Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:11:35.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy Learning in Embedded Negotiations: Explaining EU Electricity Liberalization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2003

Rainer Eising
Get access

Abstract

Taking the example of the liberalization of the electricity supply industy, I analyze member-state negotiations in the European Union (EU). Confronting central tenets of the intergovernmental approach, I suggest that member-state executives act within the limits of bounded rationality and do not always hold clear and fixed preferences. I focus on the large member states Germany, France, and the United Kingdom and identify four institutional mechanisms that support outcomes above the least common denominator: (1) the role of norms that constrain strategic action and frame the negotiations, (2) the empowerment of supranational actors, (3) the decision routines of the Council of the European Union that provide standardized mechanisms for resolving conflicts and induce policy learning and preference changes, and (4) the vertical differentiation within the Council system that can unblock issue-specific controversies. Even if as a result of these techniques EU legal acts contain several flexibilization elements, they can trigger behavioral changes that clearly surpass their regulatory content.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , Winter 2002 , pp. 85 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ARE (Arbeitsgemeinschaft regionaler Energieversorgung-Unternehmen e.V.) and DVG (Deutsche Verbundgesellschaft e.V.). 1994. Für ungeteilten Strom-Wettbewerb in Europa. Vorläufige Anmerkungen zum abgeänderten Richtlinienvorschlag “Elektrizitätsbinnenmarkt”“ der EU-Kommission KOM (93)643 endg. Hannover: ARE, and Heidelberg: DVG.Google Scholar
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft. 1991. Energiepolitik für das vereinte Deutschland. Bonn: Bundesregierung.Google Scholar
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft. 1993. Jahreswirtschaftsbericht 1993. Bonn: Bundesregierung.Google Scholar
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft. 1994a. Entwurf. Amtliche Begründung des Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Energiewirtschaftsrechts. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft.Google Scholar
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft. 1994b. Entwurf—Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Energiewirtschaftsrechts. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft.Google Scholar
Christensen, Tom, and Røvik, Kjell Arne. 1999. The Ambiguity of Appropriateness. In Organizing Political Institutions: Essays for Johan P. Olsen, edited by Egeberg, Morten and Loegreid, Per, 159–80. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Commission of the EC. 1988. The Internal Energy Market. COM (88) 238 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
Commission of the EC. 1991. Commission Proposal for a Council Directive Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity. COM (91) 548 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
Commission of the EC. 1993. Amended Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity. COM (93) 643 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 1994. 1759. Meeting of the Council. Press Notice 6889/94. Brussels: Council of the EU.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 1995. 1850. Meeting of the Council. Press Notice 7565/95. Brussels: Council of the EU.Google Scholar
Cowles, Maria Green, and Risse, Thomas. 2001. Transforming Europe: Conclusions. In Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, edited by Cowles, Maria Green\, Caporaso, James, and Risse, Thomas, 217–37. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cronenberg, Martin. 1991. Energierechtsreform. Stand und Überlegungen aus der Sicht der Bundesregierung. In Reform des Energiewirtschaftsgesetzes, edited by Baur, Jürgen F., 45–62. Baden-Baden:Nomos.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., and Lindblom, Charles E.. 1976. 2d ed. Politics, Economics, and Welfare: Planning and Politico-Economic Systems Resolved into Basic Social Processes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Deregulierungskommission. 1991. Marktöffnung und Wettbewerb. Stuttgart: C. Poeschel.Google Scholar
Bundestag, Deutscher. 1997. Gesetzbeschluß des Deutschen Bundestages. Gesetz zur Neuregelung des Energiewirtschaftsrechts. Bundesrat Drucksache 941/97 vom 28.11.97. Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag.Google Scholar
Bundestag, Deutscher, Wirtschaft, Ausschuss für. 1997. Wortprotokoll der öffentlichen Anhörung zum Thema “Novellierung des Energiewirtschaftsgesetzes” des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft (9. Ausschuss/58. Sitzung) vom 2.6.97. Wahlperiode, Bonn: Deutscher Bundestag.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1992. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Regarding Politics: Essays on Political Theory, Stability, and Change, by Eckstein, Harry. 117–76. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Eichener, Volker. 1996. Die Rückwirkung der europäischen Integration auf nationale Politikmuster. In Europäische Integration, edited by Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Kohler-Koch, Beate, 249–80. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.Google Scholar
