Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy

Strünck, Christoph

doi:10.1007/s10603-005-2981-9

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Governance also connotes policy processes evolving within those structures as stakeholders mobilize to address specific issues (e.g. Dekker et al 2015;Goodwin 2015;Scholten 2016;Strünck 2005). This article focuses on the second aspect and conceptualizes the policy process as composed of one discursive and one applied, practical element (e.g.…”

Section: Conceptualizing the Policy Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing informality and need – policy responses to informal East-West migration in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden

Zelano

2018

Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article provides an analysis of policy responses to mobile EU citizens without legal residence in the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden. A comparative case study design uses qualitative survey and interview data to identify national and local policy responses to the implications of EU citizens from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) living without legal residence in the aforementioned countries. The theoretical framework specifies how the institutional logic of welfare regimes is likely to generate policy responses that address need, sanction informality or do both. The choice indicates the priority given to redistributive outcomes, administrative procedures, or both. The results reveal similar responses to those implications relating to the labour market, but slightly different approaches to the implications in the social domain. Policy responses to labour market implications have predominantly focused on sanctioning informality. Swedish and Austrian policy responses in the social domain have focused on addressing need. Dutch policy responses to social issues instead focused on sanctioning informality, prioritizing procedure. The results indicate that local and national policy responses to implications of informal intra-EU migration may be fruitfully understood through the prism of welfare regimes and related approaches to need and informality.ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing the Policy Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing informality and need – policy responses to informal East-West migration in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden

Zelano

2018

Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The competence of the EU in health matters is limited, fragmented, and contested, but tilted toward the promotion of public health through preventive and promotional measures (Guigner 2004; Strűnck 2005). The formal responsibility of the EU in tobacco control, initiated under the Single European Act , was further enhanced by the Maastricht Treaty (1993), and Amsterdam Treaty (1999).…”

Section: Developing Shared Sovereignty Over Tobacco Control In Europementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier research on tobacco examined the tobacco‐control roles of Member States, both for themselves and within the EU process (Duina and Kurzer 2004; European Commission 2004; Grűning, Strűnck, and Gilmore 2008; Hervey 2001; Princen and Rhinard 2006; Studlar 2009), how EU policies are applied at the country level (European Commission 2004; Frisbee, Studlar, and Christensen 2008; Gilmore and McKee 2002; Nielsen 2003; Strűnck 2005), and the implications of multilevel governance within the EU for one country, the United Kingdom (Asare 2007). Studies of EU tobacco control policy have emphasized its problematic status and its supplementary role to individual Member State policies (Duina and Kurzer 2004; European Commission 2004; Gilmore and McKee 2004; Guigner 2004, 2006; Hervey 2001; Khanna 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilevel Governance and Shared Sovereignty: European Union, Member States, and the FCTC

Mamudu

Studlar

2008

Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Westphalian idea of sovereignty in international relations has undergone recent transformation. “Shared sovereignty” through multilevel governance describes the responsibility of the European Union (EU) and its Member States in tobacco control policy. We examine how this has occurred on the EU level through directives and recommendations, accession rules for new members, tobacco control campaigns, and financial support for antitobacco nongovernmental organizations. In particular, the negotiation and ratification of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the participation in the FCTC Conference of the Parties illustrates shared sovereignty. The EU Commission was the lead negotiator for Member States on issues over which it had jurisdiction, while individual Member States, through the EU presidency, could negotiate on issues on which authority was divided or remained with them. Shared sovereignty through multilevel governance has become the norm in the tobacco control policy area for EU members, including having one international organization negotiate within the context of another.

show abstract

“…Consumer policy is shaped by a combination of governance models, including the market, corporate hierarchies, community (collective action), the power of consumer associations and the double role of the state (Reisch, Becker, Schatz, & Voelzkow, ; Strünck, ) (see Table ). Contemporary thinking brings another concern into play—embeddedness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing complexity and convergence governance to consumer policy

McGregor

2017

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer policy is already being shaped by a combination of governance models. This position paper argues that complexity-oriented convergence models are a timely addition. Modern day consumer policy is characterized as interactive and integrative, replete with shifting boundaries and coalitions and evolving roles for each of state, market and society. This paper focused on governance in the consumer policy arena, arguing that this process needs to acknowledge and reconcile complexity. After describing the basic tenets of complexity theory, two characteristics of contemporary tri-sector interaction (i.e., sector blurring and sector distortion) were discussed.These boundary characteristics necessitate the need for approaches that can accommodate complexity during consumer policy governance. Three examples of the latter were profiled: sector convergence, network governance and cross-sector governance. These conceptualizations accommodate the dynamics, complexity and emergence of contemporary consumer policy governance. K E Y W O R D S complexity, consumer policy, consumer policy governance, convergence, governance, networks Int J Consum Stud. 2017;41:685-695. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs

show abstract

Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

Balancing informality and need – policy responses to informal East-West migration in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden

Balancing informality and need – policy responses to informal East-West migration in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden

Multilevel Governance and Shared Sovereignty: European Union, Member States, and the FCTC

Bringing complexity and convergence governance to consumer policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About