Abstract
This chapter explores how customization affects the degree to which European Union (EU) food safety policies are successfully implemented. It empirically assesses the contradictory views of the relevance of discretion for effective problem-solving that prevail in the fields of policy implementation and better regulation. Focusing on the policy “in action”, I conceive of successful implementation as the absence of problems in the delivery of domestic outputs and outcomes. Results of a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of four member states and of Switzerland illustrates how customization serves as a strategy for problem-solving within an overarching framework of successful policy implementation. The evidence relativizes the EU’s “no gold-plating” policy. Depending on the regulatory context, extensive customization frequently contributes to implementation success.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/hlg_16_0008_00_conclusions_and_recomendations_on_goldplating_final.pdf [retrieved 17.4.2017].
- 3.
In Table 6.2, I operationalize policy outputs and outcomes with indicators whose (non-)existence was explicitly mentioned in at least one country. This procedure ensures that values of NA do not simply indicate missing data due to incomplete sources. Rather, they indicate that neither the FVO nor the sources consulted by Sager et al. (2011) found indications for problems regarding this output/outcome in their audits, though in principle they were looking for them. Some reasons for the existence of NAs could be, for instance, that no problem exists; or that problems with output delivery prevented authorities from collecting data on this policy outcome (which could, however, reveal a problem if it had been done). Nevertheless, following this procedure, the reason for NA is not due to incomplete analysis on the researcher’s part.
- 4.
Bondarouk and Liefferink (2017) and Bondarouk and Mastenbroek (2018) have recently proposed a sophisticated conceptualization and measurement of national and subnational differences in practical implementation performance. I do not adopt this proposal in my analysis for two reasons. The first, theoretical reason, is that my analysis has an evaluative, cause-effect interest, rather than a descriptive perspective. This perspective requires me to move beyond policy outputs, which is contrary to Bondarouk and Mastenbroek (2018). The second, empirical reason, is data availability. However, future research should definitively look into the effects of customization on the dimensions of substance, scope and effort of implementation performance.
- 5.
I do not integrate misfit arguments even if they may be the most plausible in relation to practical application (Treib 2014), for two reasons. First, Dörrenbächer and Mastenbroek (2017) show that preferences for preserving the status quo matter for the degree to which transposing actors grant discretion to practical policy implementers. In this vein, the customization condition already captures the relative distance between EU and domestic policies. Second, the dependent variable of goodness of fit arguments is domestic policy change (Knill 1998). Conversely, this chapter seeks to explain successful implementation. Whether or not successful implementation requires domestic change is not the subject of my analysis.
- 6.
The relative importance or salience of an issue is another important influence on implementation processes (Spendzharova and Versluis 2013; Versluis 2003). However, I do not account for issue salience for two reasons. First, the allocation of attention to policy issues has already partly explained the extent to which EU rules were customized (Chaps. 4 and 5) Second, at the level of practical application, issue salience mainly influences the degree to which EU rules are enforced (Versluis 2003), a factor which I account for separately.
- 7.
I do not account for administrative capacity. While this factor has proven to be an important driver of legal compliance, “the actions of implementers are more influenced by the effectiveness of domestic enforcement and judicial systems than general levels of administrative capacity” (Zhelyazkova et al. 2016, p. 842).
- 8.
- 9.
The full replication material, the truth tables, assumptions on logical remainders, alternative models, all solution types and the procedure for model evaluation are reported in the online appendix which is available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PJTOCG.
- 10.
The coding of the number of target groups refers to the EU rule. Note that in a few isolated cases, the respective rule may target more actors in a specific country. For example, the EU rule of OFM targets livestock owners. However, in Switzerland, the rules for OFM also involve duties for veterinarians. The analysis captures this through customized restrictiveness.
- 11.
France: Départements, Germany: Länder, Switzerland: cantons, UK: average value for Greater London, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have their own government or executive.
- 12.
