ABSTRACT
Why can European Union (EU) studies in particular benefit from a framing perspective? The EU policy-making system is characterized by contested competencies and competing constituencies. It is frequently difficult to predict how key actors will align on a given issue and which cleavages will matter most in determining outcomes (Peterson 2001). In this context, frames do not only help to make sense of ‘amorphous, ill-defined problematic situation[s]’ (Dudley and Richardson 1999: 226), but are also at the centre of the political conflict because they can ‘empower certain actors over other actors’ (Harcourt 1998: 370). Studying framing can therefore improve the accounts of EU policy processes and outcomes (see also Daviter [2011]). In this study, we focus on what we label ‘essential frames’ in EU policy-
making. These capture what the actors involved in an EU policy debate perceive to be the essential elements in the EU’s policy proposals. We contend that focusing on the types and numbers of essential frames yields important insights into EU policy-making. Highlighting the different types of essential frames sheds lights on what EU policies are actually about. Focusing on the number of essential frames illuminates the complexity of the policy problem, the magnitude of the conflict and the potential shifts of attention during the policy debate. Addressing the research gap on contextual factors that influence the emergence and variation of frames in the EU, we focus on two contextual factors: (1) the institutional context and (2) the policy context. However, taking account of the insight that public policies emerge from the strategic interaction of policy actors (Scharpf 1997: 11), we pay also attention to the strategic element in framing processes and explore if (3) the strategic highlighting of major policy aspects impacts on the types and numbers of essential frames in EU policy debates. In our empirical analysis, we classify the identified essential frames along two
dimensions. On the one hand, we distinguish among generic and specific frames (see de Vreese [2005]). On the other hand, we separate institutional from policy frames to analyse the impact of the contextual factors. We study these frames in the debates on four EU policy proposals which were initiated between 2008 and 2010. We focus on two environmental policy debates and two instances of financial market regulation. Our research design includes not only variation across and within policy areas, but also across the EU and the national levels, as well as across four member states (Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom). Our contribution to the debate is not only in the focus on different types of
essential frames and in disentangling contextual effects from strategic action, but also in the methodological approach to the study of policy frames. Until now the majority of research on frames in public policy-making was conducted through case studies based on interviews or document analyses (see, for example, Baumgartner and Jones [1993]; Daviter [2009]). A new trend of research uses a quantitative approach, focused on word scores and cluster analysis (see, for example, Klu¨ver, Mahoney and Opper 2015). We combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The basis of our study is a
Framing theory suggests that since every policy issue has multiple potential dimensions, framing – selecting and emphasizing particular aspects of an issue – is an important tool for policy actors (Baumgartner and Mahoney 2008; Daviter 2009). Through framing, policy actors can play a crucial independent role in public policy debates and impact on their outcomes (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). While commonly accepted in American political science, this phenomenon is still under-researched in EU studies (exceptions are Daviter [2009]; Klu¨ver, Mahoney and Opper 2015). We know rather little about the emergence and variation of frames in the EU, especially with regard to the contextual factors that impact on these frames. The lack is surprising in two respects. On the one hand, the argumentative turn in policy analysis highlighted the centrality of arguments – and therefore frames – ‘in all stages of the policy process’ (Majone 1989: 1). On the other hand, scholars rooted in different schools of thought agree that the institutional contexts of political systems filter the arguments, problems and solutions that find entry into the political process (see, for example, Schattschneider [1960: 30]).
