Derek Beach

The unseen hand in treaty reform negotiations: the role and influence of the Council Secretariat

The Council Secretariat is the unseen hand in treaty reform negotiations – highly influential but also overlooked. This article highlights the significance of this neglect, and more generally the problems with using crude either–or dichotomies on whether EU institutions matter. A leadership model is first developed that explains when we should expect EU institutions such as the Council Secretariat to matter vis-à-vis governments. It is hypothesized that the context of the specific negotiation and the leadership strategies employed by EU institutions determines their level of influence over treaty reform outcomes. The negotiation of the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice are then investigated. It is found that even the most intergovernmental bargaining forum in the EU is not a purely intergovernmental affair. Evidence is produced that shows that the Council Secretariat has played an influential role in recent treaty reform negotiations. While the Secretariat played a more marginal role in the 2000 IGC, and had only moderate influence over outcomes, the Council Secretariat was very influential in the 1996–97 IGC owing to a combination of its high level of expertise, its reputation among governments of being a trusted assistant, its privileged institutional position, and its skilful use of pragmatic and behind-the-scenes instrumental leadership strategies.

Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms

The last decade has witnessed resurgence in the interest in studying the causal mechanisms linking causes and effects. This article games through the methodological consequences that adopting a systems understanding of mechanisms has for what types of cases we should select when using in-depth case study methods like process tracing. The article proceeds in three steps. We first expose the assumptions that underpin the study of causal mechanisms as systems that have methodological implications for case selection. In particular, we take as our point of departure the case-based position, where: causation is viewed in deterministic and asymmetric terms, the focus is ensuring causal homogeneity in case-based research to enable cross-case inferences to be made, and finally where mechanisms are understood as more than just intervening variables but instead a system of interacting parts that transfers causal forces from causes to outcomes. We then develop a set of case selection guidelines that are in methodological alignment with these underlying assumptions. We then develop guidelines for research where the mechanism is the primary focus, contending that only typical cases where both X, Y, and the requisite contextual conditions are present should be selected. We compare our guidelines with the existing, finding that practices like selecting most/least-likely cases are not compatible with the underlying assumptions of tracing mechanisms. We then present guidelines for deviant cases, focusing on tracing mechanisms until they breakdown as a tool to shed light on omitted contextual and/or causal conditions.

The Contribution of Process Tracing to Theory-Based Evaluations of Complex Aid Instruments

This article focuses on methodological challenges in evaluating complex program aid interventions like budget support. We show that recent innovations in process-tracing methodology can help solve the identified challenges and increase the strength of causal inference made when using case studies in demanding settings. For the specific task of evaluating the governance effectiveness of budget support interventions, we developed a more fine-grained causal mechanism for a sub-set of the comprehensive program theory of budget support. Moreover, based on the informal use of Bayesian logic, we have elaborated on how to increase the conclusiveness of empirical evidence for one part of the theorized causal mechanism. We argue that by establishing an explicit theorized mechanism prior to empirical research and by critically judging our evidence according to an informal Bayesian logic we can remedy some of the problems at hand in much case-study research and increase the inferential leverage in complex within-case evaluation studies.

The Facilitator of Efficient Negotiations in the Council: the Impact of the Council Secretariat

Why are intergovernmental negotiations in the Council not locked in a perpetual joint decision trap, where high transaction costs systematically result in inefficient, lowest common denominator outcomes or deadlock? Social constructivists and ‘deliberative’ approaches argue that Council decisionmaking is a very long-term iterative game that has resulted in the development of consensual norms that dictate that negotiators focus on finding solutions that promote the common European interest (Beyers 2005; Lewis, Chapter 9, this volume; Elgstrom and Jonsson 2000; Neyer 2006). Yet while persuasive evidence of the existence of these norms exists, these theories end up ‘black-boxing’ the actual negotiation process, as they offer little guidance on how actor motivations for doing ‘the right thing’ are channelled into an actual contractual agreement in complex intergovernmental negotiations. In contrast, liberal intergovernmentalism argues that EU decision-making is inherently efficient, as the potential high gains from cooperation will generate a sufficient supply of efficient agreements (Moravcsik 1999). However, when we look in more detail at the actual negotiation process, we find evidence that intergovernmental negotiations are not self-organizing, but require leadership in order to overcome high transaction costs (Beach and Mazzucelli 2007; see also Tallberg, Chapter 10 above).

It's all about mechanisms – what process-tracing case studies should be tracing

ABSTRACT Process-tracing (PT) as a distinct case-study methodology involves tracing causal mechanisms that link causes (X) with their effects (i.e. outcomes) (Y). We trace causal mechanisms whereby a cause (or set of causes) produces an outcome to both: (1) make stronger evidence-based inferences about causal relationships because the analysis produces within-case evidence of each step of the causal process (or absence thereof) in between a cause and outcome, and (2) because tracing mechanisms gives us a better understanding of how a cause produces an outcome. Yet, when we look at the methodological literature on PT, there is considerable ambiguity and discord about what causal mechanisms actually are. The result of this ambiguity and discord about what mechanisms are clearly maps onto existing applications of PT, with most PT case studies completely ignoring the underlying theoretical causal processes. In the few PT applications where mechanisms are unpacked, they are typically only developed in a very cursory fashion, with the result that there is considerable ambiguity about what theoretical process the ensuing case study actually is tracing. If we want to claim we are tracing causal mechanisms, the causal processes in between X and Y need to be unpacked theoretically. How can we claim we are tracing a causal ’process’ when we are not told what the process (i.e. mechanism) actually is? To alleviate this problem, the article attempts to develop a clearer definition of causal mechanisms to provide scholars with a framework for theorising mechanisms in a fashion that is amenable to in-depth empirical analysis using PT.

