Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Best of Both Worlds? Logics of Action and Customization

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

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

  • 325 Accesses

Abstract

Theories of Europeanization distinguish between two logics of action that states adopt when implementing European Union (EU) policies. However, how these logics interact with each other remains unknown. This chapter explores the conditions under which transposing countries customize EU Directives in rational and opportunistic manners, or whether they customize according to institutionally embedded habits and norms. I test the relative validity of four major interpretations of the relationship between the two logics by combining explanatory typologies with binomial probability tests and within-case analyses. Results reveal that member states tend to customize macro issues according to a logic of consequences, and micro issues following a logic of appropriateness. This finding has useful implications for EU governance.

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.

    There is a tendency to conceive of member states as unitary actors, while in reality, a multitude of different actors—bureaucracies, parties, ministries, interest groups, etc.—shape transposition outcomes (See also Knill 1998). This study accounts for this diversity by including the interests and power of stakeholder groups in the analysis, and by “zooming in” on mechanisms in specific cases. Overall, the “unitary actor assumption” bodes well with the aggregate perspective underlying sociological institutionalism, where norms are defined by the political and social system (Mastenbroek 2010).

  2. 2.

    In international relations, a third “logic of arguing” has been added (Börzel and Risse 2012, Cooper 2006, Hartlapp 2005, Müller 2004). For the sake of clarity, this analysis focuses on sociological institutionalism.

  3. 3.

    The full replication material and supplementary information about the analysis are reported in the online appendix, see https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PJTOCG.

  4. 4.

    For reasons of space I discuss only the domestic politics pathway. However, the cases of the institutional pathway are also situated in the UK and very much align with this narrative.

  5. 5.

    The last non-discernible type is partly an exception. Here, the theoretical expectations about both logics have less explanatory power to predict customization.

  6. 6.

    German authorities have a flair for colorful acronyms.

References

  • Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95, 529–546 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003100

  • Armingeon, K., Careja, R., Weisstanner, D., Engler, S., Potolidis, P., & Gerber, M. (2012). Comparative political data set III 1990–2011. Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall, M. D., & Schneider, G. (2000). Same menu, separate tables: The institutionalist turn in political science and the study of European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 38(1), 1–36 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00526

  • Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2003). Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe. In K. Featherstone & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), The politics of Europeanization (pp. 57–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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., & Risse, T. (2000). When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change. European Integration online Papers (EIoP). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302768

  • 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

  • Bulmer, S. (1998). New institutionalism and the governance of the Single European Market. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(3), 365–386 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1080/135017698343875

  • Cohen, N. (2017). How culture affects street-level bureaucrats’ bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: The Israeli case. The American Review of Public Administration, 48, 175–187 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016665919

  • Cooper, I. (2006). The watchdogs of subsidiarity: National parliaments and the logic of arguing in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 281–304 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00623.x

  • 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

  • Elman, C. (2005). Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization, 59, 293–326 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050101

  • 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 

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x

  • Hartlapp, M. (2005). Two variations on a theme: Different logics of implementation management in the EU and the ILO. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 9(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverland, M. (2000). National adaptation to European integration: The importance of institutional veto points. Journal of Public Policy, 20(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joachim, J., Reinalda, B., & Verbeek, B. (Eds.). (2008). International organizations and implementation: Enforcers, managers, authorities?. 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., & Lenschow, A. (2003). Modes of regulation in the governance of the European Union: Towards a comprehensive framework. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 7(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012). 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 

  • 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

  • Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2004). The possibility principle: Choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 653–669 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041401

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00242.x

  • 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

  • Mastenbroek, E. (2005). EU compliance: Still a ‘black hole’? Journal of Public Policy, 12, 1103–1120 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270869

  • Mastenbroek, E. (2010). EU compliance. Towards a procedural logic of appropriateness. Paper presented at ARENA, Oslo, November 30, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastenbroek, E., & Kaeding, M. (2006). Europeanization beyond the goodness of fit: Domestic politics in the forefront. Comparative European Politics, 4, 331–354 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110078

  • Michelsen, J. (2008). A Europeanization deficit? The impact of EU organic agriculture regulations on new member states. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 117–134 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701702256

  • Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2015). Explanatory typologies as a nested strategy of inquiry: Combining cross-case and within-case analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 46, 1018–1048 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115613778

  • Müller, H. (2004). Arguing, bargaining and all that: Communicative action, rationalist theory and the logic of appropriateness in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 10, 395–435 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066104045542

  • Risse, T. (2004). Social constructivism and European integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. (2003). Strategic action in a community environment: The decision to enlarge the European Union to the East. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 156–183 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414002239375

  • Schimmelfennig, F. (2010). Europeanisation beyond the member states. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften (ZSE), 8(3), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sending, O. J. (2002). Constitution, choice and change: Problems with the ‘logic of appropriateness’ and its use in constructivist theory. European Journal of International Relations, 8, 443–470 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066102008004001

  • 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

  • Steunenberg, B., & Toshkov, D. (2009). Comparing transposition in the 27 member states of the EU: The impact of discretion and legal fit. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(7), 951–970 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903226625

  • Thielemann, E. R. (2003). Between interests and norms: Explaining burden-sharing in the European Union. Journal of Refugee Studies, 16, 253–273 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/16.3.253

  • Thomann, E. (2015). Customizing Europe: Transposition as bottom-up implementation. Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 1368–1387 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008554

  • 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., 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

  • 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

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 289–325 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400007225

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

    Google Scholar 

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

Electronic Supplementary Material (S)

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). The Best of Both Worlds? Logics of Action and Customization. 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation