IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v9y2008i1p31-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Structure of Conflict over EU Chemicals Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Karl-Oskar Lindgren

    (Uppsala University, Sweden, Karl-Oskar.Lindgren@statsvet.uu.se)

  • Thomas Persson

    (Uppsala University, Sweden, Thomas.Persson@statsvet.uu.se)

Abstract

There is a lively academic debate over whether political cleavages in the European Union (EU) follow mainly territorial (national) or non-territorial (ideological) patterns. This article analyses the cleavages that structure the conflict over European chemicals policy, the so-called REACH system. Taking positions on this major policy as an empirical example, we test these competing theories on the nature of cleavages on environmental policy issues in the EU. We use data from an expert survey of more than 600 individuals to fulfil this aim. The results show that neither of the hypotheses is unequivocally supported. But the data indicate that cleavages based on non-territorial interests are much more important than territorial interests in explaining positions on REACH.

Suggested Citation

  • Karl-Oskar Lindgren & Thomas Persson, 2008. "The Structure of Conflict over EU Chemicals Policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 31-58, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:9:y:2008:i:1:p:31-58
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116507085956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116507085956
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116507085956?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Zimmer & Gerald Schneider & Michael Dobbins, 2005. "The Contested Council: Conflict Dimensions of an Intergovernmental EU Institution," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53, pages 403-422, June.
    2. Simon Hix & Abdul Noury & Gérard Roland, 2006. "Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 494-520, April.
    3. Sara Hagemann, 2007. "Applying Ideal Point Estimation Methods to the Council of Ministers," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(2), pages 279-296, June.
    4. Abdul Ghafar Noury & Simon Hix & Gérard Roland, 2007. "Democratic politics in the European Parliament," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7744, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Andrew Moravcsik, 1993. "Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 473-524, December.
    6. Christina Zimmer & Gerald Schneider & Michael Dobbins, 2005. "The Contested Council: Conflict Dimensions of an Intergovernmental EU Institution," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(2), pages 403-422, June.
    7. Stanley Hoffmann, 1982. "Reflections on the Nation‐State in Western Europe Today," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 21-38, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steffen Hurka, 2013. "Changing the output: The logic of amendment success in the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 273-296, June.
    2. David M Willumsen, 2018. "The Council’s REACH? National governments’ influence in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 663-683, December.
    3. Johan Eriksson & Mikael Karlsson & Marta Reuter, 2010. "Technocracy, Politicization, and Noninvolvement: Politics of Expertise in the European Regulation of Chemicals," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(2), pages 167-185, March.
    4. Arndt Wonka & Iskander De Bruycker & Dirk De Bièvre & Caelesta Braun & Jan Beyers, 2018. "Patterns of Conflict and Mobilization: Mapping Interest Group Activity in EU Legislative Policymaking," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 136-146.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christophe Crombez & Simon Hix, 2011. "Treaty reform and the Commission’s appointment and policy-making role in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(3), pages 291-314, September.
    2. Tim Veen, 2011. "The dimensionality and nature of conflict in European Union politics: On the characteristics of intergovernmental decision-making," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 65-86, March.
    3. Christophe Crombez & Pieterjan Vangerven, 2014. "Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 289-308, June.
    4. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "The EU Council enlarged: North-South-East or core-periphery?," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 87-106, March.
    5. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    6. Tanja A. Börzel & Philipp Broniecki & Miriam Hartlapp & Lukas Obholzer, 2023. "Contesting Europe: Eurosceptic Dissent and Integration Polarization in the European Parliament," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 1100-1118, July.
    7. Sara Hagemann & Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Bicameral Politics in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 811-833, September.
    8. Christopher Wratil & Sara B Hobolt, 2019. "Public deliberations in the Council of the European Union: Introducing and validating DICEU," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 511-531, September.
    9. Brigitte Pircher & Mike Farjam, 2021. "Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 472-494, September.
    10. Muhlbock, Monika & Tosun, Jale, 2015. "Deciding over controversial issues: Voting behavior in the Council and the European Parliament on genetically modified organisms," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211480, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    11. Clemens Fuest & Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Ungerer, 2015. "Reforming the Financing of the European Union: A Proposal," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 50(5), pages 288-293, September.
    12. Friedrich Heinemann & Philipp Mohl & Steffen Osterloh, 2009. "Who’s afraid of an EU tax and why?—revenue system preferences in the European Parliament," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 73-99, March.
    13. Richard Perkins & Eric Neumayer, 2007. "Do Membership Benefits Buy Regulatory Compliance?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(2), pages 180-206, June.
    14. Christina J. Schneider & Johannes Urpelainen, 2014. "Partisan Heterogeneity and International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 58(1), pages 120-142, February.
    15. Wessel Wijtvliet & Arthur Dyevre, 2021. "Judicial ideology in economic cases: Evidence from the General Court of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 25-45, March.
    16. Sara Hagemann & Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Bicameral Politics in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 811-833, September.
    17. Thomas Lehner & Fabio Wasserfallen, 2019. "Political conflict in the reform of the Eurozone," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 45-64, March.
    18. Daniel Finke, 2009. "Estimating the Effect of Nonseparable Preferences in Eu Treaty Negotiations," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(4), pages 543-569, October.
    19. Deniz Aksoy, 2010. "Who gets what, when, and how revisited: Voting and proposal powers in the allocation of the EU budget," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 171-194, June.
    20. Tim Veen, 2011. "Positions and salience in European Union politics: Estimation and validation of a new dataset," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 267-288, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:9:y:2008:i:1:p:31-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.