J.P.M. van Tatenhove

The inter-play between formal and informal practices

Abstract This article deals with the interaction between formal and informal politics in the EU. First of all, it argues that the EU is a special setting for such interaction, as compared to other political systems, as a result of its speedy institutional development and multi-layered nature. Then, it briefly addresses new institutionalist and governance approaches to informality, as well as the strategic motivations behind informal practices. Four such strategies are distinguished. At the co-operative end of the spectrum informal practices may be intended either as a lubricant for applying existing rules or as an experimental garden for trying out new rules. More conflictual strategies may aim at re-directing policy substance or the application of existing rules (critical voice) or rather at circumventing those rules. On that basis, the article presents the ‘staging’ of practices as a way to understand the interplay of formal and informal practices. Informality can take place in front stage settings where rules are pre-given or in backstage settings where rules are not pre-given, while at the same time these settings can be formally sanctioned or not. Besides formal front stage practices this may result in three types of informal practices: informal front stage practices, formally sanctioned backstage practices and ‘sub-politics’.

Introduction: Informality in a future EU

This special issue of the journal Perspectives on European Politics and Society is devoted to a phenomenon that has recently gained new interest in the study of policy making in the European Union (EU): informality. Informality is by no means a new phenomenon in European politics. European co-operation has always functioned by virtue of national and European elite consensus on European integration, and the direct relations of the European institutions with business leaders, trade unions, interest groups and non-governmental organisations. Also, informal dynamics were at the heart of early integration theories such as Deutsch’ communication theory (Deutsch et al., 1957; Deutsch, 1964) and Haas’ neo-functionalist thinking (1958). Nevertheless, the study of European co-operation has been dominated for decades by a (liberal) inter-governmentalist approach, in which informality was primarily studied in the framework of national politics and classical diplomatic relations (Hoffmann, 1966; Moravcsik, 1993). In the 1990s this hegemonic point of view was gradually undermined by institutionalist (Hall & Taylor, 1996; Pierson, 1996) and social constructivist (Aalberts, 2004; Christianson, Jørgensen & Wiener, 2001) approaches to European politics, in which informal processes at the European scene were granted more importance in decision making. Yet, studying informality in the EU as a separate field of interest only appeared a few years ago (e.g. Christiansen & Piattoni, 2003; Farrell & Héritier, 2003; Stacey & Rittberger, 2003). In our opinion, it is both necessary and unavoidable to pay more categorically attention to informality in European politics for a number of reasons. The first reason concerns the unique governance character of the European Union. An important theme in contemporary policy analysis is the shifting locus and focus of politics. Politics and policy are not longer framed within the nation-model alone, but within a diversity of society-centred forms of governance. Some refer to this as a ‘shift from government to governance’ or as ‘governance without government’ (Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992; van Kersbergen & van Waarden, 2001). As a result new actors, new sites and new ways of steering societal developments are emphasised. When looking at the EU, the EU is not only regarded as one of the earliest examples of governance in an international setting (Héritier, 1999; Scharpf, 1999), but its

Greening Flood Protection—An Interactive Knowledge Arrangement Perspective

Abstract In flood protection, the dominant paradigm of ‘building hard structures’ is being challenged by approaches that integrate ecosystem dynamics and are ‘nature-based’. Knowledge development and policy ambitions on greening flood protection (GFP) are rapidly growing, but a deficit remains in actual full-scale implementation. Knowledge is a key barrier for implementation. To analyse conditions for the implementation of GFP, a knowledge-arrangement perspective is developed. The knowledge-arrangement perspective is applied on a case study of successful implementation of GFP in the Netherlands, the pilot Sand Engine Delfland, a large-scale (21.5 Mm3) sand nourishment project. This project confirms that an integrated knowledge arrangement enables GFP as it allows for multifunctionality. Effectiveness of the integrated arrangement in this project is explained by its ‘flexible’ nature providing ample design space. This was possible because core values in flood protection and nature were not part of the integrated arrangement. More generally the case study demonstrates the difficulties of implementing GFP in existing mainstream flood protection routines. These are not (yet) geared to incorporate uncertainty, dynamics and multifunctionality, characteristics associated with GFP. The Sand Engine project can be regarded as a ‘field laboratory’ of physical and institutional learning and an innovation for mainstream flood protection.

