Die Umsetzung von EU-Richtlinien im Zeichen der Parteipolitik: Eine akteurszentrierte Antwort auf die Misfit-These

Treib, Oliver

doi:10.1007/s11615-003-0096-y

Cited by 64 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Along these lines, Treib (2003aTreib ( ,b, 2004 showed that party political preferences of governments may have a decisive impact on transposition outcomes. In particular, he takes issue with the behavioural assumptions underlying the mainstream misfit argument, notably that domestic governments will always try to defend their existing policy traditions.…”

Section: The Third Wave: Theoretical and Methodological Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs

Treib¹

2006

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay takes stock of the literature on how European Union policies are being put into practice by the member states. It first provides an overview of the historical evolution of the field. After a relatively late start in the mid 1980s, the field has meanwhile developed into one of the growth industries within EU research. The paper identifies three different waves of EU implementation scholarship. The first wave considered implementation primarily a problem of institutional efficiency. In the second wave, the degree of compatibility between European demands and domestic policy legacies took centre stage. However, many second-wave scholars complemented the basic "misfit" argument with a set of additional explanatory factors to account for deviant cases. In the third wave, some researchers began to stress the role of domestic politics, while others re-discovered the importance of administrative capabilities. As an attempt to synthesise some of the partial explanations presented by earlier research, one group of scholars pointed to the existence of culturally-shaped country clusters, each with its own typical style of complying with EU legislation.After this historical overview, the paper summarises the most important theoretical, empirical and methodological lessons to be drawn from existing studies and it discusses promising avenues for future research. First, most scholars seem to agree on the basic set of factors that may have an impact on transposition processes. The main task to be accomplished by future research is to establish under which conditions which configurations of factors prevail. While we already know that there are strong country-specific patterns, the importance of sectorspecific patterns will need to be explored further. Second, much more research efforts will have to be devoted to the neglected area of enforcement and application. In theoretical terms, going back to the insights of traditional domestic implementation research seems to be most promising for this type of studies. Third, the paper cautions against the poor quality of the data employed by the growing number quantitative compliance studies. Unless the problems with the data can be solved, scholars are well advised to rely on comparative case studies, at least in addition to statistical analyses. To increase the number of cases to be covered by qualitative research, the paper makes the case for crafting collaborative qualitative research projects as a viable alternative to quantitative research.This review is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Austria License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/at/ How to cite this articleOwing to the fact that a Living Reviews article can evolve over time, we recommend to cite the article as follows:Oliver Treib, "Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs", Living Rev.

show abstract

Section: The Third Wave: Theoretical and Methodological Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs

Treib¹

2006

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This misfit argument involves an institutional, legal, normative, and policy misfit -the latter having been investigated most frequently. Whereas some studies find robust evidence for this argument, others demonstrate little or no support and reveal the limited explanatory power of the misfit thesis (Treib 2003, Mastenbroek 2005Haverland 2000;Falkner et al 2005;Mastenbroek/Kaeding 2006). In line with this misfit argument, member states that were unable to advocate ('upload') their preferences at EU level might evade implementation or compliance in order to oppose the introduction ('downloading') of EU policies at the national level or in order to protect their national structures and administrations (Falkner et al 2004, 453;Knill/Lenschow 2000, 261-262).…”

Section: Europeanisation and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Member states’ opposition in the Council of the European Union and its impacts on the implementation of directives

Pircher

2017

ozp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Council of the European Union (EU), a qualified majority is mostly required to adopt legislative acts. Based on this majority rule, individual member states can be outvoted and are subsequently obliged to implement the law. This article analyses whether opposition in the Council of the EU affects the transposition of directives into national law by using the example of Austria from 2000 to 2008. The results demonstrate that domestic factors, rather than a negative political attitude, were responsible for delays and procedures when implementing previously contested directives. However, the effects of opposition in the Council on implementation were particularly apparent in cases where there was a high degree of misfit between EU provisions and the domestic legal structure. Keywords SchlüsselwörterEuropäische Union, Rat der EU, oppositionelles Wahlverhalten, Österreich, Implementation von Richtlinien, rechtlicher Misfit Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere thanks to all the interview partners for their time and the information they provided. This article presents the findings of a dissertation project conducted at the University of Vienna. I am grateful to my supervisor, Gerda Falkner, and my two reviewers and examiners, Heinrich Neisser and Andrea Lenschow, for their valuable comments and reviews in the process of completing the project. I would also like to thank the former members of the Institute for European Integration Research for their useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

show abstract

“…From the literature, we know that implementation problems due to structural misfits between policy levels are only a part of the explanation for implementation difficulties; other reasons for implementation difficulties can be found in the belief systems and preferences of actors, in particular policy preferences and choice of policy instruments of actors on the respective levels, which effect transposition, interpretation, application and enforcement [18,19]. This finding regarding the role of actors and their ideas is very important for our topic.…”

Section: The Goals Of Sustainable Development and Sustainability Polimentioning

confidence: 99%

Following Gandhi: Social Entrepreneurship as A Non-Violent Way of Communicating Sustainability Challenges

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the context of the Rio Earth Summit numerous international regimes, national policies and organizational guidelines have appeared that help translate the normative demands of sustainable development into political reality. The implementation of these instruments, however, often runs into difficulties or fails entirely. An example is the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), a progressive approach for the conservation of freshwater that is very unlikely to be implemented by 2015, the target year. We examine in this paper how a recent variation of Gandhian non-violent communication within social entrepreneurship suggests one way to deal with this challenge. Non-violent communication, rooted in Gandhian social action, has long been part of environmental politics. It has undergone a new variation as a mode of communication in the hands of social entrepreneurship initiatives that address urgent social and environmental issues with new, practical ideas. In the conceptual part of this paper, we outline our approach to sustainability, non-violent communication and social entrepreneurship. In a further part, we present data from a trans-disciplinary experiment to illustrate and critically discuss social entrepreneurship as a mode of sustainability communication. The experiment looked at, which is based on French social entrepreneur Roberto Epple's idea of a Big Jump, is a collaborative campaign that invites young people to take action for water conservation in the context of the WFD.

show abstract

Die Umsetzung von EU-Richtlinien im Zeichen der Parteipolitik: Eine akteurszentrierte Antwort auf die Misfit-These

Cited by 64 publications

References 19 publications

Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs

Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs

Member states’ opposition in the Council of the European Union and its impacts on the implementation of directives

Following Gandhi: Social Entrepreneurship as A Non-Violent Way of Communicating Sustainability Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About