ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the hypotheses on activity differences by applying a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods. It shows that domestic coordination mechanisms for the timely production and the swift adaptation of national positions, as well as learning curves, explains a large share of differences in the shaping activity levels of states, whilst legitimacy and resources are less important. Small states use shaping strategies more frequently, the quicker people can develop instructions and adjust them in the course of negotiations and the longer the states have been member of the European Union (EU). Persuasion-based, bargaining-based and lobbying strategies aim to influence the content of EU policies in line with national preferences. The legitimacy approach theorises how specific and diffuse support for the EU influence how frequently states actively engage in EU negotiations. The chapter reveals it is not the case that states with the most severe capacity shortcomings engage most often in capacity-building strategies.
