The number and relevance of EU agencies have rapidly increased over the years: EU agencies nowadays constitute an important part of the EU institutional landscape. The article investigates the EU agencies through categories of analysis well established in studies of public management focused on the phenomenon of agencies at the country level: structural disaggregation, autonomy, and contractualization. It emerges that EU agencies are relatively homogeneous, an aspect that differentiates European agencies from the highly heterogeneous world of national-level agencies. The main features of the EU agencies are examined, the `European type' of agency is identified and defined, and the way the EU agency model differs from country-level agencies is analysed. Research agendas on the reform of the European Union might benefit from systematic investigation of EU agencies: theoretical frameworks drawn from the public management field can provide a significant contribution in this respect.
Points for practitioners EU agencies are no longer `residual' organizations: they are a significant component of the functioning of the EU system and policy networks. By investigating the features of such agencies through the conceptual lenses of public management, and through comparison with the (much more investigated) national-level agencies, the article provides an outline of EU agencies in terms of structural relations with the other EU institutions, autonomy, and modalities of steering and control. Reforms of the EU through the establishment or revamping of agencies could benefit from the systematic consideration of such features.
Abeles, M., Bellier, I. and McDonald, M. (1993) `Approche Anthropologique de la Commision Européenne' (Brussels, unpublished report to the European Commission; cyclostyled).
2.
Barbieri, D. (2006a) `Transnational Networks Meet National Hierarchies: The Cases of the Italian Competition and Environment Administrations', in M. Egeberg (ed.) Multilevel Union Administration. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
Barbieri, D. (2006b) `Evaluating Delegated Modes of Governance Inside EU: Towards a Model of Communitarian Agency?', in C. Reichard, R. Mussari and S. Kupke (eds) The Governance of Services of General Interest between State, Market and Society. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
4.
Bergström, C.F. and Rotkirch, M. (2003) `Decentralized Agencies and the IGC: A Question of Accountability', Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, 14.
5.
Borrás, S., Koutalakis, C. and Wendler, F. (2007) `European Agencies and Input Legitimacy: EFSA, EMEA and EPO in the Post-delegation Phase', Journal of European Integration29(5): 583-600.
6.
Caduff, L. and Bernauer, T. (2006) `Managing Risk and Regulation in European Food Safety Governance', Review of Policy Research23(1): 153-68.
7.
Carter, N. and Greer, P. (1993) `Evaluating Agencies: Next Step and Performance Indicators', Public Administration71(3): 407-16.
8.
Caulfield, J. (2004) `Measuring Autonomy in Social Security Agency: A Four Country Comparison', Public Administration and Development24: 137-45.
9.
Chiti, E. (2000) `The Emergence of a Community Administration: The Case of European Agencies', Common Market Law Review37: 309-43.
10.
Chiti, E. (2004) `Decentralisation and Integration into the Community Administrations: A New Perspective on European, Agencies', European Law Journal10(4): 402-38.
11.
Christensen, T. and Wise, L.C. (2003) `Evaluating Public Management Reform in Government: Norway, Sweden and the United States', in H. Wollmann (ed.) Evaluation in Public-sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
12.
Coen, D. and Thatcher, M. (2008) `Network Governance and Delegation: European Networks of Regulatory Agencies', Journal of Public Policy28(1): 49-71.
13.
Commission of the European Communities (2003 ) `Report from the Commission to the Council: Review of the European Environment Agency (EEA) (COMM (2003) 800 final)'. Brussels: European Commission.
14.
Curtin, D. (2005) `Delegation to Non-majoritarian Agencies and Emerging Practices of Public Accountability', in D. Gerardin and N. Petit, Which Regulatory Authorities for Europe?London: Routledge.
15.
Dehousse, R. (1997) `Regulation by Networks in the European Community' , Journal of European Public Policy4(2): 246-61.
16.
Dehousse, R. (2002) `Misfits: EU Law and the Transformation of European Governance', in R. Dehousse and C. Jœrges (eds) Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
Eberlein, B. and Grande, E. (2005) `Beyond Delegation: Transnational Regulatory Regimes and the EU Regulatory State', Journal of European Public Policy12(1): 89-112.
18.