Eising, Rainer. 2000. Liberalisierung und Europäisierung. Die regulative Reform der Elektrizitätsversorgung in Großbritannien, der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.Google Scholar
Eising, Rainer, and Jabko, Nicolas. 2001. Moving Targets: National Interests and Electricity Liberalization in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 34 (7):742–67.Google Scholar
Eising, Rainer, and Kohler-Koch, Beate. 1999. Governance in the European Union: A Comparative Assessment. In The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, edited by Kohler-Koch, Beate and Eising, Rainer, 267–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
European Commission. 1995. Working Paper of the Commission on the Organization of the Internal Electricity Market. SEC (95) 464 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
European Commission, Energy Directorate General. 1999. Second Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. On the State of Liberalisation of the Energy Markets. Brussels.Google Scholar
EURELECTRIC. 1992. Statement of the Continental Members of EURELECTRIC Relative to the Internal Electricity Market. Brussels: EURELECTRIC.Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council of the European Union. 1996. Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 Concerning Common Rules for the Internal Market in Electricity. OJ L 027 30.01.97.Google Scholar
EWI (Energiewirtschaftliches Institut an der Universität Köln). 1995. TPA and Single Buyer Systems, Producers and Parallel Authorizations, Small and Very Small Systems. Köln: EWI.Google Scholar
Falkner, Gerda. 1999. European Social Policy: Towards Multi-level and Multi-actor Governance. In The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, edited by Kohler-Koch, Beate and Eising, Rainer, 83–97. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Faross, Peter. 1989. The Internal Energy Market. In Konturen eines EG-Energiemarktes, edited by Harms, Wolfgang\, von Stebut, Dietrich, and Westermann, Peter Harm, 3–12. Köln: Carl Heymans Verlag.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey, and Tsebelis, George. 1996. An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism. International Organization 50 (2):269–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, Thomas. 1995. Regieren im internationalen System. Verhandlungen, Normen und Internationale Regime. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 36 (2):197–219.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, and Keohane, Robert O.. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert O., 3–30. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gottweis, Herbert. 1999. Regulating Genetic Engineering in the European Union: a Post-structuralist Perspective. In The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, edited by Kohler-Koch, Beate and Eising, Rainer, 61–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grawe, Joachim. 1991. Production, Transport, and Distribution of Electricity: Discussion and Reforms Under Way—German Perspectives. Paper presented at the Symposium “Deregulation of the Systems of Production, Transport, and Distribution of Electricity,” Paris.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain. Comparative Politics 25 (4):275–96.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Taylor., Rosemary C. R. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Policy Studies 44 (5):936–57.Google Scholar
Hancher, Leigh. 1994. Infringement Proceedings for ECJ to Rule on Key Legal Issues. EC Energy Monthly 69:5.Google Scholar
Harms, Wolfgang, ed. 1987. Atomstrom aus Frankreich?—Zur Schaffung eines europäischen Binnenmarktes für Strom. Vorträge und Diskussionen des Energierechts-Gesprächs am 12./13. Mai 1987. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar
Hayes-Renshaw, Fiona, and Wallace, Helen. 1995. Executive Power in the European Union: The Functions and Limits of the Council of Ministers. Journal of European Public Policy 2 (4):559–82.Google Scholar
Henney, Alex. 1994. A Study of the Electricity Supply Industry in England and Wales. London: EEE Ltd.Google Scholar
