Search

Copyright of Policy Studies Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of European Policy Analysis is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Nonviolence has an established tradition in several disciplines, including political theory, international relations and political science. But its potential for the European Union (EU) has not been appraised yet. Thus, we set out to explore nonviolence as an analytical and normative framework for the study of the EU. At the outset, we introduce nonviolence and define our approach to this concept. We then apply our analytical and normative framework to three critical issues concerning the nature of EU power, the democratic deficit and the narrative of integration. We find that nonviolence re‐defines the core dimensions of power and democracy, and imagines the EU in non‐state‐morphic ways, situating praxis at the roots of the integration process and its narrative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the better regulation strategy of the Juncker Commission and what does the evidence show. Topics include better regulation as identified in the discourse of the European Union (EU) is stated to be a set of activities and evidence based policy instruments, the EU better regulation policy is one possible incarnation of some ideas about regulatory reform and the governance of EU legislation, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) stated to have emerged since 2015 as more than just a watchdog, and the European Commission stated to have taken a number of decisions grounded in Juncker Commission and European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans beliefs about the legitimate scope of subsidiarity.

Reference to policy learning is commonplace in the public policy literature but the question of whether it qualifies as an analytical framework applicable to the policy process has yet to be systematically addressed. We therefore appraise learning as analytical framework in relation to four standards: assumptions and micro‐foundations, conceptual apparatus, observable implications, normative applications. We find that policy learning meets the four standards, although its theoretical leverage varies across them. Since we are not aware of theories of the policy process that meet all of these standards all the time, we conclude that policy learning fares reasonably well and it's worth investing intellectual resources in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European governments have adopted policy instruments for regulatory appraisal, oversight, ex-post evaluation, and simplification in the context of the so-called 'smart regulation agenda'. In this article we compare the two most important instruments, that is, regulatory impact assessment ( RIA) and the standard cost model ( SCM). We answer the following questions: What are the economic rationales that, at least in principle, should make the SCM and RIA work? What are the learning models that, yet again in principle, allow the two instruments to produce effects? The RIA economic rationale is grounded in welfare economics. The SCM economics is rudimentary: one can hardly make an economic case for the SCM. With regard to learning models, RIA draws on rational-synoptic models, whilst the SCM is inspired by experience-based learning. We then discuss economic rationales and learning models jointly, thus explaining the different implementation patterns of the two instruments and exposing the ambiguities in the relationship among instruments, ideas, and behavioural change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on regulation has crossed paths with the literature on policy instruments, showing that regulatory policy instruments contain cognitive and normative beliefs about policy. Thus, their usage stacks the deck in favor of one type of actor or one type of regulatory solution. In this article, we challenge the assumption that there is a predetermined relationship between ideas, regulatory policy instruments, and outcomes. We argue that different combinations of conditions lead to different outcomes, depending on how actors use the instrument. Empirically, we analyze 31 EU and UK case studies of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) - a regulatory policy instrument that has been pivotal in the so-called better regulation movement. We distinguish four main usages of RIA, that is, political, instrumental, communicative, and perfunctory. We find that in our sample instrumental usage is not so rare and that the contrast between communicative and political usages is less stark than is commonly thought. In terms of policy recommendations, our analysis suggests that there may be different paths to desirable outcomes. Policymakers should therefore explore different combinations of conditions leading to the usages they deem desirable rather than arguing for a fixed menu of variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Impact assessment is the pivotal instrument in the recent wave of regulatory reforms labeled ‘better regulation’. Although the economics of impact assessment has been the subject of a vast literature, less is known about its political properties. Within a comparative framework, this article provides conjectures on four images of impact assessment – that is, rational policy making, political control of the bureaucracy, public management reform, and symbolic action. Looking at six countries with a long experience of impact assessment and the European Union, the article first builds expectations about the diffusion of the images across countries, and then proceeds to measurement by using both objective and interpretative/subjective indicators. The findings seem to support the public management reform image – a conclusion that suggests further specifications about administrative traditions and change. Sweden and Denmark are not using impact assessment to foster instrumental rationality or increase the political control of bureaucracies and, together with the Netherlands, rank high on the symbolic action scale. The United States – and to a lesser extent Canada and the United Kingdom – have a multi-purpose approach to impact assessment. The case of the European Union defies prior expectations, showing much more usage than anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their attempt to promote “better regulation,” governments have ended up with increasing regulation of rule-making. Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is a manifestation of this trend. This article draws on the positive political economy hypothesis that RIA is an administrative control device. Rational politicians—positive political economy argues—design administrative requirements to solve problems of political uncertainty. This is a rather abstract hypothesis but with clearly observable implications. Empirical analysis on Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the EU shows that the modes and level of control vary, with almost no evidence supporting the positive political economy hypothesis in Denmark and Sweden and more robust evidence in the other cases, especially the United States and the United Kingdom. The EU scores high, but control has both a political component and an infra-organizational dimension. In between the extremes I find modest levels of political control in Canada and the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the main results of a research project on regulatory impact analysis (RIA) in comparative perspective. Its main theoretical thrust is to explore the limitations of the conventional analysis of RIA in terms of de-contextualised best practice and provide an alternative framework based on the lesson-drawing literature. After having discussed how demand and supply of best practice emerge in the OECD and the European Union, some analytic (as opposed to normative) lessons are presented. The main lessons revolve around the politics of problem definition, the nesting of RIA into wider reform programmes, the political malleability of RIA, the trade-off between precision and administrative assimilation, the roles of networks and watchdogs, and institutional learning. The conclusions discuss the implications of the findings for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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, timetables 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines public policy in the European Union (EU) by drawing upon the framework of policy transfer, which has been recently refined by comparativists, and the concept of isomorphism developed within organizational theory. Three case studies--namely, the single currency, tax policy and media ownership policy--are discussed and compared with the aim of assessing the potential of isomorphism for the analysis of policy diffusion. The author argues that European institutions, which have a serious limitation in terms of legitimacy, stimulate policy transfer by catalyzing isomorphic processes. Policy transfer, however, is constrained when there are no national cases to be imitated. Yet European institutions, most notably the European Commission, can overcome the problem by "inseminating" solutions into national political systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines international tax policy coordination and the transfer pricing problem. Overview of the transfer pricing problem; International tax policy in the prisoner's dilemma syndrome; Modeling of transfer pricing policy as a coordination game; Facilitation of the emergence of international policy coordination by institutional entrepreneurs.

