Advertisement

Horizontal Capacity Pooling: Direct, Decentralized, Joint Policy Execution

  • Eva G. Heidbreder
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

A long-standing problem of policy making in multilevel systems is the structural gap between higher-level policy formulation and its lower-level implementation. Inside the European Union (EU), the problem is well known and has been subject to extensive research on compliance and the EU’s executive order. Although the Commission is responsible for the implementation of most European Community policies, it lacks the means for effective policy execution. The authorities of the member states, of ten at regional or local level, execute policies; and they act under the general principle of national administrative autonomy when implementing EU law. This creates a dilemma that is difficult to resolve: policy execution is controlled and ensured by the Commission, which lacks the material, personnel, and legal means to steer the bodies that actually carry out the execution, because these bodies remain formally integrated in their independent state hierarchies.

Keywords

European Union Member State Competent Authority Single Market Policy Enforcement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartolini, S. (2005) Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring Between the Nation State and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blitz, B. K. (1999) ‘Prof essional Mobility and the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in the European Union: Two Institutional Approaches’, Comparative Education Review, 43, 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Börzel, T. A. and Risse, T. (2000) ‘When Europe Hits Home: Europeanization and Domestic Change’, EIoP, 4, 15.Google Scholar
  4. Coombes, D. (1970) Politics and Bureaucracy in the European Community: A Portrait of the Commission of the E.E.C. (London: George Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
  5. Council of the European Union (2004) ‘Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content of the Protection Granted’, Official Journal, L 304/12.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, G. (2007) ‘The Services Directive: Extending the Country of Origin Principle and Reforming Public Administration’, European Law Review, 32, 232–345.Google Scholar
  7. Egeberg, M. and Trondal, J. (2011) ‘National Agencies in the European Administrative Space: Government Driven, Commission Driven or Networked?’ Public Administration, 87, 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2011b) ‘Single Market Act: Twelve Levers to Boost Growth and Strengthen Confidence “Working Together to Create New Growth”’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, COM(2011) 206 final: Brussels, 4 April, p. EC(2011) 467 final.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2011c) ‘Making the Single Market Deliver’, Annual Governance Check-Up 2011 (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union).Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2012a) ‘Better Governance of the Single Market’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, COM(2012) E, 8 June.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2012b) ‘Delivering the Single Market Act: State of Play’, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2012) 21 final, 15 February.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2012d) ‘Single Market Act II: Together for New Growth (Text with EEA Relevance)’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, COM(2012) 573 final: Brussels, 3. October.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2012e) ‘Statistics on the Use of the Internal Market Information System’, Directorate General Internal Market and Services, December.Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament and Council. (2006) ‘Directive 2006/123/EC of 12 December 2006 on Services in the Internal Market’, Official Journal, L 376/36.Google Scholar
  15. European Parliament and Council. (2012) ‘Regulation (EU) No. 1024/2012 of 25 October 2012 on Administrative Cooperation Through the Internal Market Information System and Repealing Commission Decision 2008/49/EC (‘the IMI Regulation’)’, Official Journal, L316/1, 14 NovembGoogle Scholar
  16. Goetz, K. H. (2001) ‘European Integration and National Executives: A Cause in Search of an Effect?’, in Goetz, K. H. and Hix, S. (eds.) Europeanised Politics? European Integration and National Systems (London: Frank Cass), 211–231.Google Scholar
  17. Heidbreder, E. G. (2011) ‘Structuring the European Administrative Space: Policy Instruments of Multi-Level Administration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18, 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heidbreder, E. G. (2013) ‘Regulating Capacity Building by Stealth: Pattern and Extent of EU Involvement in Public Administration’, in Genschel, P. and Jachtenfuchs, M. (eds.) Beyond the Regulatory Polity (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Hofmann, H. C. H. (2008) ‘Mapping the European Administrative Space’, West European Politics, 31, 662–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kassim, H. (2003) ‘Meeting the Demands of EU Membership: The Europeanization of National Administrative Systems’, in Featherstone, K. and Radaelli, C. M. (eds.) The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knill, C. (2001) The Europeanisation of National Administrations: Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knill, C. and Lehmkuhl, D. (2002) ‘The National Impact of EU Regulatory Policy: Three Europeanization Mechanisms’, European Journal of Political Research, 41, 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lafarge, F. O. (2010) ‘Administrative Cooperation Between Member States and Implementation of EU Law’, European Public Law, 16, 597–616.Google Scholar
  24. Monti, M. (2010) ‘A New Strategy for the Single Market: At the Service of Europe’s Economy and Society’, Report to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, 9 May.Google Scholar
  25. Neyer, J. and Wolf, D. (2004) ‘Horizontal Enforcement in the EU: The BSE Case and the Case of State Aid Control’, in Kohler-Koch, B. (ed.) Linking EU and National Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 201–224.Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, J. (2003) ‘Towards a European Administrative Space?’ Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 506–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Page, E. C. (2003) ‘Europeanization and the Persistence of Administrative Systems’, in Hayward, J. and Menon, A. (eds.) Governing Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt, S. K. (2009) ‘When Efficiency Results in Redistribution: The Conflict over the Single Services Market’, West European Politics, 32, 847–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trondal, J. (2010) An Emergent European Executive Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wessels, W. (1998) ‘Comitology: Fusion in Action. Politico-Administrative Trends in the EU System’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Eva G. Heidbreder 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva G. Heidbreder
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations