Professionalization in EU Policy-Making? The topology of the transnational field of EU affairs

Popular perceptions of the European Union (EU) being a disentangled elite project have been repeatedly reaffirmed in more recent discourses on the current state of EU integration. Observers frequently criticize the growing rift between more distant European politicians and technocrats, on the one hand, and the major bulk of national citizenries, on the other. However, while the distance between the official bodies of the EU and the national electorates has received huge attention in EU Studies (Bach 2008; Fligstein 2008; Haller 2008; Etzioni 2013), we still know too little about the people who actually ‘run’ EU policy-making and ‘do’ Europe in their everyday professional lives. Past research has mainly focused on key actors and institutions as well as specific political actors, high-ranking public officials, and lobbyists in the ‘Brussels bubble’ (Ross 1994; Abélès and Bellier 1996; Page 1997; Shore 2000; Hooghe 2001; Stevens and Stevens 2001; Cross 2007, 2011; Greenwood 2011; Juncos and Pomorska 2014). More recently, some scholars have started to explore the agents and arenas of EU policy-making within a wider scope of analysis. In this context, new notions and images of the various arenas and agents of EU governance have been put forward (Georgakakis 2002; Bigo 2007; Haller 2008: 152–198; Vauchez 2008; McDonald 2012; Georgakakis and Rowell 2013; Kauppi and Madsen 2013).

This paper follows these more recent attempts in EU Studies and draws attention to the numerous actors and agents of EU policy-making. However, we broaden the view beyond the EU institutions and scrutinize a broad spectrum of professional activities which can be subsumed under the heading ‘EU Affairs’.¹ We suggest conceiving of EU Affairs as an emerging transnational field that reaches far beyond the confined organizational structures of EU institutions and involves numerous professional actors all around Europe. We use the concept of field primarily as a heuristic prism, which allows us to shed light on an ensemble of different groups of EU-related experts and professionals at various places from Brussels to local levels of policy-making. We seek to show that there is indeed a horizontal field of EU-related experts and professionals with own rules, field-specific resources and knowledge, EU-specific networks, and certain field-specific standards of expertise and professionalism which is not confined to Brussels and the mystified ‘EU elite’ in the ‘Brussels bubble’. However, as other European fields, such as, for instance, the ‘field of EU law’ (Vauchez 2008), the field of EU Affairs is neither fully established yet, nor has fixed boundaries. This reflects the still fluid character of professional involvement in EU Affairs and the particular interstitial role of many professionals between ‘European’ and ‘national’ fields of engagement.

We start with a brief discussion of existing research on EU governance and existing field-analytical perspectives in EU Studies (Sections 2 and 3) and subsequently introduce our conception of professionalization in the context of EU Affairs (Section 4), which prepares the ground for a topological overview of the field of EU-related professional activities in the final section of this article (Section 5).

The study of the emergence of supranational bureaucratic structures and the distinct technocratic character of European policy-making has been a vital area of research since the very beginning of European integration (Haas 1958). Numerous students of EU governance have highlighted the role of ‘experts’ (Radaelli 1999), professional ‘interest groups’ (Greenwood 2011), as well as highly specialized ‘policy networks’ (Falkner 2000) and ‘advocacy coalitions’ (Sabatier 1998) in EU policy-making. Moreover, the importance of transnational ‘policy implementation networks’ (Kohler-Koch 1999) and ‘epistemic communities’ (Haas 1992; Cross 2011) has also been highlighted. The notion of ‘epistemic communities’ implies that EU policy-making is carried out by dense transnational networks of professionals, often with similar educational and occupational backgrounds, and possibly sharing similar perceptions of the world, habitual practices, and thus also a common sense of problem-solving (Cross 2007, 2011; Juncos and Pomorska 2014).

This increasing ‘expertization’ of EU governance has been fostered in the past two decades by a trend towards ‘governance by delegation’ in contemporary EU governance. This means that the preparation of political decision-making as well as subsequent regulatory tasks are increasingly delegated to specialized committees and expert groups as well as specialized regulatory agencies (Majone 1996; Pollack 2003; Egeberg and Trondal 2009; Levi-Faur 2011). Similarly, an increasing Europeanization of politics, legislation, and public administrations at national levels of policy-making has been detected as well (Knill 2001). Accordingly, researchers of EU public administration have interpreted contemporary EU governance as an emerging ‘European Administrative Space’ (Hofmann 2008) reaching far into national and local realms of public policy-making throughout the territory of the current EU and even beyond.

