Den framtida va?gen fo?r EU
s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik
The Common Agricultural PolicyThe European UnionHistorical institutionalismPolicy reformEU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitikEuropeiska UnionenHistorisk institutionalismPolitiska reformer
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the European Union (EU) is one of the oldest fields of cooperation within the European Union. During the past decades the different Commissioners have made several proposals about changes in the CAP and many of them have not been passed but renegotiated. The present Commission has however published a report in 2011, which emphasizes that the CAP has three alternative ways to go in the future. This study aims to predict which one of these three alternative ways it is most likely that the CAP will take according to the historical institutionalist theory. When to be able to predict this text analysis is used. The analysis tools of the study are collected from the theory, which focuses on the conceptions: critical juncture, feedback effects, path dependency and sequencing. These tools as well as the theory are applied on the empirical material, which mainly consists of books about the earlier reforms and proposals from the Commission, academical journals and some reports. The analysis shows that the Luxembourg compromise can be seen as a critical juncture in the history of the CAP and this led to a path dependency, which is characterized by a decision-making procedure by consensus between the political institutions in the EU. The analysis also shows that most of the reforms regarding the CAP, are made with some sort of compromise or consensus (the Delors I budgetary package, the Mac Sharry reforms and so on). Therefore the conclusion of the study is that, from an historical institutionalist perspective, it is more or less possible for the CAP to go with any of the alternative ways that the Commission points out in the report. It is however most likely that the second way is the most prominent one. This is because that option emphasizes that major overhauls of the policy should be made, that the measures should be more targeted, and that the spending of the CAP should be more efficient. All of these changes have been made more or less during the history of the CAP and the institutional framework therefore allows this way.