Admission requirements
Admission to the Master EUS.
Description
When the Council of Ministers and other legislative actors in the European Union have agreed on a new directive, this policy instrument has a long way to go before it is finally implemented. To become ‘law in action’ the new directive first has to be transposed into national legislation. Then, the new rules have to be applied by the implementing agency or administration. Finally, the rules have to be monitored and enforced. If somewhere along this road a problem arises so that this process is not completed, the directive is not fully implemented. In other words, the implementation of EU directives is a complicated process in which various decisions have to be taken by different national and subnational actors as well as by the implementing administration or agencies.
This seminar focuses on how EU policy, as specified in a directive, is implemented in member states. Students will analyze the process that eventually may lead to the implementation of the policy. To understand potential factors that may hinder, or stimulate, smooth implementation, we will focus on the current literature on EU compliance and the more traditional public administration literature on policy implementation. There are striking parallel developments in these literatures, which are worth to be further explored.
Special attention will be paid to the occurrence of cross-border effects. The implementation of a directive by a member states can cause problems in border regions. Due to differences in the implementation of EU directives between member states, (groups of) individuals can be affected in a way which was not intended by the directive. For example: The use of fertilizer in the Netherlands is restricted for farmers, in order to protect the groundwater quality and act in line with the criteria set in the related EU directive. Just across the border, in Germany, farmers can more widely use fertilizer, due to the different implementation of this EU directive. This is advantageous for German farmers when competing with Dutch farmers in the border region.
As part of this course, students need to analyze an implementation process in one of the EU member states. This assignment includes a description of the decision making process at the European level, the process of transposition in a member state, the subsequent implementation process, and the possible problems which can arise in neighbouring member states when the implementation of directives diverges. For this, expert interviews, academic publications, and the consultation of sources available through the Internet are essential. The paper prepared will be presented in class. At the end of the course several sessions are devoted to student presentations so that the results from the various studies can be discussed and compared.
Course objectives
Good understanding of the European policy process with an emphasis on implementation, enforcement and cross-border effects of policy;
Good understanding of the European policy arena, including its multi-level nature, the functioning of non-binding policy instruments (‘soft’ law), and the participation of various political actors with different interests;
Good understanding of the current literature on policy implementation, especially the implementation of EU policy;
Skills in identifying and analyzing implementation by using various sources and different research methodologies;
Advanced capacity to use argumentative and communication skills in oral and written presentation.
Timetable
Mode of instruction
Tutorial. Students may miss class once without prior notification.
Assessment method
The final grade is made up of two grades:
one for the student presentation (30%),
and one for the final paper (70%).
Assignment
Students need to make in teams of 4-5 participants a case study of the implementation of a selective European directive in two member states which share a border with each other. This means that each team does two country studies of an implementation process of a directive, which need to be compared by the participants in order to identify border effects and the response to these effects by the authorities in the member states.
The introduction needs to describe the decision-making process at the EU level on the directive, including the position of various member states and how this may have affected the drafting of the text. It also discusses the main objectives of the policy, and the ways in which these objectives are to be achieved.
The main text should describe the implementation process of an EU directive in two neighbouring EU member states. Attention should be paid to
the transposition process and changes made during this stage,
the organization of the implementation process and the main actors,
the views of these actors on how to implement the policy, and
enforcement of the policy.
Furthermore, the following questions with regard to cross-border effects related with the implementation of EU directives should be addressed: Does a cross-border effect occur due to differences in implementation between neigbouring EU member states? Were public officials in the member states aware of these border effects? Did they anticipate the border effect caused by differences in implementation of the EU directive? Was any action undertaken by public officials in the member state(s) to reduce the negative effects of the difference in implementation?
In the conclusions, the team discusses the results from the country studies on the implementation processes. These results are then compared and discussed from the perspective of cross-border effects.
The overall structure of the report, including the country studies, may look as follows:
Introduction: Legislative decision-making at the EU-level, Policy objectives and instruments
Country 1:
- Transposition
- Organization of implementation
- Views on implementation
- Enforcement
- Cross-border effects
Country 2: Etc.
Comparison: are differences in implementation of the EU directive causing cross-border effects?
Conclusion
The teams can choose a directive that satisfies the following conditions:
The directive has been enacted at least 5-10 years ago (to avoid that there is not yet any experience with implementation). See EurLex for existing possibilities;
The directive is new directive and not a modifying or consolidated directive;
The contents of the directive are rather straightforward and relatively simple, and it includes several clearly stated ‘goals’ that need to be achieved by the member states.