While these writings have emphasized the transnational scope of the new expert networks, they hardly capture the multifaceted professional basis of EU experts and the emergence of a larger area of employment which can be defined in the first place by its orientation towards EU Affairs, or if you like, by a particular EU-related specialization. This is where this paper comes in: We seek to scrutinize the particular professional underpinnings, the structure, and geographical scope of contemporary EU Affairs. Since professional occupation with EU Affairs widely exceeds the exclusive circles of expert communities, advocacy coalitions, and administrative elites in and around the ‘Eurocracy’ in Brussels these days, one needs to go beyond existing policy and governance-centred approaches and broaden the scope towards a more general, cross-sectoral understanding of policy expertise. Hence, drawing on field-analytical approaches that have come up in sociological EU Studies in recent years (cf. Kauppi 2005, 2011; Fligstein 2008; Bernhard 2011; Vauchez and de Witte 2013), we suggest to conceive of EU Affairs as a transnational social field. We think that the heuristic prism of field analysis provides the leeway required for a more comprehensive analysis of actors and social groups promoting EU integration. The field concept enables us to conceptualize links and commonalities amongst actors from very different backgrounds and places. Moreover, it also enables capturing differences in status and positions of professionals working in the same field and drawing on similar resources of expertise.

While the concept of social field has become a key analytical term in contemporary sociology, it has been used and applied quite differently. On the one hand, the notion of social field has been used in studies of transnationalization in order to account for new forms of cross-border connectedness and sociality produced by transnational practices and transnational interpersonal relations (Levitt and Glick Schiller 2004; Pries 2008: 223–78; Molina et al.2012). On the other hand, the notion of social field was proposed by social theorists, such as Pierre Bourdieu and others, as a more general analytical heuristic of social analysis (Bourdieu 1993; Fligstein and McAdam 2011). In this context, social fields are regarded in conflict-theoretical terms as socially constructed social spaces in which social relations are fundamentally structured in terms of struggles for social recognition and social positioning (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Certain rules of play are established in social fields, defining and determining legitimate actions and structuring the distribution of resources that are central to the positioning of actors. All members and participants of a specific social field occupy a particular position in the field, which can be determined in relation to other actors in the field.

Against this background, the field-analytical accounts of EU governance which have emerged in contemporary EU Studies in the past few years aim to establish a particular sociological understanding of the logics and key drivers of Europeanization beyond (or beneath) official channels of institution-building and political decision-making (Georgakakis and Weisbein 2010; Bernhard 2011; Kauppi 2011; Zimmermann and Favell 2011). One of the most prominent field-analytical accounts in contemporary EU Studies is Neil Fligstein's work on the emergence and establishment of Europe-wide ‘fields of action’. In his seminal book Euro-Clash, Fligstein (2008) highlights the emergence of a European political field, various Europe-wide fields of business activities, new European fields of civic self-organization, and other distinctly European fields increasingly overlaying and challenging established national fields. Accordingly, Fligstein combines some elements of the conflict-theoretical strand of field analysis with the more descriptive conception of social fields suggested by the transnationalism literature.

A field-analytical approach to contemporary EU policy-making has also been suggested by French political sociologists, especially by scholars of the Centre for European Political Sociology in Strasbourg and related scholars from other research institutions in France (Georgakakis 2002; Kauppi 2005; Bigo 2007; Mérand 2008; Vauchez 2008; Cohen 2011; Georgakakis and Rowell 2013). Two research endeavours of this French research strand, which is clearly based on the Bourdieusian tradition of field-analysis, are particularly pertinent: Firstly, the work of Didier Georgakakis et al. who have looked at biographies, career paths, and particular skills and competences of high-ranking public officials and other professional staff of major EU institutions and provided an analytical account of the ‘Eurocracy’ as a distinct social field (Georgakakis and de Lassalle 2007; Georgakakis and Rowell 2013). Secondly, Antoine Vauchez et al. have elaborated a field-analytical account of the emergence of European fields of expertise based on scholarly knowledge and highly codified forms of expertise, above all the ‘social field of European law’ (Vauchez 2008; Vauchez and de Witte 2013). In view of the fragmented character of transnational expert fields and particularly the relatively unsettled character of EU law, they have suggested the notion of EU law as a ‘weak field’ (Vauchez 2008) marked by a lack of internal differentiation and autonomy (cf. Vauchez and Mudge 2012).

