Building Eu Regulatory Capacity

This book examines regulatory capacity beyond the nation state. It suggests that we can only understand why EU agencies are able to build EU regulatory capacity if we acknowledge that national regulators provide their expertise, staff and resources to the regulatory processes taking place in these EU bodies. This raises the puzzle of why national regulators are willing to provide ‘life support’ to potentially rival organisations. The book is devoted to answering this question in order to understand how EU regulatory capacity is created in the absence of a full supranational regulatory bureaucracy. To do so, the book studies to what extent national regulators from two countries (the UK and Germany) support EU agencies in their work across four policy sectors (drug safety, food safety, maritime safety and banking supervision). The book makes a significant contribution by developing a bureaucratic politics perspective that highlights the importance of national regulators for EU regulatory capacity building.

Regulatory reforms in the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood countries are not as sluggish as often perceived. Rule enforcement is happening despite the presence of domestic veto players who favour the status quo, the lack of EU membership perspective and the presence of Russia as an alternative governance provider. Using Ukraine as a primary case study, this book examines why convergence with transnational market rules varies across different policy sectors within the Eastern neighbourhood countries. It analyzes the drivers of regulatory change and explores the conditions under which post-Soviet economies integrate with international markets. In doing so, it argues that the impetus for regulatory change in the Eastern neighbourhood lies in specific strategies of domestic empowerment applied by external actors. Furthermore, through the study of the impact of Western and Russian transnational actors, the book concludes that Russia’s presence does not necessarily hinder the integration of the EU’s Eastern neighbours with international markets. Instead, Russia both weakens and strengthens domestic support for convergence with transnational market rules in the region. This book will be of key interest to students and scholars of European/EU studies and international relations, especially in the areas of regulatory politics, transnational governance, public policy, and post-Soviet transitions.

Why have the national governments of EU member states successively endowed the European Parliament with supervisory, budgetary, and legislative powers over the past fifty years? Building Europe's Parliament sheds new light on this pivotal issue, and provides a major contribution to the study of the European Parliament. Rittberger develops a theory of delegation to representative institutions in international politics which combines elements of democratic theory and different strands of institutionalist theory. To test the plausibility of his theory, Rittberger draws on extensive archival material and offers theory-guided, in-depth case studies of three landmark decisions in the history of the European Parliament: the creation of the Common Assembly of the ECSC in 1951 and the concomitant acquisition of supervisory powers vis-à-vis the quasi-executive High Authority; the delegation of budgetary powers following the signing of the Treaty of Luxembourg in 1970; and the delegation of legislative powers resulting from the adoption of the Single European Act signed in 1986. This is followed by the charting of more recent key developments, culminating in the adoption of the Constitutional Treaty in 2004. The book provides a welcome addition to the literature on institutional design by reflecting on the conditions under which governments opt for the creation and empowerment of parliamentary institutions in international politics. It also makes a valuable contribution to the application of democratic theory to the study of the European Union by demonstrating that political elites shared the view that the new supranational polity which emerged from the debris of World War II suffered from 'democratic deficit' since its inception, thus disproving the claim that the lamented 'democratic deficit' is a recent phenomenon.

This report analyses the skills and capacities governments need to strengthen evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) and identifies a range of possible interventions that are available to foster greater uptake of evidence. Increasing governments' capacity for evidence-informed is a critical part of good public governance. However, an effective connection between the supply and the demand for evidence in the policy-making process remains elusive. This report offers concrete tools and a set of good practices for how the public sector can support senior officials, experts and advisors working at the political/administrative interface. This support entails investing in capability, opportunity and motivation and through behavioral changes. The report identifies a core skillset for EIPM at the individual level, including the capacity for understanding, obtaining, assessing, using, engaging with stakeholders, and applying evidence, which wasdeveloped in collaboration with the European Commission Joint Research Centre. It also identifies a set of capacities at the organisational level that can be put in place across the machinery of government, throughout the role of interventions, strategies and tools to strengthen these capacities. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to assist governments in building their capacities.