We shall coordinate the selection of directives in class
The country studies are each no longer than 8,000 words, while the additional common parts are no longer than 4,000 words including footnotes, references and tables (please use letter size 11/at least 1.5 spacing between lines). Referencing should be made using the stylesheet in Appendix 1.
The deadline for submission is Monday 30 May 12.00 hrs
at the Secretariat of Public Administration, Pieter de la Court Building, Leiden University. The report needs to be filed as a hardcopy
an electronic copy should be send by email to R. de Ruiter.
Moreover, the paper needs to be submitted for electronic plagiarism testing to the secretariat Master European Union Studies. Grades will be final after plagiarism testing is done.
On the cover page students need to state their full name, student number, course name and code and title of the paper.
Blackboard
Yes, see the site.
Reading list
Helpful links and various data and data bases, which could be the basis of your research:
various case studies on transposition, implementation and compliance
quantitative studies on transposition and implementation ;
main data base of the Commission. Information on legislation and legislative processes
data base of the European Parliament. Information on legislation and legislative processes
EIF, center at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Working papers on transposition and implementation in the EU
Literature per class and theme
I. Introduction: decision-making, transposition and implementation (11 April 2012)
Treib, Oliver (2008) “Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs”, Living Reviews in European Governance 3
Steunenberg, Bernard (2007) “A policy solution to the European Union’s transposition puzzle: Interaction of interests in different domestic arenas”, West European Politics 30: 23-49.
Stone Sweet, Alec (2010) “The European Court of Justice and the judicialization of EU governance”, Living Reviews in European Governance 5.
O’Toole, Laurence J. (2000) “Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10: 263-88.
II. Transposition (11 April 2012)
Steunenberg, Bernard and Mark Rhinard (2010) “The transposition of European Law in EU member states: Between process and politics”, European Review of Political Science 2: 495-520.
Zhelyazkova, A. and Torenvlied, R. (2009) “The Time-Dependent Effect of Conflict in the Council on Delays in the Transposition of EU Directives”, European Union Politics 10: 35-62.
Steunenberg, Bernard and Michael Kaeding (2009) “‘As time goes by’: Explaining the transposition of maritime directives”, European Journal for Political Research 48: 432-54.
Toshkov, Dimiter (2008). “Embracing European Law: Transposition of EU directives in Central and Eastern Europe”, European Union Politics 9: 379-342.
III. Implementation in public administration (18 April 2012)
Howlett, Michael (2009) “Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design”, Policy Science 42: 73-89.
Gardner, R and E. Ostrom (1991) “Rules and games”, Public Choice 70: 121-49.
Hill and Hupe Michael Hill and Peter Hupe (2006) “Analysing policy processes as multiple governance: accountability in social policy”, Policy & Politics 34 (3): 557–73.
Matland, R.E. (1995) “Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation”, Journal of Public Adminstration Research and Theory 5: 145-74.
IV. Guest lecture 1 (18 April 2012):
- TBA
V. Implementation in the EU (25 April 2012)
Börzel, Tanja, Tobias Hofmann, Diana Panke, and Carina Sprungk (2010) “Obstinate and Inefficient: Why Member States Do Not Comply With European Law”, Comparative Political Studies, 43: 1363-1390.
Steunenberg, Bernard (2010) “Is big brother watching? Commission oversight of the national implementation of EU directives”, European Union Politics, 11: 359-380.
Versluis, Esther (2007) “Even Rules, Uneven Practices: Opening the ‘Black Box’ of EU Law in Action”, West European Politics 30: 50-67
Hartlapp, M. and G. Falkner (2009) “Problems of operationalization and data in EU compliance research”, European Union Politics 10: 281–304.
VI. Implementation of EU soft law: the Open Method of Coordination (2 May 2012)
Tholoniat L (2010) “The Career of the Open Method of Coordination: Lessons from a ‘Soft’ EU Instrument”, West European Politics 33 (1): 93-117.
Eberlein, B. and Kerwer, D. (2004) “New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective”, Journal of Common Market Studies 42 (1): 121-42.
López-Santana M (2006) “The domestic implications of European soft law: framing and transmitting change in employment policy”, Journal of European Public Policy 13 (4): 481-499.
De Ruiter, R. (2010) “EU soft law and the functioning of representative democracy: the use of methods of open coordination by Dutch and British parliamentarians”, Journal of European Public Policy, 17 (6): 874-890.
VII. Guest lecture 2 (2 May 2012): Jaap Romme
- TBA
Registration
Via uSis
See also: registration and admission requirements for the Master EUS