In line with these aforementioned approaches, we also draw on the field-concept and conceive of EU Affairs as a distinct social field (see also: Büttner and Mau 2014). However, while most research concentrates on ‘the Eurocracy’ in and around Brussels, we suggest that EU Affairs constitute a wider transnational social field reaching far into existing national and local contexts within and even beyond the EU member states. Thus, we conceive of the field of EU Affairs as a transnational social space that flexibly interlinks individuals and occupational groups from a vast array of disciplinary backgrounds and different places all over Europe under the heading of ‘common’ European, or rather ‘EU-specific’, affairs (EU law, particular procedures of EU policy-making, EU funds etc.). From an orthodox Bourdieusian perspective, this field is certainly not fully established since the boundaries of the field and major field struggles are by no means settled. Hence, as other European fields, it rather must be considered as a transnational field in the making (cf. Vauchez 2008). However, when we understand fields as socially constructed arenas in the first place, then the emergence of a field of EU Affairs can be considered as a process, and occupational specialization as well as professionalization can be seen as specific strategies of actors to influence the field, define the rules of play, position themselves within the field, and gain access to field-specific resources.

EU institutions produce and prescribe standards, regulations, and policies requiring special knowledge on the part of those who are linked to EU activities or interested in profiting from it. By issuing distinct policies and funding programmes EU institutions have not only established own spheres of influence, but also provide an opportunity structure for new actors as users, addressees, or potential clientele (Shore 2000; Bernhard 2011; Büttner 2012). This has fostered the emergence of numerous EU-specific jobs both at the European level and within EU member states and a growing ‘expertization’ and ‘professionalization’ of EU policy-making.

Professionalization is usually regarded as a process through which a certain occupational group establishes some degree of autonomy and power to define and control the major rules and standards of its activities (Abbott 1988; Freidson 2001). However, in marked contrast to the traditional conceptions of the sociology of professions, we do not claim the emergence and establishment of one particular or even various original ‘EU profession(s)’. In line with Pavalko (1988: 17), we rather conceive of ‘professionalization’ as a fairly contingent and relatively open process of social positioning oscillating within a continuum between mere laity and elaborate professionalism in varying degrees of specialization, complexity, and elaborateness of expertise and required training. Such an understanding enables us to capture the whole spectrum of professional involvement in EU Affairs, from the top-ranking positions in Brussels to the more technical tasks and positions in the structures of EU policy implementation in various places throughout Europe and beyond. Moreover, given that we look at a field in flux, the boundaries of the field are by no means fixed once and for all.

Along with the paradigm shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ during the past three decades, a multiplicity of new actors, and new forms of professionalism and expertise have emerged within and around established bodies of policy-making (Rose and Miller 2008). Through the introduction of new organizational routines and management systems under the heading of ‘new public management (NPM)’, traditional state bureaucracies have adopted new organizational standards (Olgiati 2008; Djelic and Quack 2010). Nowadays, moreover, government bodies are surrounded by numerous think tanks, research institutes, expert organizations, PR and communication offices, lobbyists, and other professional interest organizations providing ‘technical support’, ‘consultancy’, and ‘expertise’ of different kinds (Tarrow 2005; Greenwood 2011; Vauchez and de Witte 2013). This trend is linked with a general transformation of the logics of professionalism and professional work, and with the accelerated worldwide diffusion of new organizational routines and standards defined by management sciences and related disciplines (Larson 1977; Fournier 1999; Evetts 2013). Indeed, professional work and corresponding notions of ‘professionalism’ have become more individualized, i.e. they are more disentangled from traditional corporate and occupational structures and led by ‘empowered’ and ‘schooled individual persons’ equipped with scientific expertise and related academic standards and habitual practices (Meyer and Bromley 2013: 373).

Hence, one can see the development of transnational professional fields, such as the field of EU Affairs, as a manifestation of a larger transformation of professional work, which is based on different types of epistemes and expert knowledge in the form of legal texts, policy proposals, statistics, management knowledge, and the like requiring trained specialists who routinely handle and process these highly codified stocks of knowledge. Viewed from this perspective, European politics and EU policy-making represent a distinct epistemic field and a distinct sphere of action within the wider cosmos of policy expertise and policy professionalism. As we will show in the following, this field widely exceeds the boundaries of traditional bureaucracies and the realms of an alleged ‘European Administrative Space’ (Hofmann 2008), but engages a surprisingly large number of professionals in various areas and sectors of EU policy-making.

