Innovative Approaches to Eu Multilevel Implementation: Moving Beyond Legal Compliance by Eva Thomann & Fritz Sager

Author:Eva Thomann & Fritz Sager [Thomann, Eva & Sager, Fritz]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780815360001
Google: zUeCtAEACAAJ
Goodreads: 39218745
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2018-04-11T10:11:05+00:00

Theorizing motivations for street-level use of EU law

During street-level implementation use of EU law can be conceptualized as reliance on the EU regulatory framework as a frame of reference during decision making. The availability of EU law as legal options depends on the multilevel legal context in which implementers operate. When EU and national laws are detailed and in line with each other, implementers will draw on the domestic regulatory framework established by the domestic principal to which they are directly accountable.

However, in at least three contexts EU law might play a role for street-level implementers. Firstly, EU law can demand margins of discretion beyond national law. Secondly, national law can provide frameworks that stand plainly in tension with EU law. Finally, when EU legislation is superficially incorporated, the national regulatory frameworks can be less explicit than EU rules. In these situations, implementers are confronted with ambiguity which they may resolve by relying on domestic regulations, EU law or by combining the frameworks.

In order to develop expectations about the use of EU law, a useful starting point is the social psychology literature (Tyler 2006). Combining the perspectives of this literature with insights of the street-level literature allows to group implementation motivations into instrumental and normative implementation motivations.

Instrumental motivations, to begin with, refer to the desire to avoid punishment and to evade risks (Winter and May 2001). In the street-level bureaucracy literature such motivations are prominently assumed by Lipsky (1980). He has argued that implementers are primarily driven by the desire to cope with limited resources, leading to routines, rationing services and other coping strategies. Thus, implementers focus on measurable indicators with low risks to be questioned by the outside world (ibid., Hood 2011). Risks refer to punishments by political principals and courts, or personal consequences such as reputation loss and extra workload.

Applying this instrumental perspective to the multilevel legal context, one can assume that implementers are accountable to national principals. National principals will prefer implementers to rely closely on national goals (Huber and Shipan 2002). Judicial, legislative and executive checks will discourage implementers to bypass national law. Since there might be monetary and political costs if EU law is applied inconsistently, implementers will perceive it to be risky to stretch their competences by interpreting EU law. Moreover, mastering EU law constitutes extra work. Thus, implementers will continue to rely on national law and leave it to courts to challenge the national level for potentially non-compliant transposition.

This effect will be strengthened by the fact that there is no EU principal who directly scrutinizes street-level behaviour. Hence, there are no direct risks for implementers of being punished by EU principals for not relying on EU law. In sum, the instrumental perspective suggests that street-level implementers will consider it to be the safest choice to rely on national law, leading to the first expectation:

Expectation 1: Street-level implementers who are motivated by instrumental considerations do not use EU law to resolve ambiguities of the multilevel legal context.

In addition to instrumental motivations, research has shown

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.