Who You Gonna Call? Stakeholder Power and the Making of the European Universities Initiative by Alina Felder-Stindt and Martina Vukasovic

In the ever-evolving landscape of European higher education, the European Universities Initiative (EUI) stands out as a flagship project that emerged with surprising speed and ambition. But how does such a major initiative take shape in an area where the European Union (EU) has only limited formal competence and an area characterised by significant institutional autonomy?

In our article published recently in the Journal of European Integration, we utilize the strategic resource exchange perspective (Bouwen, 2004) and focus on the role of stakeholder organizations – including associations of universities – in developing the EUI, an initiative aimed at fostering deeper integration through transnational alliances of universities (Cino Pagliarello, 2022). We unpack the development of the EUI from a passing reference in a 2017 speech by French President Emmanuel Macron to the launch of the first call for proposals just a year later. Drawing on interviews, document analysis, and data from the EU Transparency Register, we trace how the European Commission navigated the constraints of limited legal authority by leveraging the legitimacy and expertise of some of the stakeholder organizations.

The Commission’s Strategic Selection of Stakeholders in Limited Competence Areas

Higher education is a classic example of a policy domain where EU member states retain primary control. The EU’s role is largely supportive, with no power to harmonize national systems through hard law. This makes the rapid development of the EUI rather intriguing, especially given the overall crisis of European integration, including in higher education (Corbett & Hantrais, 2023). In such a partially institutionalized decision-making arena, the rules of the game are not entirely settled. The question then becomes who does the Commission decide to invite to the table, given that it does not have to utilize a particular approach to stakeholder consultations (Binderkrantz et al., 2021).

Our point of departure is the well-established resource exchange perspective on the relationship between EU institutions and stakeholder organizations (Nørgaard et al., 2014). The Commission, which in this case is lacking (important) policy resources – legal authority and technical knowledge – will strategically give access to those stakeholder organizations that can supply these policy resources.

The core finding of the study is the active role of the European Commission in selecting which stakeholder organizations to involve in the policy process. Rather than opening the floor to all interested parties, the Commission curated two groups of actors that could provide the specific types of legitimacy and knowledge it needed to move the initiative forward: an ad-hoc stakeholder group and ad-hoc expert group. While the latter included Member State representatives (whose inclusion is important for legitimacy, given the limited EU competences in this area), the former included well-established European university associations and networks that had a track record of engaging with EU institutions. Their involvement lent credibility to the initiative and helped align it with the interests of national higher education systems. At the same time, the Commission involved actors in the ad-hoc stakeholder group that had gathered experience in similar cooperation outlets such as the ones envisioned by the EUI, e.g. border region networks. This selective engagement reflects a broader pattern in EU governance, where the Commission uses stakeholder consultations not just to gather input, but to shape the policy environment in ways that support its strategic goals.

Legitimacy, Knowledge, and Access

The case of the EUI illustrates how the EU can innovate and expand its influence even in areas where its formal powers are weak. By strategically engaging with stakeholder organizations, the Commission can build coalitions, generate momentum, and legitimize its actions. We identified distinct forms of legitimacy and knowledge as key resources that stakeholder organizations brought to the table. In addition to the classic representational legitimacy (speaking for a broad constituency), also procedural legitimacy (being part of established consultation mechanisms) and normative legitimacy (aligning with EU values and goals) were important. Knowledge included both technical expertise and practical insights into how higher education systems operate on the ground. In exchange for these resources, stakeholders gained access to decision-makers and the opportunity to shape a high-profile initiative. This mutual benefit helped to overcome the institutional limitations of EU in the education policy domain and enabled the Commission to act as a policy entrepreneur.

Conclusion and Implications for EU Policy-Making

The European Universities Initiative may be a flagship project, but its development was anything but straightforward. As we show, it was the product of careful orchestration, strategic alliances, and the subtle exercise of power through resource exchange. Our study reminds us that even in areas of limited competence, the EU is far from powerless—and that understanding how it acts requires looking beyond formal rules to the networks and negotiations that drive policy forward. Our analysis confirms that resource exchange is a valuable lens for understanding the dynamics of EU policy-making in constrained environments. It also highlights the importance of studying the micro-politics of consultation and engagement, which often shape the outcomes of major initiatives behind the scenes. However, this approach also raises important questions about transparency and inclusiveness. If only certain stakeholders are invited to the table, whose voices are left out? And how can the EU ensure that its consultation processes remain open and democratic, rather than becoming tools for technocratic steering?

Bibliography:

Binderkrantz, A. S., Blom-Hansen, J., & Senninger, R. (2021). Countering bias? The EU Commission’s consultation with interest groups. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(4), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1748095

Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: A comparative study of business lobbying in the European Union institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43(3), 337-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x

Cino Pagliarello, M. (2022). Higher education in the single market between (trans)national integration and supranationalisation: exploring the european universities initiative. Journal of European Integration, 44(1), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.2011266

Corbett, A., & Hantrais, L. (2023). Higher education and research in the Brexit policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2181854

Nørgaard, R. W., Nedergaard, P., & Blom-Hansen, J. (2014). Lobbying in the EU Comitology System. Journal of European Integration,36(5), 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2014.889128