of European Public Policy 16, no. 2 (2009): 325­336). A future avenue for research could be to explore further how time and learning processes relate. In a nutshell, the main added value of this research is that it considers organizational learning as a `dependent variable' and applies it to the under-researched area of EUSRs. The book, built on a strong methodological endeavor, comes out with conclusions which are relevant both for academics and policy-makers. Learning processes are complex mechanisms to understand and to foster. This book therefore brings some refreshing perspective to European foreign policy studies and is timely in the light of the reconfiguration of European diplomatic service. Sarah Wolff The Netherlands Institute for International Relations `Clingendael'

Journal

European Foreign Affairs Review – Kluwer Law International

Published: Feb 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.