In the following, we will provide an empirical sketch of central patterns of professional involvement in EU Affairs. Our analysis is based on secondary analyses of the existing literature on EU-related tasks and occupations, as well as document analyses (including the analysis of websites of professional networks and professional associations), observations during site visits, and semi-structured expert interviews conducted during the winter of 2012/2013. Given the lack of space we do not elaborate on all aspects of social practices here, but concentrate on structures and key features of the field as to provide a topological overview of the different social, institutional, and geographical contexts as well as key elements of professionalization of EU expertise. We focus on whether there is evidence of the emergence of a transnational field of EU-related expertise and how professionalization tendencies structure and determine the establishment of the field. As rough criteria for whether such development actually happens, we focus on positions and job offers, pertinent career tracks, and types of educational preparation.

In the subsequent empirical discussion we present a socio-topological view of the extent, quantities, and scales of professional involvement in EU Affairs. While some specific areas and individual cases already received attention (e.g. Haller 2008; Cross 2011; Georgakakis and Rowell 2013; Juncos and Pomorska 2014), we particularly underline the transnational scope of the field of EU Affairs. Our aim is not to provide a detailed analysis of particular groups of professionals, but to present a comprehensive overview of numerous forms of professional involvement in EU Affairs and show some traits of the establishment of a distinct field of professionalism and its transnational scope.² Thus, we have organized the topological overview in concentric circles, moving from the geographical centres to the geographical margins of the field. This in part mirrors the overall power dispersion within the field of EU Affairs, which is clearly structured in terms of centre–periphery relations between Brussels as the centre of EU policy-making and the capital cities of EU member states as semi-centres and the wider periphery. However, it must be noted that the geographical extent of the field is by no means fully congruent with the dispersion of power in the field. Although working in Brussels might create a stronger sense of belonging to the power centres of EU policy-making, it is no direct evidence for the importance and power of certain actors.³ In turn, some national players might have more direct influence on EU policy-making (at least from time to time) than important European players. Thus, another key characteristic of the field is the distinction of two types of professional orientations towards EU politics and EU policy-making. Some activities are more ‘political’ and located closer to the centres of power, while another part of EU-related professional activities is more technical and administrative and concerned with policy implementation.

Doubtlessly, the core institutions of the EU in Brussels, Luxemburg, Strasbourg, and Frankfurt constitute central locations of professional involvement in EU Affairs. Many of the specialized professionals dealing with EU policy-making in one way or another are directly situated there, that is, in the EU Commission, the Council, the Parliament, the European Court of Justice, or the European Central Bank. These EU institutions offer attractive working conditions for academically trained professionals in various disciplines. The jobs are highly prestigious, well paid, and mostly permanent. According to EU information provided at the end of 2013, about 44,500 people are currently employed in EU institutions: most are on permanent contracts (about 95% of all posts), while the remaining five per cent are temporary posts for specific manual or administrative tasks, with a duration of 6–12 months.

Even though the ‘Brussels bubble’ or ‘Eurocracy’ is often perceived as a homogeneous social world, it must be emphasized that the core of the field is itself also highly stratified. An important distinction is to be made, first of all, between ‘executive posts’ and important ‘political positions’ (Georgakakis and Rowell 2013). In fact, the core of the field of EU Affairs comprises high-ranking political officeholders, politicians, and influential political brokers, who are not necessarily part of the official staff of EU institutions, such as, for instance, national politicians and high-ranking national policy-makers. Other top-ranking political positions in EU policy-making are held by the presidents of the major EU institutions, the Commission, the European Council, the Central Bank, and the Parliament, who are usually appointed by the member states. Moreover, the 754 elected members of the European Parliament, the 27 Commissioners of the European Commission, the staff of their personal offices, and the heads of the 33 administrative units of the EU Commission, the so-called Directorates-General (DGs), are also central to EU policy-making. They can be regarded as the key players of EU Affairs (Georgakakis and de Lassalle 2007; Bach 2008: 95).

Furthermore, regular policy officers working in the EU public administration and in the European External Action Service (External Relations), lawyers, economists and statisticians, auditors, communication officers, as well as financial managers and financial assistants are also central to EU Affairs. They usually specialize in EU Affairs during their studies before applying for a position in the EU administration. Access to employment in EU institutions is highly limited, standardized, and subject to very competitive selection processes, such as the famous concours. Most of the career paths in EU institutions are regulated by clear-cut selection criteria and bureaucratic prescriptions, and usually there are national quotas on all positions based on the size of EU member states (Bach 2008: 99–116; Haller 2008: 160).⁴ Up till 10 years ago, each of the various EU institutions had its own personnel selection policies. In January 2003, however, the selection of staff was restructured and centralized. It is, since then, in the hand of the so-called European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO). This underlines that the recruitment of EU institutions has become highly formalized and regulated over time.⁵

