Claudio M. Radaelli

Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy

The paper examines public policy in the European Union (EU) by drawing upon the conceptual framework of policy transfer, which has been recently refined by comparativists, and the concept of isomorphism developed within organizational theory. Three case studies of EU policy transfer - namely monetary policy, tax policy, and media ownership policy - are discussed and compared for assessing the potential of isomorphism for the analysis of policy diffusion. The author argues that European institutions, which have a serious political limitation in terms of legitimacy, stimulate policy transfer by catalysing isomorphic processes which diffuse throughout the EU national policy solutions to collective problems. By contrast, policy transfer is severely constrained when there are no national cases to be imitated. In this circumstance, however, European institutions, most notably the European Commission, can overcome the problem by ‘inseminating’ solutions into national political systems.

Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

Since the mid-1980s, the European Union, together with its member states, has undergone a major process of transformation. First with the race to the single market by 1992, then with the run-up to European Monetary Union (EMU) by 1999, and now with enlargement, the EU has seen an explosion of new policies with a panoply of new practices in the context of an expanding European economy and an emerging European polity. In attempting to describe, understand and explain the EU’s transformative experiences, the study of policy change in Europe has also undergone dramatic transformation. Empirically, from an almost exclusive focus on European integration, that is, on the process of building a European space in terms of EU-level policies, practices and politics, scholars have added a concern with Europeanisation, that is, with the impact of European integration on member state policies, practices and politics. Conceptually, on top of the ‘first generation’ studies centred on explaining the process of formation of a European sphere, where scholarly debates divided over whether the EU was fundamentally intergovernmental or neo-functionalist and, more recently, liberal intergovernmentalist, supranational, multi-level, or network-based, we now have a ‘second generation’ of studies that concentrates instead on the process of national adjustment to the EU. These scholarly debates differ over which factors best explain policy change in the process of adjustment – whether external pressures and problems, the ‘fit’ between EU-level policies and national policy legacies and preferences, actors’ problem-solving capacity in a given political-institutional setting, or ideas and discourse (see Heritier 2001; Cowles et al. 2001; Featherstone and Radaelli 2003). Methodologically, the study of European policy change has also become increasingly split among those who emphasise interest-based rationality and game-theoretic behaviour; institutional path-dependencies and historically-shaped patterns of development; social constructions of action, culture and identity; or, most recently, ideas and discourse.

The public policy of the European Union: whither politics of expertise?

The role of expertise in European public policy has become the object of a passionate debate. On the one hand, it has been argued that knowledge, in various guises, can foster learning, enlightenment, problem-solving attitudes, and policy change. On the other, the public policy of the European Union (EU) is in the firing line because of its technocratic bias. However, what is meant by technocracy in the case of the EU? How can political scientists be fascinated by the positive input of knowledge, and, at the same time, horrified by technocratic policy-making? The aim of this article is to tackle this puzzle by suggesting a conceptual framework. Concepts such as technocracy, epistemic communities, and bureaucratic politics refer to different modes of the politics of expertise. Empirically, they should be contrasted with the logic of politicization. Case studies discussed in this article suggest that the power of expertise is being counterbalanced by politicization. The conclusion is that the main challenge...

Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda

ABSTRACT The initiatives for regulatory reform known as ‘better regulation’ have become a priority in the recently reformulated ‘growth and jobs’ Lisbon agenda of the European Union. But what is better regulation and what can it deliver? In this article, better regulation is identified as a new type of meta-regulation, with its structural and discursive properties. Better regulation discourse has enabled policy-makers to address different objectives in their shifting regulatory reform agendas. The better regulation pendulum has swung between regulatory quantity (or deregulation) and quality across time and space. In terms of structural properties, there is diversity across Europe in terms of actors, contents, and processes, although an embryonic open method of co-ordination is emerging at the EU level. The Barroso Commission and a number of member states have redefined discourse and structure of better regulation to adapt it to the ‘growth and jobs’ priorities of Lisbon. This redefinition, however, has narrowed the scope, the range of stakeholders, and the ambitions in terms of governance. Diversity, task expansion and better regulation rhetoric make the relationship between this type of meta-regulation, the Lisbon agenda, and, looking at the long-term impact, the dynamics of the regulatory state problematic.