Héritier, Adrienne, Mingers, Susanne, Knill, Christoph, and Becka., Martina 1994. Die Veränderung von Staatlichkeit in Europa. Ein regulativer Wettbewerb: Deutschland, Großbritannien und Frankreich in der Europäischen Union. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., ed. 1997. Tamed Power: Germany in Europe. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. Reciprocity in International Relations. International Organization 40 (1):1–27.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1989. International Institutions: Two Approaches. In International Institutions and State Power, edited by Keohane, Robert O., 158–79. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, Beate. 1999. The Evolution and Transformation of European Governance. In The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, edited by Kohler-Koch, Beate and Eising, Rainer, 14–35. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudati, Laraine. 1996. The European Commission as Regulator: The Uncertain Pursuit of the Competitive Market. In Regulating Europe, edited by Majone, Giandomenico, 229–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Le Nestour, Chantal, and Zinow, Bernd-Michael. 1995. Monopolstrukturen in der Elektrizitätsversorgung und europäisches Recht. Eine Betrachtung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Fälle Corbeau und Almelo. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 45 (1/2):78–83.Google Scholar
Lenschow, Andrea. 1999. Transformation in European Environmental Governance. In The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, edited by Kohler-Koch, Beate and Eising, Rainer, 39–60. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1994. Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield. International Organization 48 (2):279–312.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. 1998. Is the “Hard Bargaining” Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Local Election Directive. Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (4):479–504.Google Scholar
March, James G. 1978. Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice. Bell Journal of Economics 9 (2):587–608.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen., Johan P. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
March, James G. 1998. The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization 52 (4):943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matláry, Janne Haaland. 1997. Energy Policy in the European Union. Basingstoke: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayntz, Renate. 1999. Organizations, Agents, and Representatives. In Organizing Political Institutions: Essays for Johan P. Olsen, edited by Egeberg, Morten and Loegreid, Per, 81–91. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
McGowan, Francis. 1993. The Struggle for Power in Europe—Competition and Regulation in the EC Electricity Industry. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Industrie. 1994. La réforme de l'organisation électrique et gazière française. Paris: Ministère de l'Industrie.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ortwein, Edmund. 1996. Die Ordnung der deutschen Elektrizitätswirtschaft. In Wettbewerbspolitik und die Ordnung der Elektrizitätswirtschaft in Deutschland und Großbritanien, edited by Sturm, Roland and Wilks, Stephen, 77–132. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Padgett, Stephen. 1990. Policy Style and Issue Environment: The Electricity Supply Sector in West Germany. Journal of Public Policy 10 (2): 165–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Stephen. 1992. The Single European Energy Market: The Politics of Realization. Journal of Common Market Studies 30 (1):53–75.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1996. The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 29 (2): 123–63.Google Scholar
Pollack, Mark A. 1998. The Engines of Integration? Supranational Autonomy and Influence in the European Union. In European Integration and Supranational Governance, edited by Sandholtz, Wayne and Sweet, Alec Stone, 217–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let's Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. 1993. Advocacy-Koalitionen, Policy-Wandel, und Policy-Lernen: Eine Alternative zur Phasenheuristik. In policy-Analyse: Kritik und Neuorienterung, edited by Hèritier, Adrienne, 116–48. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne, and Zysman, John. 1989. 1992: Recasting the European Bargain. World Politics 42 (1):95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne, and Sweet, Alec Stone, eds. 1998. European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1985. Die Politikverflechtungsfalle: Europäische Integration und deutscher Föderalismus im Vergleich. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 26 (4):323–56.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Hans-Wilhelm. 1995. Energiemarkt Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Köln: Verlag TÜV-Rheinland.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Susanne K. 1996. Sterile Debates and Dubious Generalisations: European Integration Tested by Telecommunications and Electricity. Journal of Public Policy 16 (3):233–71.Google Scholar
Sebenius, James K. 1992. Challenging Conventional Explanations of International Cooperation: Negotiation Analysis and the Case of Epistemic Communities. International Organization 46 (1):323–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VKU (Verband kommunaler Unternehmen). 1994. Die Position der kommunalen Energieversorger zum Wettbewerb. VKU Nachrichtendienst 552:3–5.Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph H. H. 1991. The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal 100 (8):2403–83.Google Scholar
Young, Oran R. 1994. International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar