Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01844.x Byline: BURKARD EBERLEIN (1), CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (2) Abstract: In this conceptual article, we explore mechanisms of conflict management in European Union (EU) regulatory policy-making. We build on J.G. March's distinction between aggregation and transformation as the two strategic options to deal with inconsistent preferences or identities that are at the source of social conflict. While this distinction is helpful in mapping conflict management mechanisms, the rigid association of these two options with the rival paradigms of rationalism and constructivism respectively has led political scientists to neglect conflict management strategies that work at the edges of aggregation and transformation. We show the potential of these latter strategies as intelligent 'in-action' hybrids that emerge from ground-level policy-making praxis of actors navigating a complex institutional and policy environment. Specifically, we discuss five strategies: issue-based aggregation; arena-based aggregation (arena-shifting and arena-creation); socialization; re-framing; and proceduralization, their underlying mechanisms and related scope conditions. The theoretical implications of this discussion lead us towards 'strategic constructivism'. In the conflict management mechanisms that are of most interest, norms and ideational structures matter, but they are related to strategic actors who draw on and orchestrate 'ideas' in pursuit of political goals. Author Affiliation: (1)Burkard Eberlein is in the Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto. (2)Claudio Radaelli is in the Centre for European Governance, University of Exeter. Article History: Date received 14 November 2008. Date accepted 14 July 2009.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x Byline: CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1), ANNE C.M. MEUWESE (2) Abstract: Can the European regulatory state be managed? The European Union (EU) and its member states have looked at better regulation as a possible answer to this difficult question. This emerging public policy presents challenges to scholars of public management and administrative reforms, but also opportunities. In this conceptual article, we start from the problems created by the value-laden discourse used by policy-makers in this area, and provide a definition and a framework that are suitable for empirical/explanatory research. We then show how public administration scholars could usefully bring better regulation into their research agendas. To be more specific, we situate better regulation in the context of the academic debates on the New Public Management, the political control of bureaucracies, evidence-based policy, and the regulatory state in Europe. Author Affiliation: 1Claudio M. Radaelli is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for European Governance and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Policy Analysis at the University of Exeter 2Anne C.M. Meuwese is Marie Curie Research Fellow at the Centre for Law and Cosmopolitan Values, University of Antwerp Article History: Date received 3 December 2007. Date accepted 3 July 2008.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00820.x Byline: THEOFANIS EXADAKTYLOS (1), CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1) Abstract: Abstract In this article, we contribute to the debate on research design and causal analysis in European integration studies by considering the sub-field of Europeanization. First, we examine the awareness of research design issues in the literature on Europeanization through a review of the debate on causality, concept formation and methods. Second, we analyse how much of the discussion of the trade-offs in causal analysis in mainstream political science has percolated into Europeanization studies. We therefore construct a sample of the Europeanization literature, comparing it to a control group of highly cited articles on European integration. This enables us to control if some patterns are specific to the Europeanization literature or reflect a more general trend in European integration. We then look at trade-offs in the Europeanization sample and in the control group. Our findings indicate that awareness of research design is still low. Europeanization articles differ from the control group in the focus on mechanisms (rather than variables) and the qualitative aspects of time in politics. Complex notions of causality prevail in Europeanization but not in the control group and the cause-of-effects approach is preferred to effects-of-causes in the control group but not in Europeanization - in both cases, however, the difference is slight. We conclude by explaining differences and similarities and make proposals for future research. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Exeter Article note: Theofanis Exadaktylos and Claudio M. Radaelli, Department of Politics, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, University of Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK, Tel + 44 (0) 1392 263176, Fax + 44 (0) 1392 263305, email te214@exeter.ac.uk; c.radaelli@exeter.ac.uk

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00778.x Byline: CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1), ULRIKE S. KRAEMER (1) Abstract: Abstract Conventional scholarship on international taxation tends to address competition. It focuses on governments and does not integrate purposeful political strategy with the ideational dimension of policy change. In this article we examine co-operation, use a multi-actor perspective to explain the selection of modes of governance and bridge the gap between the strategic and ideational components of policy change. We show how a political strategy pursued by the Commission has led to the emergence of two functionally differentiated governance arenas, dealing with different definitions of tax problems and operating with modes of governance that suit the internal logic of individual arenas. We then examine the limitations of political strategy, by showing how a third governance arena dominated by the European Court of Justice has become increasingly important, with little control exercised by the Commission and the Member States. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Exeter Article note: Claudio Radaelli, Department of Politics, Centre for Regulatory Governance, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK, email c.radaelli@ex.ac.uk

The article discusses the political impact of European integration on Italian politics with the help of two different research studies.

