Search Results

This chapter charts the changing ways in which environmental policy integration (EPI) has been thought about and implemented in the EU since the 1970s. The implicit assumption that has underpinned the search for implementing tools is that more effective multi-level and cross-sectoral coordination will arise through a process of incremental, non-hierarchical learning in networks, which is not guided by a template disseminated by the EU. Section 2 briefly explores the intellectual origins of the EPI principle and unpacks its core meaning. Section 3 charts the changing ways in which EPI has been thought about and put into effect in the EU since c. 1970. Section 4 then reflects on these developments and attempts to put them into context. Section 5 maps the EU's response onto the typology of coordination capacities developed in Chapter 2, and pinpoints the most obvious gaps and overlaps.

This chapter explores the steps that each actor has taken to implement EPI within its own institutional ‘space’. In effect, it begins to explore how well each actor has responded to the second part of the ‘double challenge’ of addressing EPI in a multi-level system such as the EU. For each actor, the organizational unit that actively champions EPI (typically the national environment department) is introduced, before briefly describing how it tackles the challenge of EPI within its own institutional ‘space’.

This chapter analyses the main activities and policies of the EU new centre in the light of their capacity to remove internal boundaries (among member states), and to set external boundaries to the new enlarged system. It focuses on the economic and the coercion boundary (with its external and internal dimensions), and then moves on to analyse those other crucial boundaries that preside over the creation of a ‘system’: identity building, participation rights, and social sharing institutions. It argues that internal boundary removal proceeded at a much higher speed and scope than external boundary setting; that the EU produced a progressive disjoining and lack of coincidence of the previously highly coterminous economic, cultural, coercion and politico-administrative boundaries of the nation states; and that while the centre consolidated economic and legal integration, it did not create a ‘system’. This configuration can be interpreted in an institutional perspective (focussing on the relationship between the institutional structure of the new centre and its strategy of boundary control) and in a political perspective (focussing on the political elites preference for externalizing the pressure for domestic change, setting external constraints that ‘objectify’ the need for internal discipline).

This chapter aims to explore the role — both real and potential — of one particular family of coordinating devices that have come to be known as ‘new’ modes of governing. In particular, it addresses what is needed to ensure these new modes function effectively at national and at European levels. It analyses the terms coordination and governance, then shows why the coordination of a cross-sectoral, boundary spanning challenge like environmental protection is especially difficult to achieve in a complex multi-levelled governance system such as the EU. The three most widely known and intensively studied modes of coordination are described: hierarchy, markets, and networks, and are related to the steps taken by the EU to achieve greater environmental coordination at EU level.

This chapter returns to the three questions posed in Chapter 1. Section 2 assesses the extent to which the coordination tasks identified in Chapter 1 are satisfactorily performed. Section 3 examines thecapacities at network leveland assess their fitness for purpose. Section 4 reviews thecapacities of the actorswithin the network or networks. Section 5 responds to recent calls for solid ‘normative propositions’ about how EU policy networks should be structured to serve the European good. After all, as interest in complementary modes of governing grows, the EU should be more aware of what networks can — and, perhaps, just as importantly, cannot — offer by way of delivering policy objectives. The concluding section (6) returns to consider some of the broader governance-related themes raised towards the end of Chapter 1.

This concluding chapter summarizes the main findings of the book, evaluating the protection-oriented ‘pull’ and production-oriented ‘push’ approaches to explain the long-term development and cross-national variations in early exit from work. It discusses the difficulties of ‘path dependence’ as well as the opportunities of institutional change to reverse early retirement policies. It recommends a paradigm shift away from early retirement in combination with integration policies that facilitate older workers to remain active.

This chapter analyses the administrative capacities that this actor has developed to coordinate the implementation of EPI across the whole of the EU (that is, EU-EPI). In so doing, it moves on from looking at the ways in which this particular actor operates in its immediate institutional space, to gauge how all the actors coordinate together in a network or networks. This chapter is written to fit a standard analytical framework, which is outlined in Chapter 2.

’Flexibility’ emerged as one of the key words in the practitioners’ discourse during the Intergovernmental Conference leading to the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. The term became part of the new Eurospeak of the process, and shorthand for a broad‐ranging debate on the institutions and politics of the EU. It surfaced much as 'subsidiarity’ had done in the negotiations leading to agreement at Maastricht in 1991. Subsidiarity had then appeared to provide both a rationale and an operating tool for rearranging the division of labour between the European and national policy arenas. This chapter argues that similarly flexibility, according to its proponents, promised a new principle and a new tool for responding to differences in the enthusiasms and capabilities of the member states of the EU to take on new tasks of policy integration. In the period following Maastricht, it had become evident that subsidiarity was both a contested concept and a muddled guide for practice. In the aftermath of Amsterdam, flexibility needs to be examined both for its role as a potential principle in the integration process and for the scope it might offer for resolving problems of practice. This chapter develops this proposition more in detail. To that end, it puts the development of the principles of subsidiarity and flexibility in historical perspective.

This chapter provides an overview on both immigration to Germany and the immigrant population currently living in the country. Also, it sheds light on political shifts in integration policy in Germany, made possible after 1998 by the governing coalition between the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen). Education and segregation, central areas of conflict in the debate on integration, along with the current state of integration in Germany are examined in order to shed light on the nation's continuing problem with “ethnic discrimination.”

