Policy Matters But How? Explaining Non-Compliance Dynamics in the EU
AbstractThe European Union’s infringement procedure is highly legalized. Nevertheless, as in other international institutions, non-compliance occurs on a regular basis and its transformation into compliance varies across EU infringement stages and over time. State of the art compliance literature focuses mainly on country-specific explanations, such as power, capacity, and legitimacy. In particular power-capacity models explain a good part of whether non-compliance occurs and how quickly it can be resolved. Yet, these approaches leave substantial parts of the empirical variation that we observe unexplained. This paper argues that policy and, in particular, rule-specific variables – although often neglected – are important for explaining non-compliance. Based on a quantitative analysis, we show that policy matters not only for the frequency with which EU law is violated, but also the persistence of non-compliance over time and over the different stages of the infringement procedure.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Free University Berlin in its series KFG Working Papers with number p0024.
Date of creation: 14 Feb 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.transformeurope.eu/
European law; Europeanization; Europeanization;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-10-01 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Checkel, Jeffrey T., 2001. "Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(03), pages 553-588, June.
- Miriam Hartlapp, 2007. "On Enforcement, Management and Persuasion: Different Logics of Implementation Policy in the EU and the ILO," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45, pages 653-674, 09.
- Smith, James McCall, 2000. "The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(01), pages 137-180, December.
- Herzfeld, Thomas & Weiss, Christoph, 2003. "Corruption and legal (in)effectiveness: an empirical investigation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 621-632, September.
- Steinberg, Richard H., 2002. "In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(02), pages 339-374, March.
- Harfst, Philipp & Schnapp, Kai-Uwe, 2003. "Instrumente parlamentarischer Kontrolle der Exekutive in westlichen Demokratien," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Democracy and Democratization SP IV 2003-201, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
- Keohane, Robert O. & Moravcsik, Andrew & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2000. "Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(03), pages 457-488, June.
- Downs, George W. & Rocke, David M. & Barsoom, Peter N., 1996. "Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 379-406, June.
- Witold J. Henisz, 2002. "The institutional environment for infrastructure investment," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 355-389.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sasan ABDI).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.