JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 52 TOWARDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTIONAL PROFILES OF MINISTRIES OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: THE CASE OF EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES Boštjan UDOVIČ and Marko LOVEC 1 ………………………………………………………………………………… The characteristics of the institutional organisation of Ministries for foreign affairs (MFAs) enable to reflect on the general conditions influencing the operation of the foreign ministries and on the way the institutional profiles as such influence the foreign policies of individual countries. In order to be able to establish the differences and patterns in institutional profiles of the MFAs, this article proposes to observe the vertical and horizontal concentration in their organisational structures, the role of political-mandate based leadership and the balance between the main foreign policy focus areas. In the empirical part of the article, the MFAs of the 28 European Union member states are put into comparison. The article concludes by reflecting on the empirical and theoretical implications of the proposed characteristics of the institutional profiles. Key words: Ministries for foreign affairs, organisational structures, European Union, member states. 1 INTRODUCTION The conditio sine qua non of the modern society is that things have to be done (and be changed) rapidly. The same goes for the theoretical concepts, which are in most cases a minute after their conceptualisation already outdated and have to be refigured, rebuilt or even abandoned. But this is not the case for each theoretical concept. There are some concepts in the International Relations theory, which were made recently, but they are treated as they were coming from the first stages of world civilisation. One of these concepts is the concept of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which has become an axiom of modern international relations. Despite its intriguing nature, the role of its structure, performances, 2 agent-structure relations 3 and 1 Boštjan Udovič, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in Diplomacy at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. Marko Lovec, Ph.D., is a Researcher at the Centre of International Relations, University of Ljubljana. 2 Ana Bojinović Fenko and Boštjan Udovič. “Zaključek”, in Pax Franca, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Sinica?: primerjalna analiza zunanje politike velikih sil in držav s hitro rastočimi gospodarstvi, ed. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 53 internal and external forces 4 have not been discussed as much as it would necessary for opening a wide debate on the role and position of Ministries of Foreign Affairs in international relations. 5 Acknowledging this we have decided to open the Pandora box of the institution that was born in March 1626 by Cardinal Richelieu 6 and was developing its characteristics through the whole 18 th and 19 th century. At the dawn of the 20 th century it was formatted in a modern manner and as such served for almost 100 years. The globalisation of world politics, which gained impetus after the dissolution of the bipolar system, cut off the classical division between political and consular diplomacy, which was part of the MFAs from the Directorate reform in 1797. 7 Thus, instead of being formed by two parallel courses the modern MFAs are framed by smaller interdependent departments, which have three characteristics: at first they are particular and cover a specific dossier. Secondly, the field of work of these small departments in some fragments overlap with other departments, creating a fertile ground for the collaboration between them. Finally, the multitude of departments instinctively offers the possibility to the political decision-makers to hierarchise them from most to less important. 8 The relevance of different dossiers is illustrated by their names (department, sector, directorate general) and their position in the MFAs organogrammes. And these present the framework of our debate. We argue, and this is the main leading line of our article, that organogrammes of the national MFAs does not reflect only the structure of the MFA, but can give us more data about the relevant topics and priorities of national foreign policy. 9 Firstly because the “substance” in organogrammes (areas of work) presents the topics, which a state has chosen as relevant for conducting its foreign policy, while the second issue tackles the hierachisation of topics and their couplings in different wider structures (such as directorates). Thus, we do not perceive organogrammes as a pure administrative tool, but rather as a symbolical toolbox reflecting the hard-core priorities of national foreign policy. As such organogrammes can serve as a proxy for the (ex-ante) identification of behavioural patterns of states in the international community. Ana Bojinović Fenko (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2011), 221–226; Derek Beach, Analyzing foreign policy (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); Ernest Petrič, Foreign policy: from conception to diplomatic practice (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2013). 3 Sabina Kajnč, Razvoj evropske zunanje politike: od evropskega političnega sodelovanja do evropske varnostne in obrambne politike (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2008). 4 Some cases are described in Boštjan Udovič, Ekonomska in gospodarska diplomacija (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2009); Boštjan Udovič, “Central-European Intra-Slavic Diplomacy: A comparative approach,” Journal of Comparative Politics, 4, 1 (2011), 31–51; Boštjan Udovič, “Je diplomacija prvenstveno (le) politična?,” Družboslovne razprave, 28, 69 (2012), 7–24. 5 More on the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a dependent or independent actor in national foreign policy see in Barry H. Steiner, “Diplomacy and international theory,” Review of international studies, 30, 4 (2004), 493–509. 6 Boštjan Udovič, “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs”. Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8 th October 2013. 