Source: Sager et al. 2011, p. 353. In the UK, the situation in England serves as a reference.
- 13.
The two parsimonious models corroborate this finding, see the online appendix.
- 14.
Limited customization appears equally causally relevant in the four parsimonious models as well as in the two enhanced parsimonious models (see online appendix).
- 15.
“En conclusion, les acteurs estiment que les mécanismes palliatifs tels que la cascade ou les ATU posent d’innombrables problèmes dans la pratique. Ils attendent la mise en place de solutions de fond au problème de la disponibilité, qui leur permette d’évoluer dans un cadre clair qui ne soit pas marqué par des pratiques au coup par coup” (Sager et al. 2011, p. 137).
- 16.
“Tierärzte stellen bisweilen die Stringenz der Umwidmungsregeln in Frage, wenn sie die Lösung zu einem medizinischen Problem kennen, sie aber nicht durchführen dürfen.(…). Solange seitens der EU hier keine korrekte Regelung erfolgt, liegt die volle Verantwortung für eine Umwidmung beim Tierarzt. (…) Tierärzte fordern generell bessere Informationen dazu, was bei einer Umwidmung erlaubt ist und was nicht” (Sager et al. 2011, p. 237).
References
Beugelsdijk, M., & Eijffinger, S. C. W. (2005). The effectiveness of structural policy in the European Union: An empirical analysis for the EU-15 in 1995–2001. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43, 37–51 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9886.2005.00545.x
Biela, J., Hennl, A., & Kaiser, A. (2012). Combining federalism and decentralization: Comparative case studies on regional development policies in Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, and Ireland. Comparative Political Studies, 45(4), 447–476 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011421767
Bondarouk, E., & Liefferink, D. (2017). Diversity in sub-national EU implementation: The application of the EU Ambient Air Quality directive in 13 municipalities in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19, 733–753 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1267612
Bondarouk, E., & Mastenbroek, E. (2018). Reconsidering EU Compliance: Implementation performance in the field of environmental policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28, 15–27 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1761
Brodkin, E. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 253–277 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093
Bugdahn, S. (2006). Of Europeanization and Domestication: The implementation of the environmental information directive in Ireland, Great Britain and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 177–199 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176042000311961
Bussmann, W., Kloeti, U., & Knoepel, P. (Eds.). (1997). Einführung in die Politikevaluation. Basel: Helbing und Lichtenhahn.
Davidson, N. (2006). Davidson Review: Final report. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/davidson_review281106.pdf. Accessed 7 February 2018.
Dimitrova, A., & Steunenberg, B. (2013). Living in parallel universes? Implementing European movable cultural heritage policy in Bulgaria. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), 246–263 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12000
Dörrenbächer, N. (2017). Europe at the frontline: Analysing street-level motivations for the use of European Union migration law. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1328–1347 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314535
Dörrenbächer, N., & Mastenbroek, E. (2017). Passing the Buck? Analyzing the delegation of discretion after transposition of European Union law. Regulation & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12153
Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616 (1979). 10.2307/2149628
Exadaktylos, T., & Zahariadis, N. (2014). Quid pro Quo: Political trust and policy implementation in Greece during the age of austerity. Politics & Policy, 42, 160–183 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12058
Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states (Themes in European governance). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. M. (Eds.). (2003). The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). (2009). Final report of a specific audit carried out in the United Kingdom from 16 February to 23 February in order to evaluate the control of residues and contaminants and the use of veterinary medicinal products food producing animals in the context of a general audit: DG(SANCO)/ 2009–8128 – MR – FINAL.
Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). (2011). Final report of a mission carried out in Switzerland from 17 to 21 January 2011 in order to evaluate the monitoring of residues and contaminants in live animals and aninmal products, including controls on veterinary medicinal products: DG(SANCO) 2011–8907 – MR FINAL.