Presents information on a study which investigated the dynamics of the European Union direct tax policy process. Narratives, coalitions and the policy process; Tax neutrality for the single market; Forum politics and the Ecofin Agreement; Role of the policy environment.

This article has three main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to re-formulate the debate on technocracy in the European Union by drawing upon the concept of the EU regulatory state as developed by Majone (1996). Secondly, it illustrates the limits and tensions of a once politicised technocratic policy-making process by tracing the formulation of media ownership regulation. Although media ownership policy has been presented by the European Commission as a typical regulatory policy, it has followed a more politicised path than previous EU regulatory policies. This implies that media ownership policy does not follow the model of technocratic regulation presented by Majone in his characterisation of the EU regulatory state. Thirdly, the paper contributes to the debate on EU regulation by suggesting a new typology of regulatory policies in the EU. In the conclusion, it is argued that politicisation (which includes inefficiency and prolonged conflict) may be the price that the EU is forced to pay in its progress toward a more democratic polity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the topics discussed in the symposium on new government policy instruments in the European Union (EU). Claudio Radaelli begins the symposium with an examination of the evolving EU policy in business taxation. He assesses how close the development of a voluntary code of conduct fits the open method of coordination a cornerstone in the EU strategy on new modes of governance. Anthony R. Zito and Andrew Jordan acknowledge the funding from the Innovation in Environmental Governance project, financed by the ESRC, the future Governance Programme, which helped support their participation in the panel and the resulting symposium.

While several studies have documented how evidence-based policy instruments affect public policy, less research has focused on what causes changes over time in the analyses mandated by the instruments, especially in Britain. Thus, we take the analytical content of a pivotal regulatory reform instrument (impact assessment) as a dependent variable, draw on learning as a conceptual framework, and explain the dynamics of learning processes across departments, policy sectors, and time. Empirically, our study draws on a sample of 517 impact assessments produced in Britain (2005-2011). Experience and capacity in different departments matter in learning processes. Guidelines also matter, but moderately so. Departments specialize in their core policy sectors when performing regulatory analysis, but some have greater analytical capacity overall. Peripheral departments invest more in impact assessment than core executive departments. The presence of a regulatory oversight body enhances the learning process. Elections have different effects, depending on the context in which they are contested. These findings contribute to the literature on regulation, policy learning, and policy instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]