Integrating Cross-case Analyses and Process Tracing in Set-Theoretic Research: Strategies and Parameters of Debate

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the combination of two methods on the basis of set theory. In our introduction and this special issue, we focus on two variants of cross-case set-theoretic methods—qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and typological theory (TT)—and their combination with process tracing (PT). Our goal is to broaden and deepen set-theoretic empirical research and equip scholars with guidance on how to implement it in multimethod research (MMR). At first glance, set-theoretic cross-case methods and PT seem to be highly compatible when causal relationships are conceptualized in terms of set theory. However, multiple issues have not so far been thoroughly addressed. Our article builds on the emerging MMR literature and seeks to enhance it in four ways. First, we offer a comprehensive and coherent elaboration of the two sequences in which case studies can be combined with a cross-case method. Second, we expand the perspective and discuss QCA and TT as two alternative methods for the cross-case analysis. Third, based on the idea of analytical priority, we introduce the distinction between a condition-centered and a mechanism-centered variant of set-theoretic MMR. Fourth, we point attention to the challenges of theorizing and analyzing arrangements of conditions and mechanisms associated with sufficient conjunctions.

Introduction: Political agency in the constitutional politics of the European Union

The revision of the treaties on which the political and institutional life of the European Union (EU) is based officially turned into constitutional politics when, in 2002, a ‘Convention on the Future of the European Union’ took up its work. This convention, set up to prepare a fundamental institutional reform of the Union in preparation for its enlargement to 25 member states in 2004, quickly defined its role as that of drafting a ‘Constitutional Treaty’. Even though formally it was merely invited by the European Council to propose scenarios or suggest treaty changes which may or may not have been taken into account by the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), the Convention, under the chairmanship of former French President and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, had momentum on its side and ultimately drafted a treaty that member states could not ignore. The Convention’s Draft Constitutional Treaty not only set the agenda for the IGC negotiations, but indeed to a large extent constituted the Treaty that was eventually signed by Heads of State and Government and submitted for ratification in the member states. Constitutional politics in the Union have turned out to be a process rather than a single event – despite frequent references to the Constitutional Convention as ‘Europe’s Philadelphia’ by Giscard and others, there was no constitutional moment. Instead, constitutional politics proceeded through several stages, each building on the achievements and problems encountered previously: the idea of creating a convention was born out of the experience of the previous IGC that had produced the Nice Treaty, the Convention then discussed changes to the existing treaties, the IGC negotiators worked from the Convention draft and further negotiations were then required when the Constitutional Treaty failed to be ratified in several member states. In June 2007, the European Council agreed to convene a new IGC to draft a ‘Reform Treaty’ that would keep most of the important innovations of the Constitutional Treaty but would avoid the language of constitutionalism which had dogged its ratification.

The European Parliament in the 2000 IGC and the Constitutional Treaty negotiations: from loser to winner

ABSTRACT Why did two rounds of EU constitutional reform held within a five-year period yield very different results? The 2000 IGC resulted in the modest Treaty of Nice, whereas the 2002–04 round drafted the Constitutional Treaty which, although it did not involve major substantive changes, did mark a major symbolic step forward. This article argues that the change in outcomes can to a large degree be explained by the change in negotiating structure due to the use of a convention that drafted most of the Constitutional Treatys text, creating a context which privileged MEPs. While the outer bounds of the possible were set by governments, the EP was able to build coalitions around ambitious yet realistic positions, leading to a final text that was a major symbolic step forward.

Achieving Methodological Alignment When Combining QCA and Process tracing in Practice

This article explores the practical challenges one faces when combining qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and process tracing (PT) in a manner that is consistent with their underlying assumptions about the nature of causal relationships. While PT builds on a mechanism-based understanding of causation, QCA as a comparative method makes claims about counterfactual causal relationships. Given the need to ensure alignment between the ontological understandings of causation that underlie a method and methodological practice, the different ontological foundations result in methodological guidelines that contradict each other, forcing the analyst to choose whether to be more in alignment with one or the other method. This article explores the implications of contrasting guidelines in a practical case study, where a QCA for sufficiency is followed by two PT case studies of positive cases.

Process-Tracing as a Tool to Analyse Discretion

Despite the decades of theorization, the causal processes in-between acts of delegation and agency discretion and autonomy are still not developed theoretically, with much ambiguity about how the model’s elements are causally connected. This chapter shows that process-tracing is a useful methodological tool for improving our theoretical and empirical understanding of the causal processes underlying the PA model. Process-tracing, as a case-study method, requires explicitly theorizing the causal mechanism that connects delegation to agency costs and forces the analyst to unpack the process empirically. The added-value of process-tracing is illustrated on the example of the Council Secretariat’s facilitating leadership in intergovernmental negotiations. It is claimed that process-tracing confronts the principal–agent model to closer logical scrutiny, ultimately leading to stronger causal claims and better theorization.