In France, the assimilation of migrants has been a dogma for many years and there has been a strong belief that assimilation would work. Over the past years, however, a lot of criticism, especially with regard to the situation of the children and grandchildren of former immigrants, has been voiced. The present contribution provides a systematic overview of the different groups that have migrated to France, their channels of immigration, their legal status, and their social integration based on a set of selected indicators. The major policy responses of France as a host country in the field of migration and integration and the policies with regard to the accommodation of religious minorities are summarized as are the public debates related to these issues.

This chapter focuses on citizens’ attitudes towards the transfer of policy prerogatives from the national government to European institutions on specific domains. We approach this issue from two different perspectives. First, using a cross-sectional analysis of Eurobarometer and Candidate Eurobarometer data on all EU27 member states, we test hypotheses about what explains why citizens prefer the centralization of policy-making in supra-national authorities in some areas but not in others, while also addressing explanations as to why citizens in some countries are more supportive of policy integration in general than in others. Second, using a pooled panel time-series dataset on aggregate support for policy integration in the EU12 countries, we analyze trends from the late 1980s until today in ten selected policy areas, in order to determine what has affected changes through time in levels of support for policy integration

Since 1988, Japan and Britain have responded to the common threat of global warming. Both countries voluntarily established a policy to tackle the problem before the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Once it was established, they developed and implemented policies and measures to meet its requirements as well as the goals they set for themselves. The picture that emerges from the present detailed examination of climate policy in Japan and Britain is a mixture of policy similarities and differences. This chapter compares, contrasts, and analyses Japanese and British global warming policy, focusing on the speed of policy change, policy contents including instruments employed, the degree of policy integration, and policy stringency. It then considers two questions: What is the effect of corporatist institutions on a country's ability to tackle challenges to sustainable development? What are the interactions between the institutional and issue-based approaches? The chapter also discusses Britain's measures for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the politics of carbon tax, consensus corporatism and majoritarian pluralism, and the institutional approach vs. the issue-based approach.

To the extent that the problem of global warming arises from existing socio-economic activities, tackling it will entail an institutional metamorphosis towards a more sustainable form of socio-economic system. This will require a realignment of broad policy goals, which itself may require changes in policy-making institutions. Such changes have been referred to as policy integration, which is the theme of this chapter. The integration of environmental concerns into general economic policy in Japan started around the time of the Earth Summit in 1992. This chapter looks at policy integration specifically in the areas of global warming and energy and transportation, focusing on whether and how global warming policy caused policy and institutional developments. It first provides a background on Japanese energy policy, energy efficiency policy, electricity prices and demand, and the promotion of ‘new energy’. It then explores Japan's nuclear energy policy, energy taxation and finance, coal and global warming, transport and global warming, fuel efficiency, concerted action for the promotion of low-emission vehicles, and policy co-optation and exclusion of environmental interests.

Britain has sought to integrate environmental concerns into policy decision-making at all levels. To this end, the first environment white paper introduced two institutions which would ‘ensure that … environmental issues are fully weighed in decisions’. One was the Cabinet Committee for the Environment, later replaced by the Ministerial Committee on the Environment. The other was the introduction of a ‘green minister’ in each government department. In the first white paper on sustainable development, published in 1994, the government confirmed its commitment to policy integration. How and to what extent was this government aspiration achieved over the problem of global warming? This chapter focuses on British policy integration on global warming by first providing an overview on energy policy and global warming, competitive prices versus energy efficiency, renewable energy, and coal protection. It then discusses transport policy and global warming, measures to improve fuel efficiency, and research and development on low-emission vehicles.

This chapter aims to explore diverse policies that regulate migration and the patterns of differential inclusion in European Union (EU) member states, and to provide a summary of the trends and characteristics of inward migration in the EU. It looks at a variety of migrant-integration regimes in the EU and compares indicators for integration policies, levels of immigration, and migrants' employment characteristics. The chapter also presents a comparative empirical backdrop to individual case studies and comparisons offered in the second and third parts of this book.

This chapter looks at the governance and institutional terrain within the British context to explore how these two related factors — integration of differing policy agendas and coordination across and within spatial levels — have influenced the nature and effectiveness of the policy response. It outlines the institutional structures and governance arrangements responsible for delivering economic development to deprived neighbourhoods. It also considers the issue of different levels of intervention, examining the rationales for intervention at different spatial scales and how different types of activities have been pursued at varying neighbourhood, local, subregional, city-regional and national levels. The chapter also specifies the principal barriers to policy integration and coordination and how these vary locally. The chapter concludes by identifying key issues related to governance arrangements and policy delivery in relation to the economic development of disadvantaged areas.

Chapter Ten is Ilana Shpaizman's prize-winning paper on Israeli immigration and integration policies between 2004 and 2010. Her paper reveals the incoherence and contradictions that exist within immigration and integration policies between 2004 and 2010. Her paper reveals the incoherence and contradictions that exist within immigration and integration policy, pulled in different directions by devolved market solutions on the one hand, and more centralised government control on the other. The chapter helps to shed lights on these contradictions by exploring a range of institutional barriers and conduits to change, suggesting that economic growth and competition for skilled labour has led to malleable, if contradictory, policy outcomes.

This chapter provides two case studies that show how a wider evidence base of refugee experiences and voices might be created using past research by non-government officials. The first case study is on understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK. It examines a recent piece of policy-oriented research that was commissioned by the Home Office and subsequently recognises its methodological rigidity. The second case study is about a national refugee-integration policy, which suggests that the existing evidence base of refugee voices and experiences needs to be supplemented and complemented to create a realistic picture of the effects of policies.