By far the largest part of the employment of all EU institutions comprises executive staff of the EU Commission, that is, policy officers and all other administrative staff members of the DGs. They can be considered the ‘quiet agents’ and ‘prototypes’ of EU Affairs professionalism; since they are considered to occupy a prestigious and established position, they have access to important information and channels of decision-making, and they usually personify the ‘esprit de corps’ of EU government. A typical policy officer is someone who possibly owns one or two diplomas in relevant subject areas (i.e., economics, political sciences, EU law, management studies, and other relevant subjects), speaks two to four languages, and has decent intercultural competences and EU-specific policy knowledge. Moreover, there is also a strong linkage between the staff of the Commission and the College of Europe in Bruges and Warsaw, Europe's leading postgraduate educational institution in EU Affairs (Schnabel 1998; Poehls 2009) and other prestigious EU-related study programmes, such as the European Studies programme at Maastricht University and other specialized European Studies programmes all around Europe. Certainly, holding a major in EU Studies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a position in EU institutions. However, the existence of these specialized educational programmes and the introduction of new programmes throughout Europe during the past three decades indicate the relative autonomy of EU Affairs professionalism. Indeed, in one or the other way ‘Europe’, ‘EU politics’, and ‘EU policy-making’ have become attractive and desired areas of employment for increasing numbers of university leavers⁶ .

Professional engagement in EU Affairs is by far not only confined to employment in major EU institutions. In fact, the rise of executive agencies during 1990s, the huge importance of expert involvement and consultation in EU decision-making processes, and the massive expansion of lobbying and related policy consulting businesses in EU Affairs have paved the way for the rise of new, non-bureaucratic types of EU Affairs professionals. This constitutes a vital job market and a dynamic area of EU-specific professional activity. These new professionals are not a homogeneous group. They exhibit very different job profiles, and occupy very different positions. They are not necessarily located in Brussels, but dispersed geographically throughout the territory of the EU. However, they are all involved in one way or another with EU policy-making and developing important skills (‘cultural capital’), and networks (‘social capital’) in the field of EU Affairs.

The ‘agencification’ of EU policy-making: The 1990s saw a substantial boom of agencies in EU governance (Majone 1996; Pollack 2003; Groenleer 2009; Rittberger and Wonka 2011). These agencies were set up to implement EU policies and support EU decision-making by pooling specialist knowledge and expertise from both the EU institutions and national authorities in all important EU policy areas. This so-called agencification (Levi-Faur 2011: 814) precisely mirrors the trends of growing expert involvement and delegation of policy implementation in contemporary EU policy-making. Whereas there had been only two EU agencies before 1990, there are more than 40 agencies in place today (36 so-called decentralized agencies, six ‘executive agencies’, and the two older agencies and bodies supporting the aims of the EURATOM treaty), employing more than 5000 people in headquarters and offices dispersed throughout the EU territory.⁷ In contrast to the official EU institutions, the agencies are astonishingly independent from the restrictive employment regulations applied to the official EU institutions. In fact, the agencies are free to recruit their staff independently of the above-mentioned EPSO. Potential employees are mainly recruited for their particular ‘technical’ competences and practical experiences in the respective policy areas, or proven administrative and management skills (‘organizational capital’). Thus, they do not necessarily possess special training in EU Affairs or EU Studies but are centrally involved in EU policy-making. Hence, besides policy officers within the official EU institutions, a substantial number of the agencies’ employees can also be regarded as ‘quiet agents’ of EU Affairs professionalism. They represent a new type of professionalism in contemporary EU policy-making, one that is more management based and linked with standards of NPM.

Apart from the growth of technical expertise in EU policy implementation, there is also an ongoing trend towards delegation and expert involvement in EU decision-making. Specialized committees and expert groups are involved in all stages of decision-making processes, since almost all policy proposals and legislative acts are prepared, approved, or at least discussed in one or numerous committees and expert groups appointed by the European Council, the EU Commission, or the European Parliament (Bach 2008; Haller 2008).⁸ For instance, there are more than 300 (based on official information provided by the EU in 2013⁹ ) relatively permanent so-called comitology committees. These committees, which add up to thousands of expert meetings with much more than 50,000 participants per year under the auspices of the DGs of the EU Commission (Bach 2008: 120), constitute a substantial element of EU decision-making. Although the thousands of members of the comitology committees are usually more linked to national political fields than to European fields, the regular meetings of the committees often lay the ground for the formation of European expert networks, or even trans-European ‘epistemic communities’ (Cross 2007, 2011). Moreover, there are a number of other consultative committees in the existing system of EU decision-making, which are very central to the field of EU Affairs as well, namely the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper), the Employment Committee, and the Political and Security Committee.¹⁰ Especially the members of the Coreper, the Permanent Representatives (‘Perm Reps’ in EU jargon) of EU member states at the Council of the EU, are influential players within the field of EU Affairs. As official representatives of the member states to the Council of the EU, they prepare all official political meetings at the EU level and constantly discuss all important issues of EU policy-making both within Brussels and with representatives of their sending governments.

