The reform processes of cohesion policy are well documented (e.g. Petzhold 2022). The meta-evaluation from ECA assesses in more detail the reforms during the program periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 on the basis of 14 guiding principles, 69 ECA reports and other available reviews (ECA 2019). Similarly, the EU commission has frequently explained in its responses to ECA reports that it recognises the weaknesses, learned from its own evaluations and adapted the governance system accordingly. Yet, deficiencies in ensuring effectiveness and legality of spending have remained.[6] Something is wrong with the learning capacity in the multilevel system of cohesion policy (Barca 2009).
Starting point for this organisational audit is the difference in single-loop and double-loop learning as developed in strategic management literature (e.g. Morgan 1986). Strategic management theory distinguishes between incremental changes and structural or transformative changes (Weick and Quinn 1999). Single-loop learning concerns the feedback loop between objectives, implementation, and monitoring within the existing organisational systems (Figure 1). Incremental changes (single-loop learning) will often suffice provided environments are stable and predictable.
When iterations of reforms do not lead to solutions, more profound – and more difficult – feedback loops may have to be considered. Double-loop learning includes an extra – more profound – loop. It concerns adapting objectives, and roles and power divisions in the organisation or network. Double-loop learning is about challenging the objectives and values of the organisation, and the ways in which it works within its networks.[7]
Comitology and double-loop learning
It is doubtful whether comitology – involving mostly national officials – will result in double-loop learning. One important point of double-loop changes is that it involves a collective exercise between the hands-on (independent) experts. It relies on iterative networked (multilevel) processes through which frictions are identified, new rules are agreed on, and ownership for new values is established across all levels. Participative – diffused – leadership is required in initiating and engaging the network in elaborating visions, values, rule books, and in pooling knowledge. The process of “integrative bargaining”[8] between the experts who do the actual work and who represent the professional values, is distinct from political rule setting such as takes place via comitology.
Resistance to change
Leadership will be required to turn the usual resistances, and lack of interest, into ownership for reform and for professional values. Existing routines have their own defensive mechanisms such attempting to adapt through ‘more of the same’ tinkering in the hope that more fundamental reforms can be avoided. Moreover, existing structures and norm-expectations contribute to groupthink about where the organisation is and how it should function.
Resistance to change combined with a -mistaken- preference for centralisation in the EU also stems from a profound distrust in national capacities (Schout 2021a, 2022). This distrust creates a tendency towards strengthening the Commission even when decentralisation is required. Misgivings about other member states are well founded but it should also be acknowledged that there are also policy areas where complex European tasks are executed and monitored effectively by member states. The tendency to prefer centralisation also results from the realisation that the Commission is open to political compromises and lenience whereas decentralised, independent and transparent supervision offers less wiggle room. Moreover, debating policies and politics is the life blood of policy makers (and media) but examining the design of European organisations and networks is not high on the agenda. EU politics is primarily about hard-fought political compromises and seldom about rational design. These fears, administrative ideologies, vested interests and preferences for opaque wiggle room reinforce resistance to double-loop learning. This stands in sharp contrast to private sector management where markets and stakeholders press, from time-to-time, for profound changes and where the need for decentralisation in large and dynamic organisations is well understood.