7 The introduction of consular affairs into the diplomatic apparatus was done for the first time by the Directorate during the third phase of French revolution (Vladimir Potemkin, Zgodovina diplomacije, 1. zvezek (Ljubljana: DZS, 1947), 340ff. 8 Ana Bojinović Fenko and Boštjan Udovič. “Zaključek”, in Pax Franca, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Sinica?: primerjalna analiza zunanje politike velikih sil in držav s hitro rastočimi gospodarstvi, ed. Ana Bojinović Fenko (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2011), 221–226. 9 The priorities the MFAs set forward and the means they employ reflect the characteristics of the ministries’ institutions of representation and decision-making, influencing the importance of the individual interests in the field of foreign policy, including the importance of the interests of ministries’ bureaucrats (Donald F. Kettl and James W. Fesler, The politics of the administrative process (Washington: CQ, 2005)). Foreign policy goals and means also reflect the costs related with the execution of assignments with regard to the MFAs’ organizational structure (Jonathan R. Tompkins, Organization theory and public management (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005)). JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 54 The article is built of four inter-related parts. The first part presents a short theoretical insight in the theory on the structure of MFAs, which establishes a framework for the empirical part, presented in the second part of the article, where we elaborate particular indicators enabling us to quantify the operational variables. In the third part we present the obtained results section with two methodological tools – quantitative and qualitative, while the last part merges together the discussion in conclusions and offers some recommendations for future research. 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: CONCENTRATION IN ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE, POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND INSTITUTIONALISED POLICY FOCUS AREAS Modern MFAs are headed by ministers, who are supported by one or more deputy ministers, sometimes responsible for various aspects of foreign policy. Next in line of the hierarchy are political and administrative directors, also known as “general secretaries” or “cabinet chiefs”. These are followed by heads of individual organisation units, also known as “heads of directorates” and by chiefs of individual sectors/departments that are located in each of the directorates. Apart from this relatively clear line of command, there are usually various organisational units which are either partly detached from the organisational structure or combine various layers of the hierarchy. These are organs providing ministers with strategic or special administrative support, also known as “strategic councils” and “private staff”, various inter-institutional bodies, intra-institutional bodies such as the ad hoc bodies, task groups and special deputies, as well as the offices providing administrative, technical support and security. 10 The number of units constituting each vertical level of command in individual MFAs varies from time to time and from country to country. The organisational structures of the MFAs with larger number of vertical levels compared to the number of horizontal units on each of the levels can be considered to be more “hierarchical” or “centralised”. 11 In such ministries the workflow is adequately distributed, so are the responsibilities. The employees are aware of their duties and the communication channels are well established. The decision-making process in such organisation is gradual and the line of commandment is strict and top-down, which in unstable situation offers a greater accommodation comparing to the “horizontal” structure. 12 On the other hand, the MFAs with relatively short vertical and stronger horizontal distribution can be considered as more “horizontal” or “dispersed”. Such organisations have a large and more intensive flow of information comparing to the vertical ones, and the decision-making process is a teamwork. That is why the adopted decisions are rarely changed or 10 Ernest Petrič, Foreign policy: from conception to diplomatic practice (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2013); Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21 st century (The Netherlands: Clingendael, 2012); Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, “Whither Foreign Ministries in a Post-Western World,” Clingendael Policy Brief, 20 th April 2013. 11 In order to make the distinction between the vertical and horizontal relations in organisational structures more straightforward, the relations between two vertical units can be treated as more “arbitrary” and relations between two horizontal units as more “deliberative”. 12 Boštjan Udovič, “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs”. Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8 th October 2013. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 55 reversed. 13 One of the problems in horizontal decision-making system is the abundance of communication channels, which after-effects the speed of the decision-making process. This is usually slower comparing to the vertical process. Another weakness of the horizontal process is the lack of commandment, which can in some cases lead to institutional instability, violation of authorisation and under-specialisation of available resources. 14 Finally, the de-centralisation and horizontal bargaining also makes the structure as such relatively inflexible to respond to the external pressures, which may turn out to be problematic, especially in times when substantial changes in contexts take place. 15 However, these two models are just theoretical models. Thus in the past the MFAs were mostly centralised and operated vertically, where each level was acquainted with its tasks and authorities. This situation started to change after the WWI, when the idea of democratisation and openness of diplomacy took the floor, 16 and was reinforced after the end of WWII, when publicity was posted as conditio sine qua non for the development of national foreign policy and diplomacy. Such milieu asked for the restructuring of the MFAs’ structure form the vertical one to a more deliberative, i. e. horizontal one. The post-Cold war enthusiasm strongly influenced the shaping of the MFAs towards more de-centralised, but only for a short period. At the end of the 90s it became clear that “too much democracy harm the effectiveness and efficiency of the working-process of the MFAs”. 