Beyond that, there are more than 1000 external expert groups linked to the various DGs of the Commission. These expert groups, which do not have any official political voice or mandate, consist of ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’ in all possible and potential areas of EU policy-making. This includes – in varying degrees – representatives and specialists of national authorities, as well as people from academia, private consultants, representatives of corporations, trade unions, and other interest groups (Gornitzka and Sverdrup 2008: 727; Huster 2008: 29). Thus, usually the individual members neither are official representatives of EU member states nor are they necessarily professionally involved in EU Affairs on a daily basis at all. However, participation in one of the expert groups can substantially contribute to the socialization of individuals into EU Affairs and the Commission's peculiar system of policy-making. And sometimes members of expert groups can directly transfer their particular ‘technical’ and ‘expertise capital’ into permanent employment in EU Affairs, for instance, in the managing bodies of one of the agencies or EU bodies they have mainly dealt with before. Consequently, the role of committees and expert groups in the EU system of policy-making is also strongly criticized and challenged by observers, as neither the individual participants nor the exact number of expert groups is literally available.¹¹ It is estimated, however, that there are at least 1200 expert groups in place, supposedly adding up to over 50,000 members, and it is alleged that the number of expert groups has more than doubled since the mid-1970s (Gornitzka and Sverdrup 2008).

In parallel with the rise of delegation and expert involvement in EU policy-making, interest representation and lobbyism have also become vital fields of employment for policy experts and trained professionals in EU Affairs over the past two decades (Eising 2008; Greenwood 2011; Michel 2013). EU-related interest representation ranges from activities of official interest groups and interest associations (so-called sectoral groups), such as trade unions and other official membership organizations, through special interest groups, pressure groups, and public interest groups, to non-governmental organizations, citizen groups, and social movements (Greenwood 2011; Klüver and Saurugger 2013).

There is no precise data available on the number of EU-related interest organizations and their employees. It is estimated, however, that between 15,000 and 30,000 people are involved full-time in EU-related interest representation. According to Guéguen (2007: 20), an insider to the Brussels scene of EU lobbyists, only about one-third of the full-time employees would work solely in Brussels. Accordingly, Guéguen argues that if we were to take all the ‘part-time EU lobbyists’ into account, the numbers of people professionally involved in EU-related interest representation would be much higher, totalling more than 100,000 people. Many are not permanently based in Brussels and solely practise within the member states. Often they commute and establish a multi-local life, epitomizing in person the transnational character of the field of EU Affairs professionalism.

Two major trends of EU-related interest representation can be identified: firstly, a significant expansion of actors and organizations between the 1980s and the start of 2000; and secondly, an overall commercialization and professionalization of the field (Klüver and Saurugger 2013; Lahusen 2013; Michel 2013). Indeed, there is a growing number of commercial consultancies, private think tanks, and so-called self-made lobbyists (Guéguen 2007) offering specialized lobbying or public communication services to various individuals, organizations, and also interest groups across all sectors. There is a fluent passage from interest representation, lobbying, and general consulting services, to PR and journalism. Our content analysis of two major online job newsletters offering ‘EU jobs’ largely confirms these observations.¹² Major EU-related job newsletters display around 30–40 job offers per week by various employers ranging from large companies, industry organizations, and non-governmental organizations, to policy agencies and think tanks. The most frequent job offers in these newsletters describe a wide range of tasks and numerous new occupational designations typical of the rising job market in EU Affairs, such as Public Affairs Consultant, EU Policy and Planning Officer, EU Campaigner, Communication Manager, External Affairs Manager, EU Affairs Executive, Public Affairs Accounting Manager, EU Policy Advisor, EU Lawyer, and European Legal Advisor. This clearly indicates a wave of specialization and professionalization of EU-related activities.

