Discretion, Diversity, and Problem-Solving in the European Union

  • Eva Thomann
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)


This book analyzes how and why five Western European countries “customize” EU food safety policies, as well as the implications for policy outcomes. Customization captures how countries adapt policies to local circumstances, resulting in tailor-made domestic solutions to shared problems. I argue that it is important to study the contested role of discretion, particularly if we think of the EU as the joint governance of cross-border policy problems. In order to understand this role, we need to move beyond legal compliance and account for fine-grained differences in policy implementation. In tracing the implementation of EU Directives from transposition to policy outcomes, this book contributes to the more fundamental theoretical debates surrounding the use of discretion in policy implementation.


Customization Discretion Europeanization Policy implementation 


  1. Angelova, M., Dannwolf, T., & König, T. (2012). How robust are compliance findings? A research synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 19, 1269–1291 (2012).
  2. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law (3rd ed., Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, S., & Fudge, C. (Eds.). (1981). Policy and action: Essays on the implementation of public policy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, S. M. (2004). Implementation studies: Time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration, 82, 249–262 (2004).
  5. Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2016). Bureaucratic autonomy of international organizations’ secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy, 23, 1019–1037 (2016).
  6. Bauer, M. W., & Knill, C. (2014). A conceptual framework for the comparative analysis of policy change: Measurement, explanation and strategies of policy dismantling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16, 28–44 (2014).
  7. Berman, P. (1978). Designing implementation to match policy situation: A contingency analysis of programmed and adaptive implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Beunen, R., van Assche, K., & Duineveld, M. (2013). Performing failure in conservation policy: The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 31, 280–288 (2013).
  9. Bondarouk, E., & Liefferink, D. (2017). Diversity in sub-national EU implementation: The application of the EU Ambient Air Quality directive in 13 municipalities in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19, 733–753 (2017).
  10. Bondarouk, E., & Mastenbroek, E. (2018). Reconsidering EU Compliance: Implementation performance in the field of environmental policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28, 15–27 (2018).
  11. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2012). From Europeanisation to diffusion: Introduction. West European Politics, 35(1), 1–19 (2012).
  12. Börzel, T. A., & Hosli, M. O. (2003). Brussels between Bern and Berlin: Comparative federalism meets the European Union. Governance, 16, 179–202 (2003).
  13. Brouard, S., Costa, O., & König, T. (Eds.). (2011). The Europeanization of domestic legislatures: The empirical implications of the Delors’ Myth in nine countries. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Bugdahn, S. (2006). Of Europeanization and Domestication: The implementation of the environmental information directive in Ireland, Great Britain and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 177–199 (2006).
  15. Dörrenbächer, N., & Mastenbroek, E. (2017). Passing the Buck? Analyzing the delegation of discretion after transposition of European Union law. Regulation & Governance.
  16. Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616 (1979).
  17. Falkner, G. (2016). The EU’s problem-solving capacity and legitimacy in a crisis context: A virtuous or vicious circle? West European Politics, 39, 953–970 (2016).
  18. 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
  19. Featherstone, K., & Radaelli, C. M. (Eds.). (2003). The politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fink, S., & Ruffing, E. (2017). The differentiated implementation of European participation rules in energy infrastructure planning: Why does the German participation regime exceed European requirements? European Policy Analysis 3(2), 274–294 (2017).
  21. Graziano, P., & Vink, M. (Eds.). (2008). Europeanization: New research agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Hartlapp, M. (2014). Enforcing social Europe through labour inspectorates: Changes in capacity and cooperation across Europe. West European Politics, 37, 805–824 (2014).
  23. Heidbreder, E. G. (2017). Strategies in multilevel policy implementation: Moving beyond the limited focus on compliance. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1367–1384 (2017).
  24. Héritier, A. (1996). The accommodation of diversity in European policy-making and its outcomes: Regulatory policy as a patchwork. Journal of European Public Policy, 3, 149–167 (1996).
  25. Héritier, A. (2016). “Rigour versus Relevance”? Methodological discussions in political science. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 57, 11–26 (2016).
  26. Hill, M. J., & Hupe, P. L. (2014). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration (Governance in Europe). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  28. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243 (2003).
  29. Huber, J. D., & Shipan, C. R. (2002). Deliberate discretion: The institutional foundations of bureaucratic autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hupe, P. L. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: Specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. Der moderne Staat – dms, 6(2), 425–440.Google Scholar
  31. Hupe, P. L., & Hill, M. (2018). Discretion in the policy process. In T. Evans & P. L. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Hupe, P. L., Hill, M., & Buffat, A. (Eds.). (2016). Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62, Public administration and public policy, Vol. 125). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Jans, J. H., Squintani, L., Aragão, A., Macrory, R., & Wegener, B. W. (2009). ‘Gold plating’ of European Environmental Measures? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 6, 417–435 (2009).
  35. Jensen, C. B. (2007). Implementing Europe: A question of oversight. European Union Politics, 8, 451–477 (2007).
  36. Keman, H. (2000). Federalism and policy performance: A conceptual and empirical inquiry. In U. Wachendorfer-Schmidt (Ed.), Federalism and political performance (pp. 196–227, Routledge/ECPR studies in European political science, Vol. 16). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Knill, C. (2015). Implementation. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 371–397). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levi-Faur, D. (2011). Handbook on the politics of regulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Logmani, J., Krott, M., Lecyk, M. T., & Giessen, L. (2017). Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest. Forest Policy and Economics, 74, 81–90 (2017).
