The choice for EU theorists: Establishing a common framework for analysis

European Union (EU) studies have entered a highly contentious and, arguably, creative phase. A range of theoretical perspectives, seemingly quite highly differentiated from one another, now compete for influence and lsquospacersquo. However, the questions remain: is EU studies developing theories which are truly competing theories? Or is it developing theories that do not compete so much as they aim to explain distinctly different pieces of the EU puzzle? This paper responds directly to these two questions, while reviewing recent literature on EU governance. It argues, first, that we lack theories of EU governance that are true rivals; and, second, that leading models explain different outcomes at different levels in a multi-level system of governance. The result is somewhat phoney debates between compatible theories masquerading as rivals, and between lsquocomparative politicsrsquo and lsquointernational relationsrsquo approaches. Above all, perhaps, we find middle range theories posing as general or lsquometa-theoriesrsquo. In the absence of a plausible general theory of EU governance, theorists must choose precisely which type of outcome theywish to explain

Same effects in different worlds : the transposition of EU directives

This study examines variation in the timing of national transposition of European Union (EU) directives. It specifically addresses the central proposition of the worlds of compliance typology. The proposition is that the direction of the effects of key explanatory variables of compliance, such as the fit between new EU directives and existing national arrangements, differs by cultural context or ‘world of compliance’. Contrary to this proposition, the findings indicate that the direction of the effects is the same in different cultural contexts. The present study uses arguably the best information available on compliance, from Falkner et al.'s (2005) Complying with Europe study. This is also the information from which the worlds of compliance typology was at least partly derived. As such, this study offers a ‘most likely’ test of the typology. In addition to refuting the worlds of compliance typology, the findings support several expectations about variation in timely transposition from the existing literature