17 Thus it is not surprising that Hocking et al. 18 do not abandon the ‘old’ MFAs’ structure, but argue that instead of structural reforms the MFAs should focus on substantive matters. According to them the MFAs should focus on four activities, which have to be conducted simultaneously: (a) Drive innovation in the development and management of delivery and knowledge networks, home and abroad, within and without government; (b) Influence policy through ensuring that these networks map the objectives of international strategy; (c) In a post-western world of fragmenting rule sets and contested values, serve as the GPS both to government and society as a whole; (d) Provide the 4-dimensional vision that will ensure coherence over time and across geography. All these four suggestions do not discuss the de-centralisation of the MFAs as was the trend in the 90s, but argue only that old bottles should be refilled with new wine. In modern MFAs, the mandate of top ministry officials is bound with the political mandate of the government. Nevertheless, the scope of political leadership functions in individual MFAs that are fixed with political mandate, can vary. In some cases, a fixed number of posts in the leadership structures may be occupied by high-ranking officials, permanently employed by the MFAs. The heads of directorates, which are typically drafted from ministry officials, are often represented inside the leadership structures. In addition, political leadership structures may be supported by advisory bodies with relatively permanent composition and by general administration of the MFA. On the other hand, it is no surprise to see top political leadership of the 13 Vlado Dimovski, Sandra Penger, Miha Škerlavaj in Jana Žnidaršič, Učeča se organizacija: ustvarite podjetje znanja (Ljubljana: GV založba, 2005). 14 Jonathan R. Tompkins, Organization theory and public management (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005); Boštjan Udovič, “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs”. Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8 th October 2013. 15 Donald F. Kettl and James W. Fesler, The politics of the administrative process (Washington: CQ, 2005). 16 Vlado Benko, Znanost o mednarodnih odnosih (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 1997). 17 Boštjan Udovič, “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs”. Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8 th October 2013. 18 Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21 st century (The Netherlands: Clingendael, 2012). JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 56 MFAs supported by their own political advisory bodies and staff (“personal cabinets”). The leadership structures that are bound with political mandates are generally more prone to the immediate political demands and pressures. More substantial role of political-mandate based leadership may either improve governance efficiency in terms of increased responsiveness or turn out to be a hindrance due to the constant changes in direction and reallocations of resources it introduces. Stronger role of the more permanent staff, on the other hand, enables a more stable and strategic employment of resources, but can also produce institutional rigidness. 19 Regarding the substance covered by MFAs, there is no single logic. Taking into consideration the historical environment in which the MFA was established, it is presumable that one of its key functions would be political and security affairs. Beside political and security affairs the modern international relations pushed up also the economic affairs, which became in most of the cases a constitutive part of the modern MFA. 20 Although political and economic affairs are in practical terms far from unrelated, there is a clear conceptual difference between the two, with political affairs concentrated on the issue of power (“distribution”) and economic affairs concerned with the issue of efficiency (“allocation”). 21 The conceptual difference is reflected in varying perspectives when the same issues are under question. Due to conflicting elements of the two perspectives and limited resources available to the MFFs, they cannot only be perceived as diverging, but can as well be treated as rival. 22 However the structuration of MFAs does not agglomerate only around the political and economic affairs, but includes also other determinants influencing the conduction of national foreign policy. Among them the relevance of bilateral relations as a whole (not only political and/or economic) should be mentioned, as relations with neighbouring countries and relations with countries with shared political, economic, geographical, cultural or other similarities/interests, 23 as well as various issues which are in principle of global nature, such as the general multilateral relations, especially in the framework of the universal international organisations and various global issues. 24 All these variables strongly influence the structuring of the national MFAs, which are organised according to the “substantive” or “geographic” line. While the “substance” lies in the political-economic pair, the geographic structure reflects the orientation of national MFAs on regional-global issues. 25 Nevertheless the combination of all four parameters establishes a diamond 19 Donald F. Kettl and James W. Fesler, The politics of the administrative process (Washington: CQ, 2005). 20 Boštjan Udovič, Ekonomska in gospodarska diplomacija (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2009); Nicholas Bayne and Stephen Woolcock, The new economic diplomacy: decision-making and negotiation in international economic relations (Burlington: Ashgate, 2011). 21 Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding international relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). 22 Donna Lee and David Hudson, “The old and new significance of political economy in diplomacy,” Review of international studies, 30 (2004), 343–360; Huub Ruël and Lennart Zuidema, The Effectiveness of Commercial Diplomacy: A Survey among Dutch Embassies and Consulates (Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2012); Jennifer Kesteleyn, “Belgian Multinationals and Public-Private Partnerships in Economic Diplomacy”, Hague Journal of Diplomacy, forthcoming. 