Systematising Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions

The field of policy learning is characterised by concept stretching and a lack of systematic findings. To systematise them, we combine the classic Sartorian approach to classification with the more recent insights on explanatory typologies, distinguishing between the genus and the different species within it. By drawing on the technique of explanatory typologies to introduce a basic model of policy learning, we identify four major genera in the literature. We then generate variation within each cell by using rigorous concepts drawn from adult education research. By looking at learning through the lenses of knowledge utilisation, we show that the basic model can be expanded to reveal sixteen different species. These types are all conceptually possible, but are not all empirically established in the literature. Our reconstruction of the field sheds light on mechanisms and relations associated with alternative operationalisations of learning and the role of actors in the process of knowledge construction and utilisation. By providing a comprehensive typology, we mitigate concept-stretching problems and lay the foundations for the systematic comparison across and within cases of policy learning.

Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in Europe

Do analytic approaches to policy appraisal, specifically regulatory impact assessment (RIA), enable complex organizations to learn? To answer this question, this article distinguishes between types of learning (instrumental, legitimacy-seeking emulation, and political), spells out their micro-foundations, and formulates expectations about evidence drawing on the literature on knowledge utilization. Findings from Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the EU corroborate emulation and to some extent political learning rather than instrumental learning. The conclusions explain why some types of learning prevail over others.

Europeanization: Solution or Problem?

Some years ago, Simon Hix and Klaus Goetz (2001, 15) observed that ‘Europeanisation has all the hallmarks of an emergent field of inquiry’. The field has now come of age. It is now time to take stock of what has been done so far.1

Europeanization, Policy Learning, and New Modes of Governance

Abstract Can a learning-based mode of governance, specifically the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), facilitate Europeanization? The argument is that, in policy areas where the Treaty base for European Union policy is thin or non-existent or where diverging political views hinder the development of law, modes of governance based on Councils guidelines, the co-ordination of national action plans, peer review of reforms, systematic benchmarking, performance indicators, and governance processes open to the regional-local level and the civil society produce convergence towards the EU goals and ultimately Europeanization without the need to create new EU legislation. By comparing evidence from the most mature OMC processes, this article finds that the relationship between learning, policy change, and Europeanization can break down at several points, and that evidence of learning is limited. This is due to deficiencies in the design of the OMC, the lack of participation, and the political/institutional complexities of learning in the EU context.

THE POLICY AND POLITICS OF POLICY APPRAISAL: EMERGING TRENDS AND NEW DIRECTIONS

Over the last 20 years, policy appraisal has emerged as a popular topic for discussion amongst policy-makers and academics alike. Much research effort has been devoted to developing tools and techniques to inform appraisal activities, but there has been, until recently, a distinct paucity of research on what might be termed the ‘policy and politics’ of policy appraisal. This is surprising, since policy appraisal is undoubtedly an important site of political behaviour, with its own institutions, instruments and policy actors. This paper takes stock of recent research on policy appraisal, draws out some common threads, and makes some suggestions for future research on what is a rapidly expanding field of European public policy analysis.

Harmful Tax Competition in the EU: Policy Narratives and Advocacy Coalitions

This article investigates the dynamics of the European Union (EU) direct tax policy process by drawing attention to the political power of policy narratives in the context of the advocacy coalition framework. The narrative of harmful tax competition has been a political instrument for rekindling interest in a neglected policy area. Narratives do not operate in a political vacuum, however. Forum politics and the evolution of the policy environment have facilitated the emergence of harmful tax competition as main paradigm in EU direct tax policy. By representing itself not as a component of an advocacy coalition, but as a forum for intergovernmental deliberation, the Commission has curbed adversarial politics and created the preconditions for the adoption of tax proposals. The conclusions discuss the theoretical implications for the advocacy coalition framework.