Small States in the European Union: Coping With Structural Disadvantages by Diana Panke

Author:Diana Panke [Panke, Diana]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Political Science, General
ISBN: 9781317054276
Google: z6feCwAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 29879765
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2010-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Table 7.1a Hypotheses on shaping success/the effectiveness of strategies

Effective arguing not only requires that states voice arguments, but also that the arguments are of high quality (Panke 2010b). Compelling arguments are intersubjectively valid and resonate with the prior beliefs of the recipients, whereas unconvincing arguments are not regarded as scientifically true, normatively appropriate or factually correct by the participants of an interaction (Panke 2008, Habermas 1992, Habermas 1995a, Habermas 1995b). Accordingly, states are more successful, the more frequently they use expertise-based arguing in negotiations and the more expertise they possess (human resources, no problems with brain-drain from the ministries into the private sector). In addition to this additive effect, it could be the case that the success of expertise-based arguing is reinforced by high quality arguments. Thus, the interaction hypothesis expects that expertise-based arguing increasingly contributes to negotiation success, the more expertise is reflected in the arguments.

Along with expertise-based arguing, states also engage in general arguing, whereby they make claims that are supported by general reasons such value-based points, fairness claims or points related to common interests. In order to effectively make such arguments, it is important that the negotiators have good instructions that clearly specify the aims, justify why they should be reached and provide sound reasons and comprehensive and up-to-date background information to support them. Accordingly, we expect, firstly, that negotiators are more successful, the more often they use general arguing and the better the quality of instructions. Secondly, the general arguing strategy should be increasingly successful, the higher the quality of the instructions (e.g. outlining clear positions, background information, reasons for problems and solutions). In addition, the fit between the type of arguments made and the type of issue at stake is important. While expertise-based arguing is more effective than general arguing if the issue at stake is highly technical, general arguing is more effective if the nature of the issue is political.

Not all frames are equally compelling and equally capable of persuading the recipients. Frames that resonate with prior beliefs and value systems are more likely to be accepted as guideposts than frames that have no connection to previous systems of interpretation (Durel 2000, Payne 2001, Surel 2000). Thus, negotiation success increases, the more often states frame issues in EU terms and the more compelling the frames are.1

Problem-solving, whereby negotiators make constructive proposals, is more likely to be accepted by other states, if the country in question enjoys the reputation of having high expertise and has a good overview of cleavages and sensitivities (Elgström and Jönsson 2000). Thus, states using this strategy frequently are additionally more likely to be successful in influencing EU policy, the better their expert-reputation and the longer they have been members of the EU. In addition, the frequency of problem-solving could interact with the oversight of sensitivities or the available expertise. Thus, proposing constructive compromises is increasingly successful, the longer states have been in the EU or the more expertise others attribute to them.

The effectiveness of bargaining depends not only on the

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.