23 Björn Hettne, András Inotai and Osvaldo Sunkel, ed., Globalism and the new regionalism (Houndmills: Macmillan Press; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999). 24 Bojko Bučar, “Universalism and regionalism in Slovenian foreign policy,” Teorija in praksa, 29, 5/6, 484– 490; Milan Brglez, “The importance of United Nations for the development of Slovenian foreign policy”, in 20 year of Slovenian UN membership, ed. Božo Cerar, Marcel Koprol and Andrej Kirn (Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve in CEP, 2012), 53–55. 25 Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21 st century (The Netherlands: Clingendael, 2012); Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, “Whither Foreign Ministries in a Post-Western World,” Clingendael Policy Brief, 20 th April 2013. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 57 structure, in which each MFA can elaborate its priorities according to internal and external requirements. 26 TABLE 1: DISTINCTIVE INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MFFS (AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS) Source: Own elaboration. 3 MINISTRIES OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: THE CASE OF 28 EU MEMBER STATES In this part we would like to presents the results obtained by our research on the structure of the MFAs of 28 European Union member states. The first part enlightens the methodology and data gathering, while the following subchapters analyse the structure of the 28 MFAs from different perspectives, which establish a framework for our final debate and conclusion(s). Methodology and data gathering The concentration in organisational structures of the MFAs of the 28 EU member states will be estimated by treating each identifiable function, post or body with a relatively autonomous stance as one individual unit. The identification of individual organisational units will be based on official organogrammes set forward by the MFAs. The relations between each two institutional units in terms of whether they are predominantly hierarchical (superior/subordinate position of the unit) or horizontal (equal position of the unit) will be established in accordance with the way the position of individual units is explained/presented in official organogrames, obtained from official web pages of the national MFAs in October 2013. The individual units present on more vertical levels will be counted for on each of the vertical levels where it is stationed. 27 The indication of the concentration rate (Factor of concentration – Fc) will be based on the relation between the total number of vertical levels and total number of all units. The organisational structures of the MFAs with a relatively higher Fc will be considered as more hierarchical (as opposed to being more dispersed in case of relatively lower Fc). The influence of politics on MFAs structure will be presented by the share of political mandate functions in relation with all individual units constituting political leadership. Thus, a (relatively) high factor of political mandate based functions (Fp) will indicate that the structure of the analysed MFA is strongly influenced by political changes, while the lower index will show that the bureaucratic system 28 within the MFA is quite resilient to different political shocks. 29 26 Boštjan Udovič, “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs”. Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8 th October 2013. 27 In case of major differences in the quality of data and/or criteria employed by the MFAs when putting together the organogrammes, these differences will be indicated and taken into account. 28 See more in Miro Haček, Politiki in visoki javni uslužbenci: kdo vlada? (Ljubljana, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2009). 29 A high Fp means that the MFAs procedures and activities are under strong supervision of the current political elite, while the low level of Fp illustrates that the decision-making process within the MFAs is committed to proficiency and political changes influence it only marginally. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 58 The relative importance of individual fields of work that preoccupies the MFAs will be assessed by identifying how the individual units fit into the four distinctive categories (where such categorisation makes sense and where enough information are available). Individual organisation units will be classified on the basis of information available in the official MFAs’ organogrammes, such as the names and short descriptions. If necessary, individual units will be taken into account under more categories. Since individual organisational units (sectors/departments), operating in the framework of larger organisational units (directorates), may fit into different categories, they will be included in the general estimation. In case of overlapping categorisation of individual units, their share will be divided up between the categories in accordance with their relative relevance. Larger organisational units (directorates) will be weighted with 3:1. 30 Mathematical shares of organisational units in each of the four categories will reflect the relative policy orientation of the MFAs. 4 CONCENTRATION IN ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES The number of individual organisation units in the organisational structures of the MFAs of EU member states that was identified (U) ranges from 5 in case of Romania and Portugal (**) to 53 in case of Slovakia. The organisational structures of majority of the MFAs are composed of 15–31 organisation units. Relatively large differences in the number of organisation units are due to the diverging quality of the available data (see *, **). Taking the latter into account, it would be possible to argue that an average MFA of an EU member state consists of 20 to 30 organisation units, while – interestingly – the new member states (NMS) have the most branched MFAs’ structure (Slovakia: U=53; The Czech Republic: U=51; Poland: U=42; Slovenia: U=31). It is interesting that MFAs of Germany and France (being the two biggest EU countries) have a ‘smaller’ MFAs structure than Slovakia and Czech Republic. 