Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Customization, Adaptive Implementation, and the “European Experience”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Customized Implementation of European Union Food Safety Policy

Part of the book series: International Series on Public Policy ((ISPP))

  • 351 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter draws conclusions about the dynamics that drive customization and the conditions under which extensive or limited customization can contribute to successful implementation. Based on the results, I make recommendations for possible governance responses. I suggest refining frameworks of “adaptive implementation” in member state implementation by accounting for intermediate levels of ambiguity and the nature of the policy problem. These assertions await testing in other policy areas, countries, and multilevel systems. A research agenda for the study of customization in the European Union (EU) and beyond should track vertical policy change across all stages of the policy cycle and tackle the relevance of customization for better regulation, policy success, and the legitimacy of EU decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Future research could also look at customized implementation including other relevant dimensions of change, such as formal intensity (Adam et al. 2015) or explicitness (Thomann 2018).

  2. 2.

    My discussion of policy implementation literature remains selective and non-exhaustive. I will leave the elaboration of a more robust model for a future occasion.

  3. 3.

    The focus here is, therefore, not in explaining why an adaptive implementation approach is chosen, but on the consequences of choosing an adaptive approach. For an excellent recent treatment of the former, see Dörrenbächer and Mastenbroek (2017).

  4. 4.

    In my data, the degree of flexibility of the EU rule does not appear to be a decisive criterion in knowing whether the role of customization affects implementation success or failure. This is most likely due to the fact that at the time of practical implementation, the flexibility of the transposed domestic rule is more decisive than the flexibility of the original EU rule.

References

  • Adam, C., Hurka, S., & Knill, C. (2015). Four styles of regulation and their implications for comparative policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19, 327–344 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2015.1082262

  • Alexander, E. R. (1985). From idea to action: Notes for a contingency theory of the policy implementation process. Administration & Society, 16, 403–426 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1177/009539978501600402

  • Atthoff, K., & Wallgren, M. (2012). Clarifying Gold-Plating: Better implementation of EU Legislation. Online resource. Swedish Better Regulation Council. http://www.regelradet.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Clarifying-Gold-Plating.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2018.

  • Bauer, M. W., & Knill, C. (2014). A conceptual framework for the comparative analysis of policy change: Measurement, explanation and strategies of policy dismantling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16, 28–44 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.885186

  • Berman, P. (1978). Designing implementation to match policy situation: A contingency analysis of programmed and adaptive implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Börzel, T. A. (2000). Why there is no ‘southern problem’. On environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7, 141–162 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/135017600343313

  • Börzel, T. A., & Hosli, M. O. (2003). Brussels between Bern and Berlin: Comparative federalism meets the European Union. Governance, 16, 179–202 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00213

  • Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2012). From Europeanisation to diffusion: Introduction. West European Politics, 35(1), 1–19 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2012.631310

  • Börzel, T. A., Hofmann, T., Panke, D., & Sprungk, C. (2010). Obstinate and inefficient: Why member states do not comply with European law. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 1363–1390 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010376910

  • Bowen, E. R. (1982). The Pressman-Wildavsky paradox: Four addenda or why models based on probability theory can predict implementation success and suggest useful tactical advice for implementers. Journal of Public Policy, 2, 1–22 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00001768

  • Brouard, S., Costa, O., & König, T. (Eds.). (2011). The Europeanization of domestic legislatures: The empirical implications of the Delors’ Myth in nine countries. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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). https://doi.org/10.2307/2149628

  • Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping: Reversible logic in the analysis of public policy. In K. Hanf & T. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems (pp. 33–70). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T., & Hupe, P. L. (Eds.). (2018). Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkner, G. (2016). The EU’s problem-solving capacity and legitimacy in a crisis context: A virtuous or vicious circle? West European Politics, 39, 953–970 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186386

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 473–493 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut037

  • Graziano, P., & Vink, M. (Eds.). (2008). Europeanization: New research agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Heidbreder, E. G. (2017). Strategies in multilevel policy implementation: Moving beyond the limited focus on compliance. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1367–1384 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314540