Regulatory differences across jurisdictions can be costly for traders. While these costs may reflect variations in domestic conditions and preferences, they may also be the result of rule-making processes working in isolation and of a lack of consideration for the international environment. Thus, some of the trade costs of regulatory divergence may be avoided without compromising the quality of regulatory protection. Building on lessons learnt from OECD analytical work and the experiences of OECD countries in regulatory policy and trade, this report proposes a definition of trade costs of regulatory divergence and analyses various approaches to addressing them, including unilateral, bilateral and multilateral approaches. It focuses on the contribution of good regulatory practices, the adoption of international standards, and the use of cross-border recognition frameworks and trade agreements. Based on this, the report provides indications for policy makers on how to reduce trade costs through international regulatory co-operation.

Most EU-scholars conceive of the EU as a multilevel polity with strong powers to regulate economic policy externalities among the member states but little power to intervene in, let alone assume, core functions of sovereign government ('core state powers') such as foreign and defense policy, public finance, public administration, and the maintenance of law and order. This book challenges this view. Based on a systematic comparison of integration processes in military security, fiscal policy, and public administration, it finds steady progress in the integration of core state powers although with substantial sectoral variation. But the EU is not heading towards state-building. In contrast to the historical experience of national federations, the European integration of core state powers proceeds mostly by regulating national capacities, not by creating European ones, and leads to territorial fragmentation rather than increased cohesiveness.

Globalization is rapidly changing lives and industries around the world. Drug development, authorization, and regulatory supervision have become international endeavors, with most medicines becoming global commodities. Drug companies utilize global supply chains that often include facilities in countries with inconsistent regulations from those of the United States, perform pivotal trials in multiple countries to support registration submissions in various jurisdictions, and subsequently market their medicines throughout most of the world. These companies operate across borders and require individual national regulators to ensure that drugs authorized for use in their countries are safe and effective, and appropriate for their health care system and their population. This process involves significant resources and often duplicative work. It is important to consider how this process can be improved in order to better allocate resources, time, and efforts to improve public health. Regulating Medicines in a Globalized World: The Need for Increased Reliance Among Regulators considers the role of mutual recognition and other reliance activities among regulators in contributing to enhancing public health. This report identifies opportunities for leveraging reliance activities more broadly in order to potentially impact public health globally. Key topics in this report include the job of medicines regulators in today's world, what policy makers need to know about today's regulatory environment, stakeholder views of recognition and reliance, as well as removing impediments and facilitating action for greater recognition and reliance among regulatory authorities.

With the collapse of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance in 1991, the Eastern European nations of the former socialist bloc had to figure out their newly capitalist future. Capitalism, they found, was not a single set of political-economic relations. Rather, they each had to decide what sort of capitalist nation to become. In Capitalist Diversity on Europe's Periphery, Dorothee Bohle and Béla Geskovits trace the form that capitalism took in each country, the assets and liabilities left behind by socialism, the transformational strategies embraced by political and technocratic elites, and the influence of transnational actors and institutions. They also evaluate the impact of three regional shocks: the recession of the early 1990s, the rolling global financial crisis that started in July 1997, and the political shocks that attended EU enlargement in 2004.Bohle and Greskovits show that the postsocialist states have established three basic variants of capitalist political economy: neoliberal, embedded neoliberal, and neocorporatist. The Baltic states followed a neoliberal prescription: low controls on capital, open markets, reduced provisions for social welfare. The larger states of central and eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, and the Czech and Slovak republics) have used foreign investment to stimulate export industries but retained social welfare regimes and substantial government power to enforce industrial policy. Slovenia has proved to be an outlier, successfully mixing competitive industries and neocorporatist social inclusion. Bohle and Greskovits also describe the political contention over such arrangements in Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia. A highly original and theoretically sophisticated typology of capitalism in postsocialist Europe, this book is unique in the breadth and depth of its conceptually coherent and empirically rich comparative analysis.