This conclusion sums up the main findings of the contributions to the volume as regards policy change and the role of discourse in Europe. It discusses these results focusing on four key themes that cut across the case studies presented. These four themes refer to discourse; learning; the relationship between the power of ideas and interests as seen through discussions of arguing versus bargaining; and Europeanisation. The case studies provide a very rich resource in our search for theoretical generalisations on these main themes, largely because they illustrate policy change and the role of discourse in Europe under very different sets of institutional and organisational rules (from the WTO to the European Union and domestic settings)., This conclusion sums up what we have learned comparatively about policy change and the role of discourse in Europe. It presents the results of this volume by focusing on four [...]

With the move in EU studies from a focus on European integration to Europeanisation, that is from the process of EU formation to its impact on member states, the number and range of theories and methodologies have proliferated. This article embraces such pluralism. Only by considering a full range of factors policy--problems, legacies, preferences, political and institutional capacity, and discourse--from a variety of perspectives--interest-based rationality, historical path-dependencies, social constructions of action, ideas and discourse--can a complete picture of policy change in Europe emerge. Discourse deserves to be emphasised, however, because it is an often missing, but important, approach to explanation. Discourse, as a set of ideas and a process of policy formulation and communication, helps complete our understanding of policy change when put in relation to other factors and perspectives. Where it helps explain--in which institutional settings and when it helps--by exerting a causal influence--are matters for empirical investigation that are explored in the essays included in this volume., 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 European Union is experimenting with new, non-binding policy instruments in business taxation, namely a voluntary code of conduct among member states against harmful tax competition. This article raises the question to what extent can the code be considered a manifestation of the open method of coordination (OMC)? Is an open method (based on guidelines, peer review, best practice, benchmarking, learning and diffusion of shared beliefs among policy-makers) emerging as a new governance architecture in tax policy? If so, what can the code achieve in terms of policy learning and convergence? There are similarities between the code and the open method of coordination--especially with reference to guidelines, peer review, time-tables and the identification of 'worst practice'. However, the political logic of the code does not fit in well with the OMC aims of participatory governance and social learning. In terms of achievements, the code has contributed to the creation of a community of discourse and the diffusion of shared beliefs about what constitutes 'acceptable' and 'harmful' tax competition. Convergence at the level of discourse, however, should not be confused with convergence of actual tax policies in the member states.

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.

This article raises the question whether corporate tax policies in Italy and the United Kingdom have been changed by the emergence of an embryonic tax regime at the European Union [...]

The direct corporate taxation policy process in the European Union is studied. Three public policy literatures focusing on the politics of tax reform, policy change and the political role of knowledge, and European integration are analyzed to derive three hypotheses on tax reform. These include the hypotheses that tax reform feasibility is influenced by the frame selected by policy initiators, and that direct tax harmonization in Europe can be considered regulatory policies.

The limitations of conventional theories, and the international regulatory competition are discussed. It further reports results achieved in terms of key concepts of regulatory competition, sequences of cooperation and competition, the role of non-unitary actors in networked regulatory action, and why regulatory competition is limited, both in the EU and in transatlantic relations.

This article reviews the process of regulatory reform in the European Union (EU). The main argument is that EU initiatives have been cast in a rather narrow conceptual framework, limited to issues such as simplification and better law-making. Although important, these issues are only a component of the wider task of governing regulation. Therefore I introduce and discuss three proposals for re-casting the debate on EU regulation. First, the focus should be shifted from `better law-making' to `better regulatory policy-making'. Second, regulatory management, rather than simplification, should represent the strategic objective of EU institutions. Third, regulatory reform should be accompanied by administrative reform. Consequently, the relative impenetrability of the Commission to administrative reform represents a serious obstacle to regulatory reform.

Coordination in international tax policy is extremely problematic. Economists and political scientists have explained this lack of coordination by arguing that tax competition triggers a prisoner's dilemma. In this article I argue that not all international tax policy can be reduced to the prisoner's dilemma syndrome. Transfer pricing policy, the object of this study, can be modeled as a coordination game. By drawing upon game theory and new institutional analysis, I argue that institutional entrepreneurs who decide to play their favorite option first can facilitate the emergence of international policy coordination. This idea is examined in the context of the creation of the new Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development rules on transfer pricing. The conclusion is that coordination emerges in transfer pricing policy through a process of conflictual institutionalization., Deep economic integration has internationalized tax policy problems (Tanzi, 1995), yet there is a fundamental difficulty in building cooperation in international tax policy. There are various reasons for this, including [...]