Search

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 explores how policy learning can improve comparative policy analysis by focusing on causality in learning processes. After summarizing the comparative credentials of the policy learning literature, the article outlines a framework of four learning modes, relating it to three approaches of causality: deterministic, probabilistic, and set-theoretic. It then builds on this to explore different approaches to causation and learning in relation to: policy change, political contexts, and, finally, the temporal and spatial dimensions of comparative policy analysis. The article concludes by showing how these challenges are addressed and suggesting implications for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Two foundations of regulatory choice, precaution and innovation, co-exist in the political system of the European Union (EU). At the conceptual level the two foundations are complementary, and are both endorsed by the EU institutions, albeit in different ways and with different legal status. In the real-life of EU policymaking processes, however, precaution and innovation often become the terrain of polarised views anchored to technocratic or populist positions that erode trust in EU governance. We propose a way forward to this state of play. Instead of seeing the two foundations as opposite, we explore their dyadic relationship. We show that a conversation between the two is possible via an original reformulation of precaution and innovation. The reconciliation of precaution and innovation, we argue, is effective only in a context of social trust about the reconciled definitions. We propose the analytical and normative framework of nonviolence as seal of social trust. Nonviolence can assist the EU and its citizens in the path towards innovation that is socially responsible, future-proof and accountable. It can enhance precaution as internalised commitment of decision-makers as well as scientific and social communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]