  42. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, 298 (1972). Scholar
  43. Maggetti, M., & Verhoest, K. (2014). Unexplored aspects of bureaucratic autonomy: A state of the field and ways forward. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77–101 (1994).
  45. Majone, G. (1999). Regulation in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 1, 309–324 (1999).
  46. Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public Administration, 88, 564–583 (2010).
  47. Mastenbroek, E. (2018). Europeanization of policies and administration. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in europe (pp. 823–840). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mastop, H., & Faludi, A. (1997). Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 815–832 (1997).
  49. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 145–174 (1995).
  50. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  51. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all; this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (3rd ed., The Oakland Project series). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2006). Implementing public policy. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 89–107, Vol. 125). Boca Raton: crc Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Radaelli, C. M., & Exadaktylos, T. (2012). Research design in European studies: Establishing causality in Europeanization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Richardson, J. J. (2012). Constructing a policy-making state?: Policy dynamics in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robichau, R. W., & Lynn Jr., L. E. (2009). The implementation of public policy: Still the missing link. Policy Studies Journal, 37, 21–36 (2009).
  56. Rothstein, B. (Ed.). (2014). Human well-being and the lost relevance of political science: Max Weber Lecture No. 2014/03. Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  57. Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21–48 (1986).
  58. 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
  59. Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., & Mavrot, C. (2014). Confronting theories of European integration: A comparative congruence analysis of veterinary drug regulations in five countries. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16, 457–474 (2014).
  60. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Introduction: The problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance. Journal of Public Policy, 4, 520–538 (1997).
  61. Schimmelfennig, F. (2010). Europeanisation beyond the member states. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften (ZSE), 8(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt, S. K. (2008). Beyond compliance: The Europeanization of member states through negative integration and legal uncertainty. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 10, 299–308 (2008).
  63. Scholten, M. (2017). Mind the trend! Enforcement of EU law has been moving to ‘Brussels’. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1348–1366 (2017).
  64. Shapiro, M. (1999). Implementation, discretion and rules. In J. A. E. Vervaele & G. Betlem (Eds.), Implementation, discretion and rules (pp. 27–34, European monographs, Vol. 20). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  65. 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).
  66. Thatcher, M., & Coen, D. (2008). Reshaping European regulatory space: An evolutionary analysis. West European Politics, 31(1), 806–836 (2008).
  67. Thomann, E. (2015). Customizing Europe: Transposition as bottom-up implementation. Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 1368–1387 (2015).
  68. Thomann, E. (2018). Food safety policy: Transnational, hybrid, wicked. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
  69. Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017a). Moving beyond legal compliance: Innovative approaches to EU multilevel implementation. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1253–1268 (2017).
  70. Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017b). Toward a better understanding of implementation performance in the EU multilevel system. Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1385–1407 (2017).
  71. 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).
  72. Thomann, E., van Engen, N., & Tummers, L. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
  73. 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).
  74. Thomson, R. (2010). Opposition through the back door in the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics, 11, 577–596 (2010).
  75. Töller, A. E. (2010). Measuring and comparing the Europeanization of national legislation: A research note. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(2), 417–444 (2010).
  76. 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
  77. Toshkov, D. (2012). Compliance with EU law in Central and Eastern Europe. L’Europe en Formation, 364, 91–109 (2012).
  78. Toshkov, D. (2016). Research design in political science (Political analysis). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  79. Tosun, J. (2012). Environmental monitoring and enforcement in Europe: A review of empirical research. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22, 437–448 (2012).
  80. Treib, O. (2004). Die Bedeutung der nationalen Parteipolitik für die Umsetzung europäischer Sozialrichtlinien (Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Vol. 51). Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  81. Treib, O. (2014). Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance.
  82. Verbruggen, P. (2013). Gorillas in the closet? Public and private actors in the enforcement of transnational private regulation. Regulation & Governance, 7, 512–532 (2013).
  83. Versluis, E. (2003). Enforcement matters: Enforcement and compliance of European directives in four member states. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  84. Versluis, E. (2007). Even rules, uneven practices: Opening the ‘black box’ of EU law in action. West European Politics, 30, 50–67 (2007).
  85. Voermans, W. (2009). Gold-plating and double banking: an overrated problem? In H. J. Snijders & S. Vogenauer (Eds.), Content and meaning of national law in the context of transnational law (pp. 79–88). München: Sellier.Google Scholar
  86. Whitford, A. B. (2007). Decentralized policy implementation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 17–30 (2007).
  87. Windhoff-Héritier, A. (1999). Policy-making and diversity in Europe: Escaping deadlock (Theories of institutional design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Zhelyazkova, A. (2013). Complying with EU directives’ requirements: The link between EU decision-making and the correct transposition of EU provisions. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 702–721 (2013).
  89. Zhelyazkova, A., Kaya, C., & Schrama, R. (2016). Decoupling practical and legal compliance: Analysis of member states’ implementation of EU policy. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 827–846 (2016).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Thomann
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations