Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T07:55:11.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frontline uses of European Union (EU) law: a parallel legal order? How structural discretion conditions uses of EU law in Dutch and German migration offices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

Nora Dörrenbächer
Nora Dörrenbächer*
Affiliation:
Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article tackles the question of how bureaucratic structures condition frontline implementers’ use of European Union (EU) migration law. Adopting an organisational perspective, the study expects that only under discretion do implementers draw independently on original EU law. Empirically, the article draws on qualitative interviews with migration law implementers in the Netherlands and the German Bundesland of North Rhine-Westphalia. The analysis reveals that in the nondiscretionary Dutch structure, frontline implementers only rely on EU law when receiving instructions from higher administrative levels. The use of EU law is more diverse in the German discretionary structure. Under legal tension, several German frontline implementers use EU law parallel to national law. However, not all German respondents feel comfortable in interpreting original EU law and jurisprudence. Although structural discretion conditions uses of EU law, the variation of the German case suggests that microlevel factors complement explanations for frontline uses of EU law.

Keywords

discretionary structureEU implementationEU migrationfrontline implementerorganisational theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 455 - 479
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2017 

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

Angelova, M., Dannwolf, T. and König, T. (2012) How Robust are Compliance Findings? A Research Synthesis. Journal of European Integration 19(8): 37–41.Google Scholar
Bach, T. and Jann, W. (2010) Animals in the Administrative Zoo: Organizational Change and Agency Autonomy in Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences 76(3): 443–468.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. and Trondal, J. (2004) How Nation States “Hit” Europe: Ambiguity and Representation in the European Union. West European Politics 27(5): 919–942.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. and Zouridis, S. (2002) From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review 62(2): 174–184.Google Scholar
Christensen, T. (1991) Bureaucratic Roles: Political Loyalty and Professional Autonomy. Scandinavian Political Studies 14: 303–320.Google Scholar
Christensen, T. and Laegreid, P. (2009) Organising Immigration Policy: The Unstable Balance Between Political Control and Agency Autonomy. Policy & Politics 37(2): 161–177.Google Scholar
Conant, L. (2012) Compliance and What EU Member States Make Out of it. In Cremona M. (ed.), Compliance and the Enforcement of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–30.Google Scholar
Dehousse, R. (2008) Delegation of powers in the European Union: the need for a multi-principals model. West European Politics 31(4): 789–805.Google Scholar
Dimitrova, A. and Steunenberg, B. (2013) Living in Parallel Universes? Implementing European Movable Cultural Heritage Policy in Bulgaria. Journal of Common Market Studies 51(2): 246–263.Google Scholar
Dörrenbächer, N., Mastenbroek, E. and Toshkov, D. D. (2015) National Parliaments and Transposition of EU Law: A Matter of Coalition Conflict? Journal of Common Market Studies 53(5): 1010–1026.Google Scholar
Dörrenbächer, N. and Mastenbroek, E. (in press) Passing the Buck? Analyzing the Delegation of Discretion After Transposition of European Union Law. Regulation & Governance, https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12153.Google Scholar
Dörrenbächer, N. (2017) Europe at the Frontline: Analyzing Street-Level Motivations for the Use of European Union Migration Law, Journal of European Public Policy 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1314535.Google Scholar
Egeberg, M. (1999) The Impact of Bureaucratic Structure on Policy Making. Public Administration 77(1): 155–170.Google Scholar
Egeberg, M. (2008) European Government(s): Executive Politics in Transition? West European Politics 31(1–2): 235–257.Google Scholar
Egeberg, M. and Trondal, J. (2009) National Agencies in the European Administrative Space: Government Driven, Commission Driven or Networked? Public Administration 87(4): 779–790.Google Scholar
Epstein, D. and O’Halloran, S. (1994) Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 38(3): 697–722.Google Scholar
Eule, T. (2014) Inside Immigration Law. Migration Management and Policy Application in Germany. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Falkner, G., Hartlapp, M. and Treib, O. (2007) Worlds of Compliance: Why Leading Approaches to European Union Implementation are Only “Sometimes-True Theories”. European Journal of Political Research 46(3): 395–416.Google Scholar
George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2006) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. M. (2016) A Blessing in Disguise?! Discretion in the Context of EU Decision-Making, National Transposition and Legitimacy Regarding EU Directives. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Henökl, T. and Trondal, J (2015) Unveiling the Anatomy of Autonomy: Dissecting Actor-Level Independence in the European External Action Service. Journal of European Public Policy 22(10): 1426–1447.Google Scholar
Hille, P. and Knill, C. (2006) It’s the Bureaucracy, Stupid: The Implementation of the Acquis Communautaire in EU Candidate Countries, 1999-2003. European Union Politics 7(4): 531–552.Google Scholar
Huber, J. D. and Shipan, C. R. (2002) Deliberate Discretion?: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, J., Shipan, C. and Pfahler, M. (2001) Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 330–345.Google Scholar
Hupe, P. and Buffat, A. (2014) A Public Service Gap: Capturing Contexts in a Comparative Approach of Street-Level Bureaucracy. Public Management Review 16(4): 548–569.Google Scholar
Kaeding, M. (2006) Determinants of Transposition Delay in the European Union. Journal of Public Policy 26(2): 229–253.Google Scholar
Knill, C. and Lenschow, A. (1998) Coping With Europe: The Impact of British and German Administrations on the Implementation of EU Environmental Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 5(4): 595–614.Google Scholar
Knill, C. and Lenschow, A. (2005) Compliance, Competition and Communication: Different Approaches of European Governance and Their Impact on National Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies 43(3): 583–606.Google Scholar
Kofman, E. (2004) Family Related Migration: A Critical Review of European Studies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30(2): 243–262.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucrats. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1998) The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization 52(4): 943–969.Google Scholar
Mastenbroek, E. (2005) EU Compliance: Still a “Black Hole”? Journal of European Public Policy 12(6): 1103–1120.Google Scholar
May, P. J. and Winter, S. C. (2009) Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(3): 453–476.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M., Noll, R. and Weingast, B. (1987) Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 3(2): 243–277.Google Scholar
McCubbins, M. and Schwartz, T. (2009) Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28(1): 165–179.Google Scholar
Meyers, M. K. and Vorsanger, S. (2003) Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy. In Peters B. G. and Pierre J. (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 245–255.Google Scholar
Painter, M. and Peters, G. (2010) Administrative Traditions in Comparative Perspective: Families, Groups and Hybrids. In Painter M. and Peters B. G. (eds.), Tradition and Public Administration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–30.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, B. and Toshkov, D. (2009) Comparing Transposition in the 27 Member States of the EU: The Impact of Discretion and Legal Fit. Journal of European Public Policy 16(7): 951–970.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1965) Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administration Organization. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Strik, T., De Hart, B. and Nissen, E. (2013) “Family Reunification: a barrier or facilitator of integration? A comparative study” Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
van Thiel, S. (2001) Quangos: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Treib, O. (2014) Implementing and Complying with EU Governance Outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance 9(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Trondal, J. and Veggeland, F. (2003) Access, Voice and Loyalty: The Representation of Domestic Civil Servants in EU Committees. Journal of European Public Policy 10(1): 59–77.Google Scholar
Trondal, J. (2011) An Emergent European Executive Order. Journal of European Integration 33(1): 55–74.Google Scholar
Tummers, L. L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. and Musheno, M. (2015) Coping During Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(4): 1099–1126.Google Scholar
Versluis, E. (2007) Even Rules, Uneven Practices: Opening the “Black Box” of EU Law in Action. West European Politics 30(1): 50–67.Google Scholar
Whitford, A. B. (2002) Decentralization and Political Control of the Bureaucracy. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(2): 167–193.Google Scholar
Whitford, A. B. (2008) The Pursuit of Political Control by Multiple Principals. The Journal of Politics 67(1): 29–49.Google Scholar
Wockelberg, H. (2014) Political Servants or Independent Experts? A Comparative Study of Bureaucratic Role Perceptions and the Implementation of EU Law in Denmark and Sweden. Journal of European Integration 36(7): 731–747.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Dörrenbächer supplementary material

Dörrenbächer supplementary material

Download Dörrenbächer supplementary material(File)
File 22 KB