Comparing Privacy Regimes: Federal Theory and the Politics of Privacy Regulation in the European Union and the United States

Two Decades of E‐Learning Policy Evolution at EU Level: motivations, institutions and instruments

“…Notwithstanding the gradual attention that EU‐level e‐learning policy has received over the years, research remains patchy, with few studies focusing on the evolution of e‐learning policy formulation. In seeking to document this process, this study systematically deconstructs the e‐learning policies developed at EU level by using three elements of policy analysis derived from comparative federalist theory (Mendez, ; Mendez & Mendez, ). The analytical framework devised by Mendez and Mendez () rests on policy framing , policy dynamics and policy instruments as the main driving concepts behind policy formulation.…”

“…In seeking to document this process, this study systematically deconstructs the e‐learning policies developed at EU level by using three elements of policy analysis derived from comparative federalist theory (Mendez, ; Mendez & Mendez, ). The analytical framework devised by Mendez and Mendez () rests on policy framing , policy dynamics and policy instruments as the main driving concepts behind policy formulation. They are defined as follows: policy framing refers to the intraneous and extraneous stressors, stimuli or threats that prompt political entities to take action on policy making; policy dynamics identifies the actors and their roles in the process of policy development; and policy instruments consist of the principal and supporting documents that operationalise measures in the policy domain being addressed (Mendez & Mendez, ).…”

“…The analytical framework devised by Mendez and Mendez () rests on policy framing , policy dynamics and policy instruments as the main driving concepts behind policy formulation. They are defined as follows: policy framing refers to the intraneous and extraneous stressors, stimuli or threats that prompt political entities to take action on policy making; policy dynamics identifies the actors and their roles in the process of policy development; and policy instruments consist of the principal and supporting documents that operationalise measures in the policy domain being addressed (Mendez & Mendez, ). The rest of this article reports the analysis method and the resulting themes organised according to the conceptual notions in the policy framework described above.…”

“…This article documents the historical development of e‐learning policies at EU level by conducting a discourse and content analysis of four key e‐learning policy documents drafted and implemented by the European Commission in the last two decades: Learning in the Information Society: Action Plan for a European Education Initiative (1996–1998), the eLearning Action Plan (2001–2004), the eLearning Programme (2004–2006) and the Lifelong Learning Programme (2006–2013). By using the policy analysis framework developed by Mendez and Mendez (), the aim of the study was to identify the motivations of actors at EU level in formulating e‐learning policy over time and how the interactions among the various actors involved resulted in the policy documents mentioned above. Hence, a systematic and methodical analysis was conducted that was not previously present in the research literature concerning EU‐level e‐learning policy.…”

Assessing the EU’s Transatlantic Regulatory Powers Using the Choice of Policy Instruments as Measurement of Preference Attainment

“…While European jurisdictions since the 1970s gradually have built up a proactive, all-encompassing, and comprehensive system for protecting individual privacy as a human right, the US privacy regime can best be described as "fragmented, ad-hoc, and narrowly targeted to cover specific sectors and concerns" (Schaffer, 2000, p. 23). The US regulatory regime 1 For general discussions on the EU-US privacy disputes cf., Bennett and Raab, 1997;Bach and Newman, 2007;Charlesworth, 2000;Mendez and Mendez, 2009;Newman, 2011;Shaffer, 1999Shaffer, , 2000Suda, 2013. For discussions on the Safe Harbor Agreement, cf., Kobrin, 2004;Regan, 2003;Soma, Rynerson, and Beall, 2003.…”