Show Less

Informal Governance in the European Union

Edited by Thomas Christiansen and Simona Piattoni

This book addresses an issue of paramount importance concerning the politics of the European Union: aspects of governance and policy making in the EU that are labelled ‘informal’. Much of the literature on the EU focuses on the formal facets of EU politics, but uniquely, the subject matter within this book deals with informal aspects such as: the role of personal relationships, the presence of non-hierarchical policy-networks and non-institutional channels of interest representation, and the relevance of the unwritten rules and routines which govern these aspects of EU politics.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 10: Informal governance in the Common Agricultural Policy

Christilla Roederer-Rynning


Christilla Roederer-Rynning INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to examine how formal and informal aspects of governance have shaped the development of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) since the late 1950s. The task entails determining the role of these factors not only in the institutionalization of the CAP in the 1960s, but also in the slow re-institutionalization of this policy along new lines in the 1990s.1 A key premise of this study is that European farm politics underwent an ‘agrarian turn’ in the 1960s. It is arresting that the CAP today conjures up all the flaws of an anachronistically productivist project, for the early formulations of the CAP revealed the concern of its architects to include a variety of societal interests and to use structural policy as a tool of modernization. The ‘incongruous’ character (Fennell 1997, p. 20), until not so long ago, of the injunctions of early European policy-makers is a good indicator of this ‘agrarian turn’. An attentive reading of the Treaty of Rome of 1957 and of the proceedings of the Stresa Conference in June 1958 suggests that early Europeanists regarded agriculture ‘as an integral part of the economy and as an essential factor in social life’,2 urged their successors to draw consumer concerns into farm policy-making3, and even recommended a generous endowment of the structural dimension of agricultural policy.4 Although the terminology was often evasive and did not coalesce into a coherent vision, it clearly roomed a variety of projects besides the framework which...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.