The Enigma of European Added Value: Setting Priorities for the
European Union
Executive Summary
What costs shouldwe all pay for? What is the
best use of the scarce resources of the European Union? How should
tasks and expenditures be apportioned between the Union and its
Member States?
In discussions on priorities in the European
Union, a formula often invoked is that of European added value.
The present study seeks to shed light on this concept by tracing
its intellectual origins, examining its use in three policy areas
and suggesting ways of converting it from an all-purpose mantra
into an efficient tool for priority-setting and policy choices.
The first task is to place the expression in
its conceptual context. Recent decades have seen such a proliferation
of related notions that we may speak of a general value turn in
governance and public policy. Some value-connected concepts refer
to material components in the process of economic growth while
others are used to describe immaterial political principles.
The survey of various value concepts is followed
by an inquiry into the references to European added value in transport
policy, research policy and cultural policy. These areas are no
heavyweights in the budget of the European Union but represent
specific, partly divergent and gradually evolving methods for project
prioritisation. In each field we look at the emergence of a common
European policy, the various discourses used to justify it, and
the criteria employed to make choices among competing claims for
common funding.
Many participants in European politics are convinced of the persuasive
power of the added value criterion. Yet the impact of the argument is
somewhat weakened by its omnipresence and all-inclusiveness. Can there
really be European added value almost everywhere?
The subsequent chapter subjects the concept to
critical scrutiny. When tough choices are to be made, we have little
use for sweeping vindications. A good criterion should be critical
or
discriminatory, separating the wheat from the chaff. Confronted with
a plethora of proposals we cannot avoid a process of grading and rating.
Some pertinent questions are the following:
• Is value added, or is it reduced?
•To whom does the added value accrue? Collectives or private actors?
• How are benefits shared between smaller and larger jurisdictions?
• Is aggregate value added, or is there evidence of zero-sum redistribution?
• Which objectives are being served? Are they sufficiently high-ranking
and specific?
The final chapter sketches the contours of a
fastidious approach to the idea of European added value, suggesting
that particular consideration should be given to investments in
high-yielding cross-national public goods and to initiatives making
significant contributions to the sense of solidarity and cohesion
in Europe.
Daniel Tarschys is Professor in Political Science
at Stockholm university. He was previously Secretary General of
the Council of Europe.
|