Franchino, F. (2007). The powers of the Union: Delegation in the EU. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gollata, J. A. M., & Newig, J. (2017). Policy implementation through multi-level governance: Analysing practical implementation of EU air quality directives in Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1308–1327 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314539
Gulbrandsen, C. (2011). The EU and the implementation of international law: The case of ‘sea-level bureaucrats’. Journal of European Public Policy, 18, 1034–1051 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.599974
Hartlapp, M. (2014). Enforcing social Europe through labour inspectorates: Changes in capacity and cooperation across Europe. West European Politics, 37, 805–824 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.919772
Hartlapp, M., & Falkner, G. (2009). Problems of operationalization and data in EU compliance research. European Union Politics, 10, 281–304 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116509103370
Héritier, A. (1996). The accommodation of diversity in European policy-making and its outcomes: Regulatory policy as a patchwork. Journal of European Public Policy, 3, 149–167 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501769608407026
Hinterleitner, M., Sager, F., & Thomann, E. (2016). The politics of external approval: Explaining the IMF’s evaluation of austerity programmes. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 549–567 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12142
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649
Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Schakel, A. H. (2010). The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies. New York: Routledge.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42, 73–89 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1
Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26, 1–18 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2
Hupe, P. L. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. Der moderne Staat – dms, 6(2), 425–440.
Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1991). The choice of target populations. Administration & Society, 23(3), 333–356 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979102300304
Jans, J. H., Squintani, L., Aragão, A., Macrory, R., & Wegener, B. W. (2009). ‘Gold plating’ of European Environmental Measures? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 6, 417–435 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1163/161372709X12608898676797
Jensen, C. B. (2007). Implementing Europe: A question of oversight. European Union Politics, 8, 451–477 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116507082810
Keman, H. (2000). Federalism and policy performance: A conceptual and empirical inquiry. In U. Wachendorfer-Schmidt (Ed.), Federalism and political performance (pp. 196–227, Routledge/ECPR studies in European political science, Vol. 16). London: Routledge.
Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 1–28.
Knill, C. (2015). Implementation. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 371–397). London: Routledge.
Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012a). Governance institutions and policy implementation in the European Union. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy-making state? Policy dynamics in the EU (1st ed., pp. 309–333). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012b). Public policy: A new introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Knill, C., Schulze, K., & Tosun, J. (2012). Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regulation & Governance, 6, 427–444 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01150.x
Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2011). Public policy analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Majone, G. (1999). Regulation in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 1, 309–324 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/13876989908412630
Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration, 88, 564–583 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01803.x
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145–174 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179.
Morris, R. K. A. (2011). The application of the Habitats Directive in the UK: Compliance or gold plating? Land Use Policy, 28, 361–369 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.005
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Radaelli, C. M., & Meuwese, A. (2009). Better regulation in Europe: Between public management and regulatory reform. Public Administration, 87, 639–654 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01771.x
Radaelli, C. M., & Wagemann, C. (2018). What did I leave out? Omitted variables in regression and qualitative comparative analysis. European Political Science, 15, 69 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-017-0142-7
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 87–121, Applied social research methods series, Vol. 51). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Rutz, S., Mathew, D., Robben, P., & Bont, A. de. (2017). Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regulation & Governance, 11, 81–94 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12101
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003846
Sabatier, P. A., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8, 538–560 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1980.tb01266.x
Sager, F., & Rüefli, C. (2005). Die Evaluation öffentlicher Politiken mit föderalistischen Vollzugsarrangements: Eine konzeptionelle Erweiterung des Stufenmodells und eine praktische Anwendung. Swiss Political Science Review, 11, 101–129 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2005.tb00357
Sager, F., Ritz, A., & Bussmann, K. (2010). Utilization-focused performance reporting. Public Money & Management, 30(1), 55–62 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/09540960903492398
Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., & Mavrot, C. (2011). Tierarzneimittelregulierung in Europa. Study mandated by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health. Bern, Center of Competence for Public Management.
Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., & Mavrot, C. (2014a). Confronting theories of European integration: A comparative congruence analysis of veterinary drug regulations in five countries. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16, 457–474 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.960244
Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., van der Heiden, N., & Mavrot, C. (2014b). Street-level bureaucrats and new modes of governance: How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss Ordinance on Veterinary Medicinal Products. Public Management Review, 16, 481–502 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841979
Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Introduction: The problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance. Journal of Public Policy, 4, 520–538 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1080/135017697344046
Schmidt, S. K. (2008). Beyond compliance: The Europeanization of member states through negative integration and legal uncertainty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 10, 299–308 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980802231016
Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2013). Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 559–597 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113481341
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, M. (1999). Implementation, discretion and rules. In J. A. E. Vervaele & G. Betlem (Eds.), Implementation, discretion and rules (pp. 27–34, European monographs, Vol. 20). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Skjærseth, J. B., & Wettestad, J. (2008). Implementing EU emissions trading: Success or failure? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8, 275–290 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-008-9068-4
Spendzharova, A., & Versluis, E. (2013). Issue salience in the European Policy Process: What impact on transposition? Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 1499–1516 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781802
Thomann, E. (2015). Is output performance all about the resources? A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Public Administration, 93, 177–194 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12130
Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017a). Hybridity in action: Accountability dilemmas of public and for-profit food safety inspectors in Switzerland. In P. Verbruggen & H. Havinga (Eds.), Hybridization of food governance: Trends, types and results (pp. 100–120). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017b). Toward a better understanding of implementation performance in the EU multilevel system. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1385–1407 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314542
Thomann, E., & Zhelyazkova, A. (2017). Moving beyond (non-)compliance: The customization of European Union policies in 27 countries. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1269–1288 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314536
Thomann, E., van Engen, N., & Tummers, L. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy024
Thomann, E., Lieberherr, E., & Ingold, K. (2016). Torn between state and market: Private policy implementation and conflicting institutional logics. Policy and Society, 35, 57–69 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.12.001
Toshkov, D. (2010). Taking stock: a review of quantitative studies of transposition and implementation of EU law. Institute for European Integration Research, Working paper No. 01/2010.
Toshkov, D. (2012). Compliance with EU law in Central and Eastern Europe. L’Europe en Formation, 364, 91–109 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3917/eufor.364.0091
Toshkov, D., & Haan, L. de. (2013). The Europeanization of asylum policy: An assessment of the EU impact on asylum applications and recognitions rates. Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 661–683 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.726482
Tosun, J. (2012). Environmental monitoring and enforcement in Europe: A review of empirical research. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22, 437–448 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1582
Treib, O. (2014). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance. https://doi.org/10.12942/lreg-2014-1
Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. J. J. M. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978
Versluis, E. (2003). Enforcement matters: Enforcement and compliance of European directives in four member states. Delft: Eburon.
Versluis, E. (2007). Even rules, uneven practices: Opening the ‘black box’ of EU law in action. West European Politics, 30, 50–67 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380601019647
Voermans, W. (2009). Gold-plating and double banking: an overrated problem? In H. J. Snijders & S. Vogenauer (Eds.), Content and meaning of national law in the context of transnational law (pp. 79–88). München: Sellier.
Whitford, A. B. (2007). Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 17–30 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912906298529
Winter, S. (2003). Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In B. G. P. J. Pierre (Ed.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 212–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zhelyazkova, A., Kaya, C., & Schrama, R. (2016). Decoupling practical and legal compliance: Analysis of member states’ implementation of EU policy. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 827–846 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12154
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Electronic Supplementary Material (S)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thomann, E. (2019). Europeanized Solutions to Shared Problems? How Customization Affects Policy Outcomes. In: Customized Implementation of European Union Food Safety Policy. International Series on Public Policy . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92684-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92684-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92683-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92684-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)