Tanja A. Börzel

Organizing Babylon - On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks

A ‘Babylonian’ variety of policy network concepts and applications can be found in the literature. Neither is there a common understanding of what policy networks actually are, nor has it been agreed whether policy networks constitute a mere metaphor, a method, an analytical tool or a proper theory. The aim of this article is to review the state of the art in the field of policy networks. Special attention is given to the German conception of policy networks which is different from the one predominant in the Anglo-Saxon literature. While British and American scholars usually conceive policy networks as a model of state/society relations in a given issue area, German works tend to treat policy networks as an alternative form of governance to hierarchy and market. It is argued that this conception of policy networks goes beyond serving as a mere analytical tool box for studying public policy-making. Yet, both the German and the Anglo-Saxon conception of policy networks face a common challenge: first, it still remains to be systematically shown that policy networks do not only exist but are really relevant to policy-making, and second, the problem of the ambiguity of policy networks has to be tackled, as policy networks can both enhance and reduce the efficiency and legitimacy of policy-making.

From Europeanisation to Diffusion: Introduction

This special issue explores to what extent policies and institutions of the European Union spread across different contexts. Are the EUs attempts to transfer its policies and institutions to accession and neighbourhood countries sustainable and effective? To what degree do other regions of the world emulate the EUs institutional features; what are the mechanisms of, and scope conditions for, their diffusion? This introduction provides the conceptual framework of the special issue. First, it specifies EU-related institutional change as the ‘dependent variable’. Second, it discusses how Europeanisation research and diffusion studies relate to each other and can be fruitfully combined to identify processes and mechanisms by which ideas and institutions of the EU spread. Third, we introduce scope conditions which are likely to affect domestic (or regional) change in response to the promotion or emulation of EU ideas and institutions.

Non-Compliance in the European Union. Pathology or Statistical Artifact?

Does the European Union have a compliance problem? This article argues that we have simply no evidence that the EU suffers from a serious compliance deficit which is claimed by the European Commission and academics alike. First, there are no data that measure the actual level of non-compliance in the EU member states. Second, the statistics published by the European Commission, which allow us to compare non-compliance between the different member states, are often not properly interpreted. If we control for changes in the Commissions enforcement strategy, on the one hand, and the rising items of legislation to be complied with as well as member states that have to comply, on the other hand, the level of non-compliance in the EU has not significantly increased over time. Moreover, non-compliance varies significantly and is focused on four particular member states that account for up to two-thirds of all violations of Community law.

Mind the gap! European integration between level and scope

Abstract Explaining the ‘task expansion’ of the European Community has been at the heart of neofunctionalism. While previous studies have focused on the transfer of competencies from the national to the European level, this paper also looks at the procedures according to which policy decisions are taken at the European level (scope). Distinguishing between scope and level reveals an interesting puzzle. It is common wisdom that the integration of external and internal security has seriously lagged behind. Since the Maastricht Treaty we have witnessed a significant task expansion of the EU into these two last bastions of national sovereignty. But while the achieved level of integration is rather similar, the scope of integration differs significantly. Justice and home affairs have subsequently been brought under the supranational framework of the first pillar. Common foreign and security policy and European defence policy, by contrast, are still firmly confined to the realm of intergovernmentalism. This disparity between level and scope of European integration poses a serious theoretical challenge–not only to neofunctionalism.

European Governance – Negotiation and Competition in the Shadow of Hierarchy

This article argues that the ‘nature of the EU beast’ is neither unique nor captured by a particular type of governance. Like its Member States, the EU features a combination of different forms of governance that cover the entire range between market and hierarchy. The analysis of this governance mix reveals several characteristics of the EU that have been largely overlooked in the literature. First, the EU relies heavily on hierarchy in the making of its policies. Its supranational institutions allow for the adoption and enforcement of legally binding decisions without the consent of (individual) Member States. Second, network governance, which systematically involves private actors, is hard to find. EU policies are largely formulated and implemented by public actors. Third, political competition has gained importance in European governance. Member States increasingly resort to mutual recognition and the open method of co-ordination where their heterogeneity renders harmonization difficult. The article shows that the EU mainly governs through inter- and transgovernmental negotiations and political competition between states and regions. Both forms of public-actor-based governance operate in the shadow of hierarchy cast by supranational institutions. This governance mix does not render the EU unique but still distinguishes it from both international institutions and national states.

Obstinate and Inefficient: Why Member States Do Not Comply With European Law

This article seeks to explain cross-country variation in noncompliance with European law. Although noncompliance has not significantly increased over time, some European Union member states violate European law more frequently than others.To account for the observed variance, the authors draw on three prominent approaches widely used in the compliance literature— enforcement, management, and legitimacy. They develop hypotheses for each of these approaches before combining them in theoretically consistent ways. They empirically test their hypotheses using a comprehensive data set of more than 6,300 violations of European law.The findings highlight the importance of combining the enforcement and management approaches. Powerful member states are most likely to violate European law, whereas the best compliers are small countries with efficient bureaucracies. Yet administrative capacity also matters for powerful member states. The United Kingdom is much more compliant than Italy, which commands similar political power but whose bureaucracy is far less efficient.

When Europeanisation Meets Diffusion: Exploring New Territory

The articles in this special issue find ample evidence for the EUs influence on domestic and regional institutions. Its impact is patchy, often shallow but certainly not spurious. This conclusion demonstrates that it is worthwhile to integrate the Europeanisation literature and its theoretical arguments into the larger literature on diffusion. But it also shows limits of the diffusion approaches in the social sciences which tend to privilege structure over agency and, as a result, tend to focus on institutional convergence and isomorphism rather than variation in institutional outcomes. Some general impact of the EU on domestic institutional change in its neighbourhood and beyond is found, as well as some diffusion of EU institutional models of regional integration worldwide. The approach is decidedly agency-centred in focusing on diffusion mechanism and on scope conditions.

Brussels between Bern and Berlin: Comparative Federalism Meets the European Union

In the current debate on the future European order, the European Union (EU) is often described as an “emerging federation.” This article claims that federalism is not exclusively useful in deliberating about the future of the EU. Non-statecentric conceptions of federalism provide a better understanding of the current structure and functioning of the European system of multilevel governance than most theories of European integration and international relations do. We combine political and economic perspectives of federalism to analyze the “balancing act” between effective political representation and efficient policy-making in the EU. Drawing on the examples of Germany and Switzerland in particular, we argue that the increasing delegation of powers to the central EU level needs to be paralleled by strengthened patterns of fiscal federalism and an empowered representation of functional interests at the European level. Without such “rebalancing,” the current legitimacy problems of the EU are likely to intensify.

Participation Through Law Enforcement The Case of the European Union

This article provides a comparative framework for understanding processes of decentralized law enforcement in the European Union (EU). In particular, the analysis proposes how decentralized EU law enforcement mechanisms can increase opportunities for participation of citizens and firms, but only if they possess domestic courts access and sufficient resources to use it. The article undertakes a systematic analysis of noncompliance with EU environmental law to examine this dynamic. The findings reveal a major paradox for the enforcement of EU law: the empowerment of the already powerful. This paradox has major implications for the potential of expanding judicial power in the EU and at the international level to bring more democracy to international politics.

Environmental organisations and the Europeanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: the case of biodiversity governance

How has Europeanisation of environmental policy, as represented by the adoption of European Union (EU) biodiversity policies, influenced the agendas and repertoires of action employed by environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) in Hungary, Poland and Romania? The EUs environmental acquis gave ENGOs new and often forceful tools to reach their aims by emphasising the importance of collaborative relations between state and non-state actors and by offering opportunities to civil society actors to circumvent their national governments in the policy process. Implementation of the EUs Natura 2000 network in Hungary, Poland and Romania further reinforced endogenously driven professionalisation and institutionalisation of civil society groups. While EU accession benefited from the expertise of professional ENGOs, the logic of the accession process together with the weakness of both state actors and civil society has not led to the development of sustainable cooperative state–society relations in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).