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

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

Politics or management? Analysing differences in local implementation performance of the EU Ambient Air Quality directive

As far as local governments are responsible for the practical implementation of many European Union (EU) policies, they codetermine member states’ EU compliance records and the fate of EU legislation. Yet, they do so in remarkably different ways, as exemplified by the variegated implementation of the Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC by Dutch municipalities. Taking guidance from the literature on EU compliance, in this article we explain the differences in local implementation performance based on the political and managerial approaches. Understanding which of the two approaches drives different local responses to EU policy bears consequences for the appropriate remedy for nonimplementation. Four municipalities were purposefully selected along with the two-by-two implementation performance scoring matrix in the realm of air quality. A comparative within-case analysis specifies how political explanations outweigh managerial explanations in accounting for variation in implementation performance and distils ‘policy saliency’ as the driving causal mechanism