  • Heidbreder, E.G., & Brandsma, G.J. (2018). The EU policy process. In E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 805–821). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • High Level Expert Group on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of ESI Funds. (2016). Interim Report: Conclusions and recommendations on Gold-Plating. https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/hlg_16_0008_00_conclusions_and_recomendations_on_goldplating_final.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2018.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P. L. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. Der moderne Staat – dms, 6(2), 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hupe, P. L., & Hill, M. (2018). Discretion in the policy process. In T. Evans & P. L. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2015). Implementation. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 371–397). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., Tosun, J., & Bauer, M. W. (2009). Neglected faces of Europeanization: The differential impact of the EU on the dismantling and expansion of domestic policies. Public Administration, 87, 519–537 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01768.x

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435–452 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051762

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M. (2008). Regulation, the regulatory state and European politics. West European Politics, 31, 280–301 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701835074

  • Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298 (1972). https://doi.org/10.2307/974990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation. (2001). Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation. Final report. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/mandelkern_report.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2018.

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52, 943–969 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550699

  • 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

  • May, P. J. (2015). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30, 277–299 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076714561505

  • Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (1997). Trust, distrust and skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. The Journal of Politics, 59, 418–451 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2307/2998171

  • O’Toole, L. J. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 181–210 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006486

  • Palumbo, D. J., & Oliverio, A. (1989). Implementation theory and the theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 337–344 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90050-5

  • Peters, B. G., Capano, G., Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., Chou, M.-H., & Ravinet, P. (2018). Designing for policy effectiveness: Defining and understanding a concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2006). Implementing public policy. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 89–107, Vol. 125). Boca Raton: crc Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli, C. M., & Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Learning in the European Union: Theoretical lenses and meta-theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 923–940 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781832

  • 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

  • Richardson, J. (Ed.). (1982). Interventionist styles in Western Europe. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (Applied social research methods series, Vol. 51). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sætren, H., & Hupe, P. L. (2018). Policy implementation in an age of governance. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 553–575). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S. (2015). Toward a comparative measure of climate policy output. Policy Studies Journal, 43, 257–282 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12095

  • 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

  • Schrama, R., & Zhelyazkova, A. (2018). ‘You can’t have one without the other’: The differential impact of civil society strength on the implementation of EU policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 25, 1029–1048 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1433709

  • Steunenberg, B. (2007). A policy solution to the European Union’s transposition puzzle: Interaction of interests in different domestic arenas. West European Politics, 30(1), 23–49 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380601019639

  • Thomann, E. (2018). ‘Donate your organs, donate life!’ Explicitness in policy instruments. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9324-6

  • Thomann, E., & Maggetti, M. (2017). Designing research with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Approaches, challenges, and tools. Sociological Methods & Research, 66, 1–31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729700

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017b). Moving beyond legal compliance: Innovative approaches to EU multilevel implementation. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1253–1268 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314541

  • 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

  • Thomson, R. (2009). Same effects in different worlds: The transposition of EU directives. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 1–18 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802453098

  • Thomson, R. (2010). Opposition through the back door in the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics, 11, 577–596 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116510380283

  • Töller, A. E. (2010). Measuring and comparing the Europeanization of national legislation: A research note. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(2), 417–444 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.02058.x

  • Toshkov, D. (2007). In search of the worlds of compliance: Culture and transposition performance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 933–959 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701497956

  • 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

  • Treib, O. (2014). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance. https://doi.org/10.12942/lreg-2014-1

  • Treib, O., Bähr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 1–20 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406

  • 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

  • Verbruggen, P., & Havinga, H. (Eds.). (2017). Hybridization of food governance: Trends, types and results. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Versluis, E. (2003). Enforcement matters: Enforcement and compliance of European directives in four member states. Delft: Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Vink, M. P. (2002). Negative and positive integration in European immigration policies. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.325522

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, H. A., & Cohen, B. P. (1985). Scope statements: Imperatives for evaluating theory. American Sociological Review, 50, 288–301 (1985). https://doi.org/10.2307/2095540

  • Whitford, A. B. (2007). Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 17–30 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912906298529

  • Windhoff-Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escaping deadlock (Theories of institutional design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windhoff-Héritier, A. (2001). Differential Europe: The European Union impact on national policymaking. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. (2012). Implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 151–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhelyazkova, A. (2013). Complying with EU directives’ requirements: The link between EU decision-making and the correct transposition of EU provisions. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 702–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Zito, A. R., & Schout, A. (2009). Learning theory reconsidered: EU integration theories and learning. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 1103–1123 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903332597

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Eva Thomann

Authors
  1. Eva Thomann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thomann, E. (2019). Customization, Adaptive Implementation, and the “European Experience”. 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_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation