View
36
Download
2
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
SASE's 22nd Annual Meeting Temple University, Philadelphia June 24-26, 2010 Governance Across Borders: Coordination, Regulation, and Contestation in the Global Economy Analyzing the institutional innovation process: EU regulation through an evolutionary lens. Evita Paraskevopoulou , - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
SASE's 22nd Annual MeetingTemple University, Philadelphia
June 24-26, 2010Governance Across Borders:
Coordination, Regulation, and Contestation in the Global Economy
Analyzing the institutional innovation process: EU regulation through an
evolutionary lens
Evita Paraskevopoulou,Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Motivation/Research QuestionsInnovation is a function of many factors among
which we can study the implications public policyPublic policy is a function of many factors among
which we can study the implications of innovation
What are the attributes of the policy process?What are the attributes of the regulatory process?How do new regulations emerge?What are the factors that determine the outcome of
the regulatory process?
2
Conceptual Approach
• Regulations are policies• Policies are institutions• Institutions are commonly accepted sets of rules
that evolve• The regulatory process is an institutional process• The regulatory process is an evolutionary process• The regulatory process resembles the innovation
process
3
(Evolutionary?) Attributes of the policy process“Public policy needs to be generated or at least processed within the
framework of governmental procedures, influences and organizations” (Hogwood and Gunn, 1984: 24).
The policy process is a process of agents´ mobilization, persuasion and negotiation (Slembeck, 1997) i.e. public policy is the result of a timely process that is shaped by existing
institutions and is facilitated by interactions between public and private actors
Current changes in the political sphere can be seen as part of a sequence of earlier changes and as setting the scene for future evolutionary developments (….) historical circumstances are essential knowledge that the policy maker needs to possess and continuously update in order to increase the possibilities for the successful planning and implementation of future policies. (Nelson and Winter, 1982)
There is policy feedback i.e. “policies produce politics” (Pierson, 1993) i.e. the policy process is cumulative and path dependent in its nature
4
(Evolutionary?) Attributes of the policy process
• Politics are a subtype of social evolutionary process that relies on knowledge accumulation for its evolution (Modelski, 1996) i.e. policy evolution is about learning processes and
ideological struggles
5
In politics...• Agents rarely achieve important changes
through individual action• Asymmetry of information (agenda-setting
effects)• Changes are largely dependent on authority
and power• Change requires longer time• Incentives for learning stem from the will to
change existing institutions and political accountability
6
So it is suggested that • The regulatory process is an evolutionary
process fueled by knowledge accumulation and transition and is facilitated by purposeful actors whose perceptions and choices vary and evolve
• The regulatory process resembles the innovation process
7
Methods and Empirical context
• Exploratory study, case studies, semi structured interviews
• Detergents Industry• EU political system, co-decision regulatory process• EU Regulations
REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances)
2004 Detergents RegulationGHS (Globally Harmonized System of Classification
and Labelling of Chemicals)
8
Attributes of the EU political system and the co-decision process
Demand for policy coordination and redistribution of power and advantages to actors at the interfaces of policy levels (Grande, 2001)
Understaffing of public apparatus and increasing demand for expert knowledge (Bowen, 2001)
High number of access channels, variety of representation and increasing density and frequency of interactions (Crombez, 1997)
Inbuilt incentive and sanction mechanisms regarding the transmission of valuable information (Broscheid and Coen, 2003)
Degree of access is dependent on the quality of information provided (Bouwen, 2001)
Changing patterns of interest representation, firms evolving into sophisticated policy actors (Coen, 2007)
9
Evidence:
• path dependency and cumulativeness– Changing legal paradigms
• actors and interactions– Multi-actor, multi-level
10
Foaming Events in European Rivers
Development of Detergents Directives for Biodegradibility
Revision of Detergents Directives and Voluntary
Agreements for classif ication and labelling
Review of Detergents Directives,
Communication w ith Industry
Implementation of Detergents Regulation
1973: Framew ork Directive establishing min 90% biodegradibillity
1982: Directives for assessment methods and 80% pass level
1995: DG III announces intention to review existing legislation
2000: Decision to change from Directives to European Regulation
2001: Draft proposal and publication of consultation
2002: Final Proposal
2004: Regulation is publiced
2005: Regulation comes into force and consultation for derogations is published
2007: Deadline for derogations
Ongoing negotiations for expansion of regulaoryprovisions
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
2004 Detergents Regulation
11
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Concerns about chemicals
Continuous amendments of DSD (due to new
knowledge)
Rising concerns about existing and new
substances
Existing substances and preparations in focus and action towards changing
the legislation
Negotiations and Formulation of REACH
1976: Restrictions on Marketing and Use Directive
1981: Amendment of DSD establishes notification system for new substances
1993: Existing Substances Regulation, prioritization of 141 substances
2001: White Paper on future EU policy on chemicals
2003: Proposals by DGs (Enterprise and Environment) and consultations
2006: REACH Regulation is adopted
2007: Regulation comes into force and the Agency is established
Ongoing efforts for successful
implementation
1967: Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD)
1999: Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD)
1998:Initiation of process to change the legislation
REACH
12
Evidence: changing legal paradigms
• Path dependence, changing legal paradigms and learning– process of rule formulation
• co-decision process• from Directives to Regulations
– problem- solving heuristics• Re-allocation of responsibility between private and
public actors (REACH)
– Scope of implementation of new rules• Globalization and harmonization
13
European Formulator
Industry Association
European Supplier Industry
Association
National Supplier Industry
Association
National Formulator
Industry Association
Formulator Multinational
Firm
Supplier Multinational
Firm
European Authorities / Institutions
National Authorities / Institutions
EU NGO
National NGO
National Formulator
Firm
National Supplier
Firm
Evidence: Main actors and interactions
14
Variety-selection-retention mechanisms at work
Variety Diversity of ideas, preferences and interests of policy agents that
compete to bring their concerns onto policy agendas (John, 1998; Slembeck, 1997; Modelski, 1996)>>> variety of policy problems >>>variety of policy strategies, programs and instruments
Selection Selection processes at all stages of the policy process but largely
dependent and controlled by purposeful individuals (Pierson, 1993, 2000) or following Loasby (1999), are channeled by human institutions >>> “endogeneity” of selection criteria (Dosi and Nelson, 1994) and potential political capture
Retention Maintenance and replication of new rule (Dopfer et al., 1994), new
divisions of labor>>> guaranteed in politics by compulsory compliance
15
The regulatory process through an evolutionary lens
16
Regulation: an evolutionary process
17
Factors influencing the outcome
• Source and type of policy issue• Policy level of issue emergence• The distribution of information among the
participant
18
Concluding remarks/issues to discuss
• Redefine the view on public policy– Policy formation– Policy evolution– Determining factors
• Regulations as endogenously generated criteria (fear of capture?)
• Link between knowledge accumulation and bargaining power
19
Recommended