The environmental state at sea.

Seas and oceans are confronted with a plethora of environmental problems, caused by land-based activities (agriculture, industries, and ports) and by maritime activities (such as shipping, fishing, oil and gas drilling, tourism, and navigational dredging). Environmental problems at sea challenge the efficacy of state sovereignty. Who is responsible, accountable, and regulates environmental and spatial problems at the level of regional seas, and what is the role of states in these processes of governance? In the regional seas and on the high seas, the environmental state is challenged by two developments: states become players at different levels, and states are confronted with the activities of big market players where they have no or little jurisdiction. The different forms of the environmental state in Europe’s regional seas and in the Arctic Ocean are examined.Seas and oceans are confronted with a plethora of environmental problems, caused by land-based activities (agriculture, industries, and ports) and by maritime activities (such as shipping, fishing, oil and gas drilling, tourism, and navigational dredging). Environmental problems at sea challenge the efficacy of state sovereignty. Who is responsible, accountable, and regulates environmental and spatial problems at the level of regional seas, and what is the role of states in these processes of governance? In the regional seas and on the high seas, the environmental state is challenged by two developments: states become players at different levels, and states are confronted with the activities of big market players where they have no or little jurisdiction. The different forms of the environmental state in Europe’s regional seas and in the Arctic Ocean are examined.

Environmental Governance for Marine Infrastructure: Enabling and Constraining Conditions for Ecodynamic Development and Design in Marine Infrastructural Projects

ABSTRACT Ports are crucial in the economic growth of the marine sector, but a growing awareness on the adverse ecological implications influences their development. Ecodynamic development and design (EDD) is an innovative approach with the aim to integrate the economic aspects of port development projects with dynamics of marine ecosystems. These projects develop within different governance settings, therefore not only different types of project arrangements develop, but there is also a difference in the possibilities for ecodynamic design. Based on an analysis of 28 port development projects, we distinguish four ideal-typical Marine Infrastructural Project Arrangements (MIPAs): Conventional, Integrated market, External Financier initiated and Private. These arrangements differ from each other on the actors involved, the rules applied, the division of resources and the discourse set. Due to these differences, we formulate enabling and constraining conditions of the project arrangement to incorporate ecodynamic design principles in terms of marine infrastructural projects. The possibilities for EDD in these MIPAs increase if there is space for contractors, consultants and project owners to (co)develop the design. The analysis shows that the ‘Integrated Market’ and ‘Private’ project arrangements are best capable of incorporating EDD port development projects.

Conclusions: Towards a more informal EU?

In this special issue we have explored the interplay of formality and informality in the EU. The different contributions show that informality in EU policy making is multi-faceted and that it is not possible to make generalisations about such inter-play of formality and informality. Motives behind informality can be co-operative or conflictual, but the specific role informality plays within the institutional setting of the EU depends on the characteristics of the different policy domains, the strategic motives of the actors involved and the specific inter-play between policy levels. In this concluding article, we will answer the questions we raised in the introduction of this special issue. First of all, we will give an overview of the various opinions of the contributors on whether more informality can be observed or not. How do the contributors explain the renewed interest for informality in the EU? Is it justified by actual developments? How do they understand informality? Secondly, we will analyse the consequences of shifting relations between formality and informality for various actors involved in EU policy making. Finally, we will answer the question from a more normative point of view and argue what the EU could or should look like in the future in terms of informality. Who are the ‘‘winners and losers’’ of a shifting relationships between formal and informal practices and what consequences might this have for the legitimacy for an enlarged EU?