31 The number of vertical levels in organisational structures of the MFAs ranges from 3 (Hungary*, Luxemburg*, Poland* and Romania**), not taking Portugal** (Uh=2) into account, to 6 in the case of France. With the number of vertical levels, data is relatively comparable due to the fact that the information of the sub-directorate/sector level does not affect the number of total hierarchical levels. The average number of hierarchical levels is four. Interestingly, the two categories that stand out from the average number of hierarchical levels are the NMS, especially smaller ones (the Czech Republic: Uh=5; Latvia: Uh=5; Slovakia: Uh=5; Slovenia: Uh=5), and some smaller North European countries (Denmark*: Uh=5; Finland: Uh=5). The factor of concentration (Fc), indicating the balance between the number of hierarchical levels and all the organisation units incorporated in the organisational structures of the MFAs, is the lowest in case of Slovakia (Fc=0.09), meaning the organisational structure of the Slovakian MFA is the least concentrated or the most dispersed (approx. on average 10 units per each vertical level). The highest Fc is featured by Austria*, Denmark and Hungary, having all the Fc=0.33, which means that the MFA structure in these countries is concentrated and hierarchical (approx. on average 3 units 30 This share is “arbitral”, based on different pre-calculations. 31 The U for Germany is 45, while for France 46. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 59 per each vertical level). The average Fc (of all examined countries) is around 0.2 (1:5) (table 2). 32 TABLE 2: THE MFAS OF THE EU MEMBER STATES: NUMBER OF ORGANISATION UNITS (U), NUMBER OF HIERARCHICAL LEVELS (UH) AND FACTOR OF CONCENTRATION (FC) *Partial data (data on sub-directorate/sector level not available) **Partial data. Source: Own elaboration. FIGURE 1: THE MFAS OF THE EU MEMBER STATES: NUMBER OF ORGANISATION UNITS (U) (HORIZONTAL AXIS) AND NUMBER OF HIERARCHICAL LEVELS (UH) (VERTICAL AXIS) Source: Own elaboration. However, if we analyse the MFAs with diverging data sets available separately, we can find out the most concentrated organisational structure of MFAs in Austria*, Denmark* and Hungary*, as well as in Malta, Estonia and Finland. The opposite goes for Poland, Slovakia and Germany, as well as for Ireland*, Belgium* and Italy*. We can see that the countries with more hierarchical MFAs are relatively smaller and that there is a substantial share of NMS amongst the countries with the most decentralized organisational structures (see figures 1 and 2). 32 The problem with the comparison of the relative Fc comes from the fact that the data on sub- directorate/sector level are not available for all MFAs (*) and that the MFAs, where this data are not available, feature a higher Fc. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 60 FIGURE 2: THE MFFS OF THE EU MEMBER STATES BY FACTOR OF CONCENTRATION (FC) Source: Own elaboration. Another way to look at the relative concentration of the MFAs structure is to take as relevant the data dealing with organisation units positioned at the level of directorates/departments or higher. Of course such kind of perspective creates its own bias, since organisational structures typically become more extensive and diverse at lower levels of hierarchy. However, the comparison between the upper ends of hierarchies also gives us additional perspective on the segmentation of MFAs organisational structures, where in our case the highest centralisation can be found in Finland (Fc=0.44), Lithuania (Fc=0.43) and Estonia (Fc=0.43), while the most dispersed MFAs are the Polish (Fc=0.12), German (Fc=0.13), Latvian (Fc=0.24) and Irish (Fc=0.24). In comparison with the general Fc, average Fc of the upper-end is for 0.1 point higher. This can be explained by the fact that concentration typically increases when we approach the upper-end of the hierarchy. TABLE 3: THE UPPER END ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES: NUMBER OF ORGANISATION UNITS (U), NUMBER OF HIERARCHICAL LEVELS (UH) AND FACTOR OF CONCENTRATION (FC) **Partial data. Source: Own elaboration. Generally speaking, the ranking of the individual MFAs in accordance with the Fc of the upper hierarchical level does not differ much from the ranking in accordance with the general Fc that takes into account all the organisation units (on which data is available), thus supporting the upper findings regarding the position of individual MFAs. Whatsoever, the most evident divergence in MFA rankings based on the two Fc can be found in cases of Lithuania (Fc=0.15/0.43), Netherlands (Fc=0.14/0.38) and Latvia (Fc=0.17/0.24). Diverging rankings demonstrate that in the Dutch and Lithuanian case the MFAs the leadership structure is much more centralised than the rest of the organisation, and that in the case of Latvia, the leadership structure is relatively dispersed (table 4 and figures 3, 4). JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 61 FIGURE 3: THE UPPER END ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES OF THE MFFS OF EU MEMBER STATES: NUMBER OF ORGANISATION UNITS (U) (HORIZONTAL AXIS) AND NUMBER OF HIERARCHICAL LEVELS (UH) (VERTICAL AXIS) Source: Own elaboration. FIGURE 4: THE UPPER END ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES BY FACTOR OF CONCENTRATION (FC) Source: Own elaboration. Political leadership structures In an average MFA, political leadership structures account for a little more than half of all units located in the upper end of organisation hierarchy (directorate level or higher). The share of the organisation units, constituting the political leadership structures, in the total number of units, located at upper level of organisational structures of the MFAs, is the highest in case of Lithuania (100 %), Latvia (76 %) and Germany (61 %), meaning that in these countries, political leadership structures of the MFAs are the strongest. However, the smallest are in the case of Luxemburg (20 %), Ireland (24 %) and Estonia (29). With some exceptions, such as Lithuania and Latvia, in the MFAs of the larger EU member states, political leadership structures tempt to be stronger. