works because of the use of subterfuge as a policy style. Thus, as Héritier argues, ‘subterfuge is a typical pattern of European policy making in view of an imminent deadlock…’ (Héritier 1999:97). She emphasises the deep attachment to diversity in the EU and the inability of members to agree on the direction of the polity and sees the EU institutions as fragmented, with inherently ambiguous rules. As a consequence, the EU ‘decisional processes are obstacle-ridden, cumbersome and…prone to stalemate’ (Héritier 1999:97). Yet, despite this apparently unmanageable and chaotic situation, decisions do emerge. Essentially, she argues, actors find a variety of ‘escape routes’ with subterfuge being the only way to keep policy-making going (Héritier 1999:97). In a sense, the EU is a rather good example, perhaps, of Hood’s observation that ‘elements of the garbage can model may at least in some circumstances be better viewed as a design recipe than an unintended condition’ (Hood 1999:77). Thus, we may conclude by borrowing the title of one of Charles Lindblom’s articles on policy-making (Lindblom 1979)—namely, that the EU is ‘still muddling, not yet through’!
Adler, Emanuel and Haas, Peter (1992) ‘Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program’, International Organization, 46/1, pp. 367-90.
Almond, Gabriel (1956) ‘Comparing Political Systems’, Journal of Politics, 18/2, pp. 391-409.
Andersen, S.S. and Burns, T. (1996) ‘The European Union and the Erosion of Parliamentary Democracy: a Study of Post-parliamentary Governance’, in Andersen, S.S. and Eliassen, K.A. (eds) The European Union: How Democratic Is It? (Sage: London).
Atkinson, M. and Coleman, W. (1989) ‘Strong States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist Economies’, British Journal of Political Science, 19/1, pp. 47-67.
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1991) ‘Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems’, Journal of Politics, 53/4, pp. 1044-74.
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
Benson, J.K. (1982) ‘A Framework for Policy Analysis’, in Rogers, D. and Whitten, D., Interorganizational Coordination (Ames: Iowa State University Press), pp. 137-76.
Braun, Dietmar and Busch, Andreas (eds) (1999) Public Policy and Political Ideas (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Busch, Andreas (1999) ‘From “Hooks” to “Focal Points”: the Changing Role of Ideas in Rational Choice Theory’, in Braun, Dietmar and Busch, Andreas (eds) Public Policy and Political Ideas (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Campbell, John L. (1998) ‘Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy’, Theory and Society, 27, pp. 377-409.
Cohen, Michael, March, James and Olsen, Johan P. (1972) ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp. 1-25.
Coleman, W.D. and Perl, A. (1999) ‘International Policy Environments and Policy Network Analysis’, Political Studies, 47/4, pp. 691-709.
Cowhey, Peter F. (1990) ‘The International Telecommunications Regime: The Political Roots of Regimes for High Technology’, International Organization, 44/2, pp. 169-99.
DTI (1993) Review of the Implementation and Enforcement of EC Law in the UK (London: DTI).
DTI (1994) Getting a Good Deal in Europe, Deregulatory Principles in Practice (London: DTI).
Dowding, Keith (1995) ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Network Approach’, Political Studies, 43, pp. 136-58.
Dudley, Geoffrey and Richardson, Jeremy (1996) ‘Why Does Policy Change over Time? Adversarial Policy Communities, Alternative Policy Arenas and British Trunk Roads Policy 1945-95’, Journal of European Public Policy, 3/1, pp. 63-83.
Dyson, Kenneth (1994) Elusive Union: The Process of Economic and Monetary Union in Europe (London: Longman).