THE EUROPEAN UNION ‘MODEL’ AND ADMINISTRATIVE CO‐OPERATION: THE CASE OF NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00009.x |
| Published date | 01 June 2006 |
| Author | ETAIN TANNAM |
| Date | 01 June 2006 |
Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 2, 2006 (407–422)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
THE EUROPEAN UNION ‘ MODEL ’ AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CO-OPERATION: THE CASE
OF NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE REPUBLIC
OF IRELAND
E T A I N T A N N A M
This article examines the relevance of the European Union (EU) model of governance
in explaining the innovative administrative arrangements established by the 1998
Good Friday Agreement, the North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC), and in par-
ticular its joint secretariat. The fi rst section of the article sets out fi ve models of the
EU that may be applied to the NSMC. The second section provides an overview of
the cross-border relationship until 1998 and the third section examines the adminis-
trative relationship since 1998. In conclusion, the similarities between the NSMC
secretariat and the open coordination model of the EU are highlighted.
The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) precipitated a period of optimism in the
history of the confl ict in Northern Ireland, whereby attention was drawn to
the positive response of Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party to the new
institutional arrangements, namely, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the
North-South Ministerial Council (NSMC). Less dramatic, but also of signifi -
cance, were the new co-operative arrangements between the Northern Irish
and the Irish civil services. The GFA established a secretariat to administer
certain policies and to serve the NSMC. The consensual model adopted and
the sharing of authority for designated policies led commentators to cite the
European Union (EU) as an important model for Northern Ireland, a model
from which policy-makers had learnt new ideas ( Stetter et al. 2004 , p. 3).
In this article, the relevance of the EU to understanding the secretariat
of the NSMC is assessed by examining whether the NSMC ’ s secretariat is
similar to the EU ‘ model ’ . In the fi rst section of the article, the various EU
models are summarized and the role of learning is examined. In the section
that follows, a summary of the Irish/Northern Irish administrative relation-
ship before 1998 is provided. The article ’ s third section assesses the impact
of the NSMC secretariat on the overall cross-border administrative relation-
ship. In conclusion, the article analyses whether the NSMC secretariat is in
fact similar to any EU model.
The paper is based on primary reports from key organizations involved in
advancing cross-border co-operation or in administering EU funds, on inter-
views with key actors involved in the administration of cross-border initiatives,
Etain Tannam is Senior Research Fellow in the Dublin European Institute, School of Politics and
International Relations, University College Dublin.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 2, 2006 (407–422)
408 ETAIN TANNAM
and on secondary research on the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). Interviews
were conducted with civil servants from the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs,
the Irish Department of Finance, the North-South Ministerial Council secre-
tariat and with representatives of Tourism Ireland and Co- operation Ireland.
THE EU AND CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION
Since the 1960s, references to the EU as a model of reconciliation and as an
example to Northern Ireland have permeated many accounts of the cross-
border relationship ( Tannam 1999 , p. 3). Empirically, the example of the
Franco-German model of co-operation, whereby previous enemies suc-
ceeded in developing a deeply co-operative relationship in the EU, is cited
as an example for Northern Ireland (Hume, cited in Tannam 1999 , p. 176).
The EU model is defi ned in these accounts as being a consensual model
whereby disagreements are resolved peacefully.
Theoretically, the EU ’ s development has spawned ‘ one of the most sus-
tained debates about statehood and its future ’ ( Laffan et al. 2000 , p. 15). On
the one hand, in intergovernmental approaches, the centrality of states is
emphasized but on the other hand, the ‘ hollowing-out ’ of the state from
above and below is asserted ( Laffan et al. 2000 , p. 14). For those who compare
the EU to the NSMC, the type of model assumed to exist lies at the ’ hollowing-
out ’ end of the theoretical spectrum. The NSMC and its secretariat constitute
a new mode of governance and, in the British and Irish case, signify the end
of traditional conceptions of sovereignty. Various possible models of the EU
exist, not simply the ‘ hollowing-out ’ version. In the section that follows, an
overview of various EU models is provided.
EU models
Five models of the EU have been outlined: the Community method; the EU
regulatory model; multi-level governance; policy coordination and open
method of coordination and intensive transgovernmentalism ( Wallace 2000 ,
p. 28). The Community method refers to the traditional supra-nationalist
argument of the 1960s, whereby the Commission plays a leadership role in
policy formulation and powers are transferred from the national level to the
EU level ( Wallace 2000 , p. 29).
The regulatory model implies that legal regulation of key economic policy
areas ensures that common policies are pursued combining ‘ transnational
standards and country differences ’ ( Wallace 2000 , p. 30). Thirdly, the multi-
level governance model implies that authority is shared between national
governments, the Commission and regional/local government. The Com-
mission devises programmes in partnership with local and regional author-
ities. Thus the multi-level model shifts attention ‘ away from the Brussels
centred and entrepreneur-oriented images of, respectively, the Community
method and the regulatory model ’ ( Wallace 2000 , p. 32).
The fourth model of the EU assumes a less rigid approach to policy-
making; it involves policy coordination. Here, there is systematic consultation
To continue reading
Request your trial