IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Die Genese des Forschungsprogramms BRITE: Institutionalisierungsprozesse zur Überwindung eines europäischen Konsensdilemmas

  • Jakob Edler
Registered author(s):

    The basis of European research policy since the mid eighties is a complex guiding policy idea. This guiding policy idea consists of two closely related claims, namely (a) that trans-border co-operation in research and development serves private profit interests and overall economic growth and (b) that trans-border co-operation will also be a trigger for closer European integration. Despite the traditionally very divergent interests and world views in the area of research policy throughout the EC member states, negotiations on distributive specific R&D-programmes did not meet much resistance: in fact, there was almost unanimity on the logic of the new policy approach. This paper explains the build up of this broad consensus - which turned out to be instrumental for the Europeanisation of research and development policy - by focusing on three elements. These are (a) the role of trans-border social interaction, (b) ideational discourse and (c) the European Commission, which, once the discourse gained momentum, successfully took on the role of a process manager. The analysis is based on a reflexive-institutional understanding of the political process. The main theoretical premise of the paper is that all politics is based on interpretations of the problem at hand and of the underlying causalities. Interpretation is shaped by a set of ideas which are regarded as valid and appropriate by a majority of relevant actors. Hence, consensual political concepts are not the result of bargaining between actors with clear-cut interests, but rather a result of cognitive processes and ideational discourse that take place through social interactions.Taking the genesis of BRITE (Basic Research for Industrial Technologies in Europe) as an example, the study analyses the emergence of a perception that the EC faced problems in the field of research and development in the 1970s and then looks in detail at the process of constructing a new policy concept that could serve to tackle the problem. It is shown that the institutionalisation of the new policy did not start with the negotiations between political decision makers. Quite the reverse, institutionalisation was the result of manifold transnational and European interactions between scientific experts, industrial stakeholders and European and national administrative specialists. This web of interactions gradually led to the formation of a new European discursive space and finally to the breakthrough of a dominant interpretation shared by most - not all - relevant actors in the field. This construction of a pre-political consensus paved the way for political decisions that, by and large, followed the new consensus of experts and stakeholders. At the same time, alternative concepts - such as the free-market based approach pursued by the German economics ministry - were marginalised.The study has been conducted within the research group Institutionalisation of International Negotiation Systems. The basic difference to the rational choice-approaches developed and used by other projects in the interdisciplinary research group is that it postulates an interdependence between the definition of interests and identities of actors in international negotiations and institutionally mediated ideas, an interdependence that is crucial to understand the build up of consensus in international negotiations. One of the objectives of the group is to confront the reflexive-institutionalist approach to analyse international negotiation systems and the outcome of international negotiations with other approaches in the field

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/erpa/wp-16.html
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/wp-16.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by MZES in its series MZES Working Papers with number 16.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 28 Mar 2000
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:erp:mzesxx:p0006
    Contact details of provider: Postal: D-68131 Mannheim
    Phone: 0049/(0)621-292-1885
    Fax: 0049/(0)621-292-1735
    Web page: http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1977. "In search of useful theory of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-76, January.
    2. Andrew Moravcsik, 1993. "Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 473-524, December.
    3. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(02), pages 391-425, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:mzesxx:p0006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christian Melbeck)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.