Advertisement

Customization, Adaptive Implementation, and the “European Experience”

  • Eva Thomann
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

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.

Keywords

Adaptive implementation Better regulation Customization Europeanization 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. Berman, P. (1978). Designing implementation to match policy situation: A contingency analysis of programmed and adaptive implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, T., & Hupe, P. L. (Eds.). (2018). Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Graziano, P., & Vink, M. (Eds.). (2008). Europeanization: New research agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Schakel, A. H. (2010). The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knill, C. (2015). Implementation. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 371–397). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2011). Public policy analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Lodge, M. (2008). Regulation, the regulatory state and European politics. West European Politics, 31, 280–301 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701835074
  47. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298 (1972).  https://doi.org/10.2307/974990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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.
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. May, P. J. (2015). Implementation failures revisited: Policy regime perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 30, 277–299 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076714561505
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Richardson, J. (Ed.). (1982). Interventionist styles in Western Europe. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. Thomann, E. (2018). ‘Donate your organs, donate life!’ Explicitness in policy instruments. Policy Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9324-6
  76. 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
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. Treib, O. (2014). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance.  https://doi.org/10.12942/lreg-2014-1
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. Verbruggen, P., & Havinga, H. (Eds.). (2017). Hybridization of food governance: Trends, types and results. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  90. Versluis, E. (2003). Enforcement matters: Enforcement and compliance of European directives in four member states. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Vink, M. P. (2002). Negative and positive integration in European immigration policies. SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.325522
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. Whitford, A. B. (2007). Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 17–30 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912906298529
  96. Windhoff-Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escaping deadlock (Theories of institutional design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Windhoff-Héritier, A. (2001). Differential Europe: The European Union impact on national policymaking. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  98. Winter, S. (2012). Implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 151–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 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
  101. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Thomann
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations