When Expertise Is Not Enough: Explaining the European Commission's Non‐success in the Integration of Public Sector Accounting

Abstract The European Commission crucially relies on expertise and advice to fulfil its focal role in drafting policies. For this reason, it maintains numerous expert groups. When handling technical complex cases, expert groups engage in deliberative supranationalist problem‐solving that is driven by logic and knowledge. Based on the Commission's policy initiative to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSAS) for the integration of European Union member states' government accounting practices, this study investigates how and under what conditions policy incentives translate via expert group deliberations into draft policies. Drawing on policy design literature and using process tracing, this study finds that pre‐existing policy instruments or design choices on higher order policy elements could lead to challenges in achieving the integrity and superiority of solutions at the level of calibration and street‐level requirements, thus failing to produce the necessary expert consensus.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies
Published
2024-11-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13705
Primary Topic
European Union Policy and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When Expertise Is Not Enough: Explaining the European Commission's Non‐success in the Integration of Public Sector Accounting

Pascal Horni
JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies
European Union Policy and Governance
article

When Expertise Is Not Enough: Explaining the European Commission's Non‐success in the Integration of Public Sector Accounting

Pascal Horni
article en

Abstract

Abstract The European Commission crucially relies on expertise and advice to fulfil its focal role in drafting policies. For this reason, it maintains numerous expert groups. When handling technical complex cases, expert groups engage in deliberative supranationalist problem‐solving that is driven by logic and knowledge. Based on the Commission's policy initiative to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSAS) for the integration of European Union member states' government accounting practices, this study investigates how and under what conditions policy incentives translate via expert group deliberations into draft policies. Drawing on policy design literature and using process tracing, this study finds that pre‐existing policy instruments or design choices on higher order policy elements could lead to challenges in achieving the integrity and superiority of solutions at the level of calibration and street‐level requirements, thus failing to produce the necessary expert consensus.

JCMS Journal of Common Market StudiesVol. 63(6)
University of Konstanz (DE), ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences (CH)
Universität Konstanz, Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
European Union Policy and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.