Egan, M. (1998) `Regulatory Strategies, Delegation and European Market Integration', Journal of European Public Policy5(3): 485-506.
19.
Everson, M. (1995) `Independent Agencies: Hierarchy Beaters?', European Law Journal1(2): 180-204.
20.
Everson, M. (2005) `Good Governance and European Agencies: The Balance' , in D. Geradin, R. Mûnoz and N. Petit (eds) Regulation through Agencies in Europe: A New Paradigm for European Governance. Cheltenham, UK andNorthampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
21.
Everson, M., Majone, G., Metcalfe, J.L. and Schout, A. (1999) `The Role of Specialized Agencies in Decentralising EU Governance', paper presented to the European Commission, Bruxelles.
22.
Fedele P., Galli, D. and Ongaro, E. (2007) `Disaggregation, Autonomy and Re-regulation, Contractualism: Public Agencies in Italy (1992-2005)', Public Management Review9(4): 557-85.
23.
Flinders, M.V. (2004) `Distributed Public Governance in the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy11(3): 523-44.
24.
Gehring, T. and Krapohl, S. (2007) `Supranational Regulatory Agencies between Independence and the EMEA and the Authorization Pharmaceuticals in the European Single Market', Journal of European Public Policy14(2): 208-26.
25.
Greer, P. (1992) `The Next Steps Initiative: An Examination of the Agency Framework Documents', Public Administration70(1): 89-100.
26.
Greer, P. (1994) Next Steps Origins: Transforming Central Government . Buckingham: Open University Press .
27.
Groenleer, M. (2006) `The European Commission and Agencies', in D. Spence (ed.) The European Commission. London: John Harper Publishing.
28.
Hix, S. (1998) `The Study of the European Union II: The `New Governance' Agenda', Journal of European Public Policy5(1): 38-65.
29.
Hood, C. and Schuppert, G.F. (1988) Delivering Public Services in Western Europe: Sharing Western European Experience of Para-Government Organization. London: SAGE.
30.
Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
James, O. (2001) `Business Models and the Transfer of Businesslike Central Government Agencies', Governance14(2): 233-52.
32.
Kassim, H. and Menon, A. (2003) `The Principal-Agent Approach and the Study of the European Union: Promise Unfulfilled?', Journal of European Public Policy10(1): 121-39.
33.
Kingdon, J. (1994) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
34.
Krapohl, S. (2004) `Credible Commitment in Non-independent Regulatory Agencies: A Comparative Analysis of the European Agencies for Pharmaceuticals and Foodstuffs and Pharmaceuticals', European Law Journal10(5): 518-38.
35.
Kreher, A. (1997) `Agencies in the European Community - A Step Towards Administrative Integration in Europe', Journal of European Public Policy4(2): 225-45.
36.
Lægreid, P., Roness, P.G. and Rubecksen, K. (2005) `Autonomy and Control in the Norwegian Civil Service. Does Agency Form Matter?', in T. Christensen and P. Laegreid (eds) Autonomy and Regulation: Coping with Agencies in the Modern State. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
37.
Lafond, F.D. (2001) `The Creation of the European Food Authority: Institutional Implications of Risk Regulation', European Issues10: 1-31.
38.
Levy, R. (2003) `Confused Expectations: Decentralizing the Management of EU Programmes', Public Money and Management23(2): 83-92.
39.
McCormick, J. (2005) Understanding the European Union: A Concise Introduction . 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
40.
Majone, G. (1997) `The New European Agencies: Regulation by Information' , Journal of European Public Policy4(2): 262-75.
41.
Majone, G. (2003) `The Politics of Regulation and European Regulatory Institutions', in J. Hayward and A. Menon (eds) Governing Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
Majone, G. and Everson, M. (2001) `Institutional Reform: Independent Agencies, Oversight, Coordination and Procedural Control', in O. de Schutter, M. Lebessis and J. Paterson (eds) Governance in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
43.
Martens, M. (2005) `Double-hatted National Agencies on the European Scene? A Case Study of the Environmental Policy Network IMPEL', in M. Egeberg (ed.) Multilevel Union Administration . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
Metcalfe, J.L. (1999) `New Challenges in European Public Management: Designing Inter-organizational Networks as a Research Methodology', paper presented at the International Public Management Network IPMN Workshop, Siena.
