Under Construction @ Keele 2019 summer 2019, vol 5 issue 1 | Page 22

domains. In terms of immigration policy, of particular importance is the examination of actors,
governments, national and supranational institutions, and the role they play in the policy-
making process. In order to effectively explain these policy developments, both frameworks
consider the various dimension’s immigration covers (from security, foreign affairs, and social
policies, for example), and considers its interdisciplinary nature given the fact that
immigration policy is a shared competence.
Givens and Luedtke assert EU immigration policy developments as arising from
domestic politics and national immigration policies, aligning itself with a LIG approach. Their
framework rests on three main LIG principles. The first is preference formation. They
emphasise the importance of the general public, political parties and organisers of societal
cleavages in the agenda-setting process. 4 The second is intergovernmental bargaining:
member states use the EU level to enhance their sovereignty. 5 The third is institutional choice.
The authors suggest that issues of high political salience, such as control policy and involving
Third County Nationals (TCNs), are only partially harmonized and as a result, claim that the
powers of EU institutions to be limited. 6 Furthermore, they reference the works of Andrew
Moravcsik in their mostly ‘state-centric’, ‘bottom-up’ International Relations inspired
framework. 7 Menz’s approach is more forceful and far less analytically rigorous. He argues
that an understanding of external control policy development relies on a ‘patchwork’ of
government initiatives and EU endeavours, resonating with a RCI approach. 8 He attaches
importance to the Commission as a mechanism for ‘channelling’ and ‘constraining’ member
4
Givens and Luedtke, “The Politics of the European Union,” 150.
Givens and Luedtke, “The Politics of the European Union,” 151.
6
Givens and Luedtke, “The Politics of the European Union,” 160.
7
Givens and Luedtke, “The Politics of the European Union,” 149.
8
Menz, “The promise of principal-agent approach,” 317.
5
15