More than an add-on? The Europeanization of the Dutch civil service

[From the introduction]. European integration does not stop to fascinate political scientists. Many of us are excited about this institution that transcends national interests, overcomes collective action problems, and presents member states with such a durable and authoritative framework that they slowly but unrecognizably loose authority to model their own policies as desired. But does it? Despite our excitement, many of us have troubles escaping the reflexes caused by the years of international relations hegemony in studying the EU. Does the EU really have the clout to force member states to adopt unwanted policies? Then how about the never-ending stories about non-compliance, the European Commission’s hesitance in adopting a tough stance on reluctant member states, the difficulties of monitoring actual application and enforcement on the ground? The tension between member state dominance and supranational control continues to offer a well of fascinating research topics. In order to demonstrate the success of the EU in transcending member states’ institutions and policies, or even the domestic interests underlying them, we are advised to answer at least three questions. First, we should answer the question of the extent to which Europe matters for the member states. Because even if we can identify compliance by initially reluctant member states, this may not be very meaningful if the EU’s share in national matters is only minimal. Even though interesting from a theoretical viewpoint, the societal relevance of massive research attempts to explain the fate of EU intervention in member states is slight when it affects only a minimal terrain of national policy making. Second, we should try to answer the question to what extent any processes of Europeanization we observe are truly affecting the core of what member states are doing or are just added on to existing structures and policies. That is, if we believe that the EU really is capable of overriding member state concerns, the adaptations made by member states should be far from ‘easy’. The adoption of coordination structures, for instance, is an interesting phenomenon, but it does not constitute evidence of the EU’s transformative effect as coordination structures may simply be added on to existing organizational arrangements and can perfectly well co-exist with domestic institutions that were already out there. Finally, we should answer the question of how the European Union impacts on member states. Under what conditions does the EU succeed in bringing about domestic change, and when do member states carry on their business as usual

Perspectives on Better Regulation in the EU. ZEI Discussion Paper C256 2019

For most people concerned with ensuring good governance, “Better Regulation” (BR) sounds like a nigh irresistible proposition. This is especially so when combined with a governmental pledge to be “big on big things, small on small things." Under different names, the core ideas behind BR have in fact been on the European agenda for several decades already. Initially, the recipes were formulated with relative ease, undergoing repeated refinements and adjustments over the years. As always, however, the proof of the pudding remains entirely in the eating: what have been the achievements of the BR program? Still today, alas, it does not seem appropriate to unfold a “mission accomplished!” banner

Going Nordic in European Administrative Networks?

The integration and policymaking of the European Union (EU) are claimed to challenge Nordic cooperation as a separate ‘common order.’ Increasing interdependencies in the EU have forced all EU member states to collaborate and share sovereignty in an increasing number of policy areas. This article studies the coexistence of Nordic cooperation and European integration by taking a network approach. It analyses the extent to which Nordic members of European Administrative Networks ‘go Nordic’ to solve problems or exchange advice, information and best practices. Based on unique survey data on interactions related to the implementation of EU policies in Social Policy, Health and the Internal Market by national governmental organisations across the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), we use social network analysis to test for distinguishable patterns of Nordic cooperation. We find evidence to suggest that Nordic cooperation in the EU and EEA is best characterised by differentiated integration. The Nordic states tend to form a separate community for problem-solving and exchanging best practices, advice and information in Health and Social policy networks, but less so in SOLVIT, a network related to the Internal Market

The politics of compliance : explaining the transposition of EC directives in the Netherlands

The EU suffers from an implementation deficit. Member states often do not comply with EU policies, which in turn hampers the process of European integration. This book documents the problem with the timely transposition of EU directives. It explores the size and the causes of the transposition deficit for the case of the Netherlands. Using a mixed methods design, it critically assesses the explanatory value of several legal and administrative factors, as well as the goodness of fit and several hypotheses flowing from rationalism and constructivism. The main conclusion of this work is that the Netherlands suffers from a structural problem with timely transposition. Domestic politics play an important role in explaining transposition problems. In theorizing these ‘politics of compliance’, we should not limit our analyses to substantive conflicts but also include the procedural politics that often surround the process of Europeanization.LEI Universiteit LeidenThe politics and administration of institutional change - ou

How European administrative networks aid the implementation and enforcement of EU policies

European Administrative Networks are networks of national actors who interact to improve the implementation and enforcement of EU policies. Drawing on new research, Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Reini Schrama and Ellen Mastenbroek illustrate the role and structure of these networks, together with some of their key limitations

Innovationen in Organisationen historisch betrachtet

Der Autor betrachtet den Wandel von Organisationen und ihre Netzwerkstruktur aus einer historischen Perspektive. Die wechselseitige Verknüpfung der miteinander verbundenen Einheiten lässt sich seiner Meinung nach als Balance zwischen Abhängigkeit und Selbstständigkeit sowie zwischen Steuerung und Selbstorganisation charakterisieren. Dabei zeigt sich gerade im historischen Rückblick, dass ein höheres Niveau von Selbststeuerung und Selbstständigkeit insgesamt eine angemessenere Steuerung ermöglicht, die stets zum Wettbewerbsvorteil der Organisation beiträgt. Der Autor untersucht die Bedingungen des organisatorischen Erfolgs und identifiziert dabei eine langwährende, zyklisch verlaufende Pendelbewegung zwischen Zentralisation und Dezentralisation des Entscheidungs- und Führungshandelns. Er geht ferner auf militärische Verbände als älteste Großorganisationen der Welt und auf industrielle Organisationen im Frühkapitalismus ein. Weitere Ausführungen beziehen sich auf organisatorische Innovationen als Management von Dualität, die Mobilisierung von Wettbewerbsvorteilen und auf die Bedeutung des Change-Managements. Der Autor verdeutlicht seine Ausführungen anhand von Fallbeispielen der Kundenorientierung und der Kostenreduktion aus der unternehmerischen Praxis. (ICI2