However, this new wave of ‘professionalization’ of EU-related interest representation has until now led neither to the development of a regulated and exclusive labour market for EU Affairs professionals in Brussels, nor to the development of a distinct profession of ‘European’ public affairs (Lahusen, 2013: 190). Thus, EU professionalism outside state institutions is fairly unregulated and market-based and corresponds to forms of professional performance that are typical of new knowledge-based ‘professions’ and new types of ‘professionalism’ (Fournier 1999) in other areas of knowledge-based work. Moreover, it is not unusual that professionals change from one area of employment to another area at the doorways of EU institutions. Former MEPs and their staff members, for instance, often directly go to one of the think tanks, consulting companies, and interesting organizations in the wider vicinity of EU policy-making after expiry of their mandate. Former employees of the Commission, or of one of the numerous EU agencies, sometimes open up their own consulting businesses after leaving their office. Thus, there is remarkable job mobility at the margins of EU institutions.

Specialized expertise in EU Affairs is also quite widespread in local, regional, and national administrations and other professional organizations, not least since EU legislation influences roughly 60% and sometimes even more of national legislation nowadays (Knill 2001; Bach 2008: 117). Thus, national, regional, and local administrations, universities, and other governmental organizations, as well as private companies and non-governmental organizations, have increasingly recruited people with particular knowledge of EU Affairs (Haller 2008; de Lassalle 2010). Again, these various EU professionals at national and local levels do not share similar career paths and backgrounds in strict terms. Based on our interviews with EU professionals in Germany and Poland, we can say that there are marked difference in career-formation between Brussels-based and national EU experts. Many of the local and national EU experts have never been in Brussels for a longer time, or they have deliberately chosen to come back to their place of origin after an internship or a certain period of employment in the ‘Brussels bubble’. Nonetheless, through their education or through professional experiences they have become familiar with some sort of EU-related knowledge (e.g. some knowledge about certain policy-fields, EU funds, or EU regulations) and socialized into the field of EU Affairs, which links them with ‘European’ debates, legal norms, and standard procedures and turns them into mediators of the EU in local contexts.

A large part of the job market for local and national EU Affairs professionals and related expertise is directly initiated and fostered by EU funding. EU Funds do not only provide resources, but they also come along with specific organizational rules, standard procedures, and EU-specific ‘scripts’ (Büttner 2012: 78) requiring special expertise, knowledge of EU funding regulations, and of the particular ‘EU literacy’. In this way, the EU funding system generates employment opportunities for people with EU expertise in areas such as EU fundraising, the management of EU funds, and implementing, evaluating, and coordinating EU-funded projects and programmes at European, national, regional, and even local levels (Büttner et al.2014). Moreover, apart from public service providers, there is an increasing market for private service providers and consultancies specialized in advising managing authorities as well as beneficiaries on EU funding. Consequently, beneficiaries of EU funds increasingly employ specialized experts for the preparation and submission of EU project applications, and use the EU funds to generate a broad spectrum of employment opportunities – mostly project-based work – for European funding specialists (Kovách and Kucˇerova 2009).

It is not possible to provide exact figures for specialized EU expertise in local and national contexts, since the distinction between ‘national’ and ‘European’ affairs is often blurred and no official statistics are available, respectively. However, based on projections, Haller (2008: 160–174) roughly estimated that the ‘long arm’ of Eurocracy might add up to roundabout 36,000 professionals mainly occupied with EU Affairs in local and national administrations throughout the EU territory. Our own research on new types of EU Affairs professionalism in Germany and Poland indicates that there are much more professionals in local and national contexts than estimated by Haller. In Poland alone, the biggest receiver of EU funds between 2007 and 2013, we estimate that there are more than 20,000 professionals dealing with EU funds and EU-related affairs (about 500 in national ministries; 3000–6000 in private consulting businesses, and think tanks; 2000–4000 in regional ministries; 7000–10,000 in local EU projects; and an unidentifiable additional number working in private companies, NGOs, universities, and other potential receivers of EU funds).

The increasing demand for expertise is accompanied by an increase in specialized training and study programmes focusing on specific skills and competences related to the acquisition, application, evaluation, billing, and budgeting of EU projects. In the past two decades there has been an increase in graduate programmes offering degrees in ‘European Studies’, ‘European Affairs’, ‘European Law’, and ‘European Management’. These programmes have played a vital role in the preparation and training of young professionals for EU-related tasks and ‘Europe’ as a job market (Beichelt and Janczak 2010). Beyond that, private service providers have also started to offer specialized training and official certification certificates for ‘EU Fundraiser’, ‘EU Fund Manager’, and ‘EU Project Manager’ programmes. This trend is also accompanied by the establishment of professional associations of EU fundraisers, at both the European and national levels, struggling for official recognition and aiming to establish professional standards for this occupational area.¹³ This again indicates that a distinct stock of knowledge on EU policy-making and a distinct set of professional practices have emerged, providing the basis for the establishment of professional actors within the transnational field of EU Affairs.