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 62 TABLE 4: THE SHARE OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP POST (PL) AND THE FACTOR OF POLITICAL MANDATE BASED LEADERSHIP POSTS (FP) IN ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES OF THE MFFS OF EU MEMBER STATES **Partial data. Source: Own elaboration. In almost all MFAs, the share of political leadership posts that are bound with the political mandate is higher than 50 %. The share of posts in the political leadership structures of the MFAs (Factor of political posts–Fp) is the strongest in case of Sweden, Luxemburg, Lithuania, Italy and Cyprus, with the absolute value of Fp=1, which means that these countries bound the whole political leadership structure with a political mandate. On the other end of the spectrum are the MFAs located in Latvia (Fp=0.46), Poland (Fp=0.5) and Denmark (Fp=0.5), where the role of political leadership structures that are bound with a political mandate is weaker. The MFAs located in smaller member states are characterised by lower shares of political mandate. FIGURE 5: THE SHARE OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP POST (PL) (HORIZONTAL AXIS) AND THE FACTOR OF POLITICAL MANDATE BASED LEADERSHIP POSTS (FP) (VERTICAL AXIS) IN ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES OF THE MFAS OF 28 EU MEMBER STATES Source: Own elaboration. In addition, there seems to be a weak negative correlation between the relative strength of political leadership structures and posts bound with political mandates, demonstrating that to a certain extent, more extensive political leadership structures and stronger political mandate based leadership represent alternative types of organisation of leadership structures (more in table 4 and figure 5). JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 63 Policy areas in institutional focus In large majority of the MFAs, it is possible to identify organisation units entitled to political (P), economic (E), global (G) and regional (R) affairs. The exception to this trend is a lack of individual organisation unit that would explicitly deal with economic issues, which is evident in cases of Bulgaria*, Croatia and Hungary*. It is worth noting that in two of the cases mentioned (*), data on the organisation units on the sub-directorate/sector level is not available. On the average, the relation between political and economic issues on the one hand, and between global and regional on the other, is balanced, meaning that the distribution of organisation units between the two pairs of focus areas is, mathematically speaking, almost perfect. TABLE 5: POLICY AREAS IN FOCUS OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES *Partial data (data on sub-directorate/sector level not available) Source: Own elaboration. The relative institutional focus on political issues (F(E, P, G, R)) is the strongest with the MFAs of Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary (FE=0), while the relative focus on economic issues is apparent in the MFAs of Slovenia (FE=0.82), Lithuania (FE=0.67) and Poland (FE=0.65). In the group of countries where the focus on political issues is the strongest, there is a substantial number of “southern” EU member states and in the group of countries, where economic issues are relatively more important, there is a large number of NMS located in Central and Eastern Europe. The relative institutional focus on global issues is, as expected, the most evident in Sweden (FG=0.81), followed by Germany (FG=0.75) and, surprisingly, the Czech Republic (FG=0.68), while Irish (FG=0.08), Austrian (FG=0.15), Hungarian (FG=0.25) and Luxemburgish (FG=0.25) MFAs focus mostly on neighbouring/regional affairs. The global perspective is much more common with the “northern” EU member states, while in the group of countries with predominantly regional foreign policy focus, relatively smaller EU member states prevail. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 64 TABLE 6: THE BALANCE BETWEEN POLITICAL-ECONOMIC AND GLOBAL-REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICY FOCUS OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES Source: Own elaboration. The analysis revealed also some other characteristics of the structure of the 28 national MFAs. The first is that there is a significant relation between economic- global component of national MFAs, visible in extremis in “northern” EU member states. 33 On the other hand the “regional-political” profile, which is in the 28 MFAs structure less apparent, prevails in smaller and “southern” EU member states. Furthermore, it can be noticed that greater divergence in political or economic focus appears with the MFAs located in NMS while, in contrast, relatively more diverging positions regarding regional or global focus appear with the MFFs located in the old member states (see tables 5, 6 and figure 6). FIGURE 6: RELATIVE POLITICAL-ECONOMIC (HORIZONTAL AXIS) AND REGIONAL-GLOBAL (VERTICAL AXIS) INSTITUTIONAL POLICY FOCUS OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES Source: Own elaboration. The MFAs with the strongest relative institutional focus on political and economic issues are located in Luxemburg (political: 47 %; economic: 27 %), Denmark (political: 26 %; economic: 33 %) and Estonia (political: 31 %; 33 The “economic-global” institutional profile is much more apparent than the alternative “political-regional” institutional profile. The MFAs, which are strongly characterized by the “economic-global” profile, are located in Sweden (economic: 30 %; global: 40 %), the Czech Republic (economic: 21 %; global: 43 %), Germany (economic: 12 %; global: 51 %) and Slovenia (economic: 29 %; global: 29 %), i.e. in the “northern” member states and Central and East European NMS. The alternative to the “economic- global” profile would be the “regional” institutional profile, which is the most accentuated in cases of the MFAs located in Croatia (60 %), Hungary (60 %), Ireland (57 %) and Austria (46 %). JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 65 economic 27 %), while the MFAs with the strongest relative focus on global and regional issues are located in Croatia (global: 30 %; regional 60 %), Hungary (global: 20 %; regional: 60 %) and Italy (global: 22 %; regional 50 %). The MFAs with relatively stronger political-economic focus are more likely to be found in smaller and “northern” member states and the MFAs with relatively stronger global-regional focus are more likely to be found in the “southern” member states (see table 7 and figure 7). TABLE 7: RELATIVE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, GLOBAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICY FOCUS OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES Source: Own elaboration. FIGURE 7: RELATIVE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, GLOBAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONAL POLICY FOCUS OF THE MFAS OF EU MEMBER STATES 5 DISCUSSION: NEW MEMBER STATES STAND OUT FROM THE COMMON TRENDS The empirical analysis of the concentration in organisational structures of the MFAs of EU member states demonstrates that the MFAs with more extensive and decentralised organisational structures tempt to be located in larger EU member states. Such an outcome should not come as a surprise, since the bigger countries are typically more involved in larger number of international issues 34 and have the resources that are required for the 34 Ana Bojinović Fenko and Boštjan Udovič. “Zaključek”, in Pax Franca, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Sinica?: primerjalna analiza zunanje politike velikih sil in držav s hitro rastočimi gospodarstvi, ed. Ana Bojinović Fenko (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2011), 221–226. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 66 institutional specialisation, 35 which is then reflected in the more dispersed organisational structure. Notable exceptions to this trend are several NMS located in Central and Eastern Europe which organisational structures also tempt to be relatively extensive and decentralised. There are several possible explanations for that observation, ranging from the socialist legacy of inflated institutional organisation to the early attempts to set up the MFAs covering all major fields in international relations after being able to establish their sovereign foreign policies for the first time. 36 Regarding the political leadership structures the analysis shows that the MFAs with political leadership structures that turn out to be relatively strong when compared to the whole of the top level hierarchies are typically located in bigger EU member states. One possible explanation for this correlation may lie in the fact that in order to establish efficient political control over the MFAs that are typically more extensive and decentralized, larger EU member states try to concentrate the decision-making power in the leadership structures of the MFAs. Such an explanation would support the theoretical argument that extensive and specialised organisational structures do come with a price with regard to their ability to accommodate to the changes in outside pressures. 37 Interestingly a similar pattern can be found among the NMS, which can be explained by the case of socialist legacy and central line of command instituted by previous regime. Once again, a notable exception to the trend of bigger and better controlled MFAs located in bigger member states is a substantial number of the MFAs characterized by stronger leadership structures located in the NMS. The reason why political leadership structures are as well stronger in NMS may also come from the constrained political control due to the larger size and complexity of the MFAs. Furthermore, it is worth noting that – to some extent – strong political leadership structures and larger share of posts that are bound with political mandate represent alternative ways of the organisation of political leadership structures. Finally, the conducted analysis revealed also a correlation between the MFAs with a relatively strong focus on the economic and global issues. Such MFAs are more frequent in the “northern” part of Europe, while the political- regional group is present (but less significant) in the southern geographical part of Europe and among smaller EU member states. While the “global- economic” institutional profile of the “northern” EU member states can be explained by the available resources as well as by their ability to draw on the global engagement, 38 the “political-regional” institutional profile is more typical for the MFAs from countries with better opportunities to exploit particular characteristics they share with the other countries, such as geographical proximity, ethnical diasporas or specific issue areas. In addition to the “northern” member states, a substantial number of the MFAs characterised by “global-economic” institutional profile can be found in NMS. This unusual trend can perhaps also be explained by the early attempts of the NMS to adopt the most “progressive” foreign policy profiles. 39 35 See Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21 st century (The Netherlands: Clingendael, 2012); Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp, “Whither Foreign Ministries in a Post-Western World,” Clingendael Policy Brief, 20 th April 2013. 36 Dimitrij Rupel, Skrivnost države (Ljubljana: Delo, 1992); Milan Brglez, ibid.; 37 Jonathan R. Tompkins, Organization theory and public management (Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005). 38 Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, Understanding international relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). 39 Milan Brglez, “The importance of United Nations for the development of Slovenian foreign policy”, in 20 year of Slovenian UN membership, ed. Božo Cerar, Marcel Koprol and Andrej Kirn (Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve in CEP, 2012), 53–55; Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 67 Furthermore, if the MFAs from the ‘old’ EU member states more typically differ with regard to the relative regional/global policy focus, in case of the MFAs from the NMS, greater divergence arises with regard to the relative political/economic focus. This empirical observation seems to support the argument that the NMS have tried to shape their foreign policy profiles from the outside in. 40 To conclude, the analysis of the empirical data demonstrates that the proposed distinctive characteristics of the organisational structures of the MFAs enable us to observe varieties in institutional profiles of the MFAs located in individual member states, which both support general theoretical arguments with regard to the organisational structure as a dependent variable and point to the potential role played by the organisational structure as an independent variable. However, in order to be able to make more detailed comparisons between the individual MFFs/variables, the quality of the data set should be further improved by crosschecking the comparability of the individual categories of data on organisational structures through structured interviews with ministry officials. REFERENCES Bandelj, Nina. “Negotiating neo-liberalism: free-market reform in Central and Eastern Europe.” In Globalization and transformations of local socio- economic practices, ed. Ulrike Schuerkens. New York: Routledge, 2008. Bayne, Nicholas and Stephen Woolcock. The new economic diplomacy: decision-making and negotiation in international economic relations. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. Beach, Derek. Analyzing foreign policy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Benko, Vlado. Znanost o mednarodnih odnosih. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 1997. Bojinović Fenko, Ana. Premoščanje ločnice med proučevanjem mednarodnih odnosov in zunanje politike: primer mednarodnega regionalizma. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2010. Bojinović Fenko, Ana and Boštjan Udovič. “Zaključek.” In Pax Franca, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana, Pax Sinica?: primerjalna analiza zunanje politike velikih sil in držav s hitro rastočimi gospodarstvi, ed. Ana Bojinović Fenko. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2011. Brglez, Milan. The importance of United Nations for the development of Slovenian foreign policy.” In 20 year of Slovenian UN membership, eds. Božo Cerar, Marcel Koprol and Andrej Kirn. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve in CEP, 2012. Brown, Chris and Kirsten Ainley. Understanding international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Bučar, Bojko. “Universalism and regionalism in Slovenian foreign policy.” Teorija in praksa, 29, 5/6 (1992): 484–490. Dimovski, Vlado, Sandra Penger, Miha Škerlavaj and Jana Žnidaršič. Učeča se organizacija: ustvarite podjetje znanja. Ljubljana: GV založba, 2005. Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21 st century (The Netherlands: Clingendael, 2012); Boštjan Udovič, “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs”. Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8 th October 2013.; Ana Bojinović Fenko, Premoščanje ločnice med proučevanjem mednarodnih odnosov in zunanje politike: primer mednarodnega regionalizma (Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2010). 40 Nina Bandelj, “Negotiating neo-liberalism: free-market reform in Central and Eastern Europe,” in Globalization and transformations of local socio-economic practices, ed. Ulrike Schuerkens (New York: Routledge, 2008), 46–74. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 68 Haček, Miro. Politiki in visoki javni uslužbenci: kdo vlada?. Ljubljana, Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2009. Hettne, Björn, András Inotai and Osvaldo Sunkel (ed.). Globalism and the new regionalism. Houndmills: Macmillan Press; New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999. Hocking, Brian, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp. Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st century. The Netherlands: Clingendael, 2012. Hocking, Brian, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp. “Whither Foreign Ministries in a Post-Western World.” Clingendael Policy Brief, 20th April 2013. Kajnč, Sabina. Razvoj evropske zunanje politike: od evropskega političnega sodelovanja do evropske varnostne in obrambne politike. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2008. Kestelyn, Jennifer. “Belgian Multinationals and Public-Private Partnerships in Economic Diplomacy.” Hague Journal of Diplomacy, forthcoming. Kettl, F. Donald and James W. Fesler. The politics of the administrative process. Washington: CQ, 2005. Lee, Donna and David Hudson. “The old and new significance of political economy in diplomacy.” Review of international studies 30 (2004): 343– 360. Petrič, Ernest. Foreign policy: from conception to diplomatic practice. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2013. Potemkin, Vladimir. Zgodovina diplomacije, 1. zvezek. Ljubljana: DZS, 1947. Ruël, Huub and Lennart Zuidema. The Effectiveness of Commercial Diplomacy: A Survey among Dutch Embassies and Consulates. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2012. Rupel, Dimitrij. Skrivnost države. Ljubljana: Delo, 1992. Steiner, H. Barry. “Diplomacy and international theory.” Review of international studies, 30, 4 (2004): 493–509. Tompinks, R. Jonathan. Organization theory and public management. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. Udovič, Boštjan. Ekonomska in gospodarska diplomacija. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, 2009. Udovič, Boštjan. “Central-European Intra-Slavic Diplomacy: A comparative approach.” Journal of Comparative Politics, 4, 1 (2011): 31–51. Udovič, Boštjan. “Je diplomacija prvenstveno (le) politična?.” Družboslovne razprave, 28, 69 (2012): 7–24. Udovič, Boštjan. “Modern ministries of Foreign Affairs.” Lecture held at Faculty of Social Sciences, 8th October 2013. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 92 TOWARDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTIONAL PROFILES OF MINISTRIES OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: THE CASE OF EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES PROTI VZPOSTAVITVI INSTITUCIONALNIH OKVIRJEV MINISTRSTEV ZA ZUNANJE ZADEVE: PRIMER DRŽAV ČLANIC EVROPSKE UNIJE Boštjan UDOVIČ in Marko LOVEC ………………………………………………………………………………… Značilnosti institucionalne organizacije ministrstev za zunanje zadeve omogočajo refleksijo splošnih pogojev, ki vplivajo tako na delovanje zunanjih ministrstev kot tudi na institucionalne profile, ki določajo zunanje politike v posameznih državah. Z namenom določitve razlik in vzorcev institucionalnih profilov ministrstev za zunanje zadeve pričujoč članek analizira vertikalno in horizontalno koncentracijo v njihovih organizacijskih strukturah, vlogo njihovih vodstev, ki temeljijo na političnem mandatu, in razmerje med temeljnimi področji zunanje politike. V empiričnem delu prispevka primerjamo ministrstva za zunanje zadeve 28 držav članic Evropske unije. Članek zaključujemo z refleksijo empiričnih in teoretskih implikacij predlaganih značilnosti institucionalnih profilov. Ključne besede: ministrstva za zunanje zadeve, organizacijske strukture, Evropska unija, države članice.