Table I

Factor Analysis of Attitude Indicators for Commission Officials

Factor I:Commission Clienteles: Eurofonctionnaires versus Responsive Euroservants

Factor II: Objectives: Political-Regulators versus Market-Liberals

Factor III: Political Architecture: Intergovernmentalists versus Supranationalists

Table II

Distribution of Commission officials on each dimension (%)**

* Scale from 1-5; Neutral Value=3

** Calculated on the basis of factor scores generated by the factor analysis. The categories are created by dividing the range in five equal parts.

Table III

Political Regulation or Market Liberalism (%)

* Range between 1 (No) and 4 (Yes); neutral position = 2.5

Table IV

Intergovernmentalism or Supranationalism (%)**

* Range between 1 (No) and 4 (Yes); neutral position = 2.5

** Item 4, 6 and 7 are reversed to facilitate comparison with other items, which are phrased to solicit approval from intergovernmentalists.

Appendix

Indicators for Factor Analysis

Objectives: Political-Regulators versus Market-Liberals. The indicators focus primarily on general (item 1) and specific (2,3,4) socio-economic values. Political-Regulators and Market-Liberals differ also in political strategy, tested with general (5) and specific (6,7) items. Six of the seven indicators (exception item 4 on the internal market) are worded so that Political-Regulators are expected to agree with them.

Architecture: Intergovernmentalists versus Supranationalists. Items 8, 9 and 10 tap into where the locus of political control should be: member states or Commission. Two other items have to do with whether Europe should be technocratic or democratic (item 11 and 7). While three indicators should elicit support from Intergovernmentalists, item 10 and 7 should provoke dissension.

Clienteles: Eurofonctionnaires versus Responsive Euroservants. Four indicators focus on Commission cohesion (12,13,14,15). Item 16 and 17 tap into whether Commission or member states should set the agenda. All statements are worded to elicit support from Eurofonctionnaires.

1. Europe has developed a unique model of society, and the Commission should help to preserve it: extensive social services, civilized industrial relations, negotiated transfers among groups to sustain solidarity, and steer economic activity for the general welfare.
2. No united Europe without a mature European cohesion policy.
3. European Union policy is too much influenced by big business.
4. The Commission should concentrate on maintaining the internal market.
5. Europe should be more than a common market.
6. The Commission cannot function properly without a vision, a set of great priorities, a blueprint for the future.
7. The Commission should support the European Parliament's bid for full legislative powers, even if the price would be to lose its monopoly of initiative.
8. The member states, not the Commission nor the European Parliament, ought to remain the central pillars of the European Union.
9. The strength of Europe lies not in more power for Brussels, but in effective government at the lowest possible level.
10. It is imperative that the European Commission become the true government of the European Union.
11. The Commission should concentrate on administering things efficiently.
12. A Commission which tolerates this much infighting among its staff will eventually destroy itself.
13. Too many Commission civil servants let their nationality interfere in their professional judgments.
14. It hurts the Commission's legitimacy that certain DG's tend to be dominated by particular nationalities, such as agriculture by the French, competition by the Germans, regional policy by the Spanish, environment by the north...
15. Pressure groups and special interests, like trade unions, farmers organizations, industry, environmental lobbyists, and so on, disturb the proper working of European government.
16. The Commission acts too much as an administration, and not enough as the government of Europe.
17. The egoistic behavior of some member states threatens the very survival of the European project.