In this article we have shed light on major areas of the professionalization of EU expertise. Using the field analysis toolkit we have explored the patterns and dynamics of professional work dealing with ‘EU Affairs’ in one way or another. We have demonstrated that EU integration has proliferated a professionalization of EU-related activities. Indeed, EU Affairs increasingly constitute a distinct area of professionalism that is by far not only confined to the activities of EU institutions and their direct surroundings, but reaches far into all EU member states and beyond. We have found clear indications of a vibrant field of professional involvement in which various experts with very different career paths and biographies try to establish themselves within the field of EU Affairs. This trend towards professionalization is characterized by changes in the roles of knowledge and expertise, new types of job descriptions, and the introduction of relevant educational programmes.

However, we do not suggest that the field has properly defined boundaries, established rules of play, a fixed set of actors, and fully institutionalized structures. In line with Vauchez (2008), we share the observation of a ‘weak field’ that overlaps with national fields and has relatively blurred, porous borders with other professional fields. We have also seen, moreover, that neither is there one dominant type of professionalism within the field of EU Affairs, nor do professionals of EU Affairs constitute a coherent and exclusive group. On the contrary, even though these professionals certainly share some common characteristics, we have found a whole range of different types of actors and areas of specialization: politicians and related political brokers with national and European political capital of varying degrees; executive employees and technical experts with little political capital but a high degree of specialist knowledge and expertise in particular areas of policy-making; information brokers, communication specialists, and public affairs professionals in the area of interest representation, exhibiting a mixture of political and technical knowledge, and a great deal of networking and communication skills; and, finally, a growing number of professional information brokers and service providers specialized in the acquisition, management, and imparting of EU funds, such as EU Project Managers or EU Fundraisers. The latter types of professionals are usually neither politically active in EU Affairs nor do they work in the centres of the ‘Eurocracy’.

What are the implications of our analysis? We have shown that EU professionals at the wider surroundings of EU institutions are now a vital part of EU policy-making. On the one hand, they can facilitate the link between EU policies and potential beneficiaries; on the other hand, they might represent a stratum or group of experts which perpetuates and even reinforces the disconnection between the EU and national or local levels. Whether or not this is the case and if this actually leads to an increase in the breadth and depth of European integration, or the opposite – that is, a stronger decoupling of ‘EU technocracy’ – remains an open question and a subject of further research. In our view, however, it is necessary to consider these questions in light of a transformation of professionalism and the struggle of diverse groups of professionals for resources and social recognition. Seen from this angle, they are neither a unitary group of agents of EU integration nor advocates of beneficiaries of EU policies, but a vast ensemble of professionals with own interests, usages of knowledge, and forms of occupational and professional socialization. Thus, it is of prime importance to understand how the transnational field of EU Affairs is structured, how people are socialized in the field, how professionalization gains momentum, and what the implicit and explicit rules and conditions of ‘success’ are. Against this background it will be a central task to elaborate how the EU Affairs professionals position themselves as interlocutors between the European and the national and local levels of policy-making.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Sebastian M. Büttner, Ph.D., is lecturer at the Institute of Sociology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), and co-head of the subproject ‘Professionalization of EU Expertise' of the collaborative research unit ‘Horizontal Europeanization' funded by the German Research Council (DFG). His research interests are Social Theory and Cultural Sociology, European Integration, Political Sociology and Studies of Knowledge and Expertise.

Lucia Leopold, Dipl. Soz., is a researcher in the subproject ‘Professionalization of European expertise' of the collaborative research unit ‘Horizontal Europeanization' funded by the German Research Council. Her research interests include civil society actors in the EU, self-perception, patterns of affiliation and practices of European Affairs professionals in Germany.

Steffen Mau, is Professor of Macrosociology at Humboldt University of Berlin and co-head of the research project ‘Professionalization of European expertise' of the collaborative research unit ‘Horizontal Europeanization' funded by the German Research Council (DFG). His research interests are Comparative Welfare Research, Social Inequality, Social Justice Research, Political Sociology and European Integration.

Matthias Posvic, Dipl. Sowi., is a researcher in the subproject ‘Professionalization of European expertise' of the collaborative research unit ‘Horizontal Europeanization'. His research interests include the sociology of knowledge in European institutions, field theoretical perspectives on European professionals, qualitative methods and the philosophy of science.