45.
Metcalfe, J.L. (2000a) `Will Organisational Efficiency Produce Effective Governance?', Journal of Common Market Studies38(5): 817-41.
46.
Metcalfe, J.L. (2000b) `Linking Levels of Government: European Integration and Globalization', International Review of Administrative Science66: 119-42.
47.
Nugent, N. (2006) The Government and Politics of the European Union , 6th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
48.
Oecd (2002) Distributed Public Governance: Agencies, Authorities and Other Government Bodies. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Public Management Service.
49.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (2003) `EEA Strategy 2004-2008'. Luxembourg.
50.
Ongaro, E (ed.), (2006) Le Agenzie Pubbliche: Modelli Istituzionali e Organizzativi. Saveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
51.
Page, E. (1997) People Who Run Europe. Oxford : Calrendon Press.
52.
Pierre, J. (2004) `Central Agencies in Sweden: A Report from Utopia' , in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualisation. London and New York: Routledge .
53.
Pollack, M.A. (1997) `Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community', International Organization51(1): 99-134.
54.
Pollitt, C. and Talbot, C (eds) (2004) Unbundled Government: A Critical Analysis of the Global Trend to Agencies, Quangos and Contractualization. London: Routledge.
55.
Pollitt, C., Bathgate, K., Caulfield, J., Smullen, A. and Talbot, C. (2001) `Agency Fever? Analysis of an International Policy Fashion', Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis3(3): 271-90.
56.
Pollitt, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J. and Smullen, A. (2004) Agencies: How Governments Do Things through Semi-autonomous Organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
57.
Randall, E. (2006) `Not that Soft or Informal: A Response to Eberlein and Grande's Account of Regulatory Governance in the EU with Special Reference to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)', Journal of European Public Policy13(3): 402-19.
58.
Richardson, J. (2001) European Union: Power and Policy-making, 2nd edn (3rd edn 2006 ). London: Routledge.
59.
Sandholtz, W. and Stone Sweet, A (eds) (1998) European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
Schout, A. (1999) `The European Environment Agency (EEA): Heading Towards Maturity', in M. Everson, G. Majone, J.L. Metcalfe and A. Schout `The Role of Specialized Agencies in Decentralising EU Governance', paper presented to the European Commission, Bruxelles.
61.
Shapiro, M. (1997) `The Problems of Independent Agencies in the United States and the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy2(1): 278-91.
62.
Stevens, A. and Stevens, H. (2001) Brussels Bureaucrats? The Administration of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave .
63.
Talbot, C. (2004) `The Agency Idea: Sometimes Old, Sometimes New, Sometimes Borrowed, Sometimes Untrue', in C. Pollitt and C. Talbot (eds) Unbundled Government. London: Routledge .
64.
Thatcher, M. (2002) `Regulation after Delegation: Independent Regulatory Agencies in Europe', Journal of European Public Policy9(6): 954-72.
65.
Thynne, I. (2004) `State Organizations as Agencies: An Identifiable and Meaningful Focus on Research?', Public Administration and Development24: 91-9.
66.
Van Thiel, S. (2001) Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
67.
Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., Peters, B.G. and Bouckaert, G. (2004) `Controlling Autonomous Public Agencies as an Indicator of New Public Management', Management International9(1): 25-35.
68.
Vos, E. (2000) `Reforming the European Commission: What Role to Play for EU Agencies?', Common Market Law Review37(5): 1113-34.
69.
Vos E. (2003) `Agencies and the European Union', in L. Verhey and T. Zwart (eds) Agencies in European and Comparative Law. Antwerpen: Intersentia.
70.
Vos, E. (2005) `Independence, Accountability and Transparency of European Regulatory Agencies', in D. Geradin , R. Mûnoz and N. Petit (eds) Regulation through Agencies in Europe: A New Paradigm for European Governance. Cheltenham, UK andNorthampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
71.
Wettenhall, R. (2005) `Agency and Non-departmental Public Bodies: The Hard and the Soft Lenses of Agencification Theory', Public Management Review7(4): 615-35.
72.
Wincott, D. (2001) `Looking Forward or Harking Back? The Commission and the Reform of Governance in the European Union', Journal of Common Market Studies39(5): 897-911.
