Does Deliberation in Intergovernmental Negotiations (Really) Matter for Decision Outcomes? A Comparative Case Study of EU Gender Equality Directives.

The potential societal impacts of EU legislation to address gender inequalities are considerable: Over the past few years, EU Directives have been adopted to prevent and combat violence against women, improve the distribution of caring responsibilities between parents, promote companies’ gender balanced decision-making, and reinforce respect for the principle of equal pay for equal work. The adoption of such Directives is characterized by intense negotiations within the Council of the European Union. Gender equality policy stands out as an area of EU policy that is not dominated by economic goals, but rather seeks to achieve the common good. Because of the nature of the issues at stake, one might expect disagreements among member states to be mainly resolved by deliberation, also referred to as “arguing” in the literature. Deliberation is conceptualised as a mode of interaction whereby negotiators debate the merits of different policy options and reach a common understanding by persuading one another about the right course of action. It is opposed to bargaining, an interaction mode where actors primarily pursue their self-interest by trading issues and seeking compromise. This paper contributes to our general knowledge about EU decision-making efficiency and capacity. It provides insights on the conditions under which the EU as a collective can act decisively to combat gender inequalities, by asking: While negotiating EU gender equality policy, to what extent do member states resolve issues through deliberation? It also proposes to address a gap in the literature on intergovernmental negotiations by exploring the effect of deliberations on decision outcomes, and whether this might explain divergences from negotiation models’ predictions. This empirical paper consists of a comparison of four negotiation cases of recent EU gender equality Directives. The analysis uses the method of process-tracing for the main controversial issues to explain deviations from expected decision-making outcomes, based on actors’ preference and decision-making rules. The initial findings suggest that member states do resolve disagreements around gender equality through deliberation, although not more frequently than for other policy areas. Furthermore, the resolution of such controversies through deliberation is associated with policy change, but it does not produce decision outcomes diverging from the basic predictions. Crucially, sharing values and interests associated with gender equality often does not suffice to achieve policy change: Member states need to share an understanding about the EU competence over the issue in order to reach a reasoned consensus. This has implications for the prospects of further European integration concerning EU gender equality policies.