Following revelations that Germany’s largest car manufacturer had manipulated emission readings in its diesel cars, the German government’s decision to deny European owners of affected vehicles financial compensation had an arguably unforeseen and certainly unintended effect on both the German and European legal systems. In their article “Dieselgate and Eurolegalism. How a scandal fosters the Americanization of European law” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Katharina van Elten and Britta Rehder show how the German government’s decision spurred a transnational coalition of consumer organizations and law firms to take to the courts and challenge an unfavourable political decision through legal means. Historically uncommon in a European context, such litigation strategies appeared at odds with Germany’s traditional corporatist government-industry connections but were welcomed by the European Commission. Katharina and Britta trace a process that unfolded in the wake of the emissions scandal in Germany and ultimately concluded with a strengthening of collective litigation rights at the European level, most importantly through the ‘New Deal for Consumers’ Directive, which established a European collective redress mechanism. Katharina and Britta conclude that in “what seems to be the most important implication of the affair over emissions manipulation in diesel cars, class-action-style-models making it easier to pursue collective redress in civil courts have become a reality, not only in Germany but also at a European level.”
It is no secret that a broad variety of firms divert significant resources into lobbying the European Union’s political institutions. Naturally, scholars have questioned whether or not private companies’ lobbying efforts actually translate into tangible changes in the content of the EU’s legislative output. Their findings suggesting that firms more often than not lose their ‘lobbying battles’ then present a puzzle. Why would firms continue to pour money into lobbying that rarely succeeds? In their article “Does it pay to lobby? Examining the link between firm lobbying and firm profitability in the European Union” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Adam William Chalmers and Francisco Santos Macedo study the relationship between firms’ lobbying efforts and a success metric arguably closer to their key interests than changing legislative outcomes: profit. Drawing on original data comprising information on the lobbying and financial performance of over 700 firms over four years, Adam and Francisco show that spending more money on lobbying is positively associated with firms’ overall profitability. While private companies’ lobbying may rarely shape EU legislation, evidence suggests “that the institutional structure and lobbying context of the EU, which both requires considerable lobbying expenditures in the form of informational lobbying, and which promotes longer term relationships between lobbyists and public officials, is conducive to seeing financial returns on firms’ lobbying efforts.”
Ever since the British electorate set the United Kingdom on a path to leave the European Union, negotiations between London and Brussels aimed at ensuring that British interests are protected along the way have been anything but the proverbial ‘walk in the park’. Several observers have pointed out that flawed assumptions held by British negotiators about their European counterparts’ willingness to meet the UK’s demands translated into stuttering talks. In their article “Bounded rationality and the Brexit negotiations: why Britain failed to understand the EU” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Filipa Figueira and Benjamin Martill explore the sources of these biased assumptions. Drawing on evidence from a series of interviews with officials in London and Brussels conducted between 2017 and 2018, Filipa and Benjamin identify several inhibitors of rational decision-making that shaped the UK’s approach to Brexit negotiations, including a reliance on ill-fitting analogies based on past experiences and the exclusion of key sources of reliable information for decision-makers. Filipa and Benjamin conclude that “evidence from the Brexit case suggests adaptation and learning may be more difficult to achieve even in situations of high policy salience, since assumptions become ‘locked in’ and discrepant evidence cast aside.”
Many European democracies are still some way off from achieving equal gender representation at the highest echelons of political power. Nonetheless, over the past decades the number of women holding ministerial portfolios in government cabinets has increased. How does the growing number of women in leadership positions shape the politics of governments? In their article “How women in the executive influence government stability” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Svenja Krauss and Corinna Kroeber offer evidence indicating that women in positions of power in the executive branch bolster government stability. Drawing on previous research showing that women in leadership positions are more likely to favour compromise and consensual solutions to conflicts than their male colleagues, Svenja and Corinna argue that governments run by female prime ministers and cabinets with a higher share of female members are more likely to avoid early termination due to internal conflicts. Using original data from 27 European countries between 1945 and 2018, Svenja and Corinna show that while there is no discernible effect of female prime ministers on government duration, cabinets with a higher proportion of female members are more resilient and less likely to face early termination than governments dominated by men. These findings suggest that “female ministers are able to introduce different behavioural norms and change the nature of politics towards a more compromise-oriented setting.”
Following the 2008 financial crisis, administrations in EU member states faced incentives to prop up their domestic industries and shelter national economies from the pressures of transnational markets. These incentives set the stage for tensions with the European Commission, which may allow ‘horizontal’ state investments benefiting overall European competitiveness, but polices ‘vertical’ state aid favouring domestic companies over single market competitors. In her article “Aiding the state: administrative capacity and creative compliance with European state aid rules in new member states” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Nicole Lindstrom finds that the Hungarian government, usually a vocal proponent of state intervention, reported high proportions of horizontal state aid in the aftermath of the crisis. Nicole contrasts this finding with evidence of higher proportions of post-crisis vertical state aid in Estonia, an otherwise paradigmatic neoliberal state. Drawing on interviews with Hungarian and Estonian state aid officials as well as members of the European Commission to explain this counterintuitive pattern, Nicole offers a novel insight into the role administrative capacity plays in EU member states’ compliance with state aid rules: Skilled civil servants in the Hungarian administration shared the political leadership’s ideological commitment to assist domestic industries and facilitated the appearance of rule-conforming behaviour, while in practice implementing policies that ran counter to the EU’s objectives. Nicole’s findings show that “national administrators are important but hitherto understudied agents in navigating growing tensions between the uniform application of supranational free market rules and increased domestic politicization of the core incentives and obligations underlying the single market project.”
Thirty years after the revolutions of 1989, a divide between Western and Central Europe remains apparent. In his article “Caught between 1945 and 1989: collective memory and the rise of illiberal democracy in postcommunist Europe” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Peter Verovšek argues that the commitment to the rule of law and protection of individual rights in West European democracies contrasts with the emphasis on the nation’s popular sovereignty and republican majority will characterising the approach to democracy in much of Central Europe. Peter notes that differences in societies’ collective memory, centred on two different historical ruptures, help explain the diverging conceptions of democracy in Western and Central Europe. While Western Europeans turn to the symbolic date of 1945, representing a repudiation of nationalism and the importance of protecting individual freedoms from the state, collective memory in Central Europe is shaped by the fall of communism in 1989, ending an oppresive political system imposed by an external power. Peter argues that “the differing memory cultures in these two regions help to explain why the West emphasizes the liberal protection of rights by a neutral, internationally embedded state, whereas postcommunist Europe emphasizes majoritarian voting and national sovereignty.”
2020 hasn’t exactly been littered with moments to celebrate, so one more reason to cherish them when they do come around: The 2019 Journal Citation Reports release by Clarivate Analytics sees JEPP’s impact factor increase from 3.457 in 2018 to 4.177 in 2019, the journal’s highest score in its 27-year history! JEPP is now ranked 7/180 in the Political Science category and 3/48 in the Public Administration category.
JEPP was also able to hold on to its third place in the 2020 Google Scholar Metrics ranking for Political Science, with an h-index of 55, up from 51 (only APSR and AJPS have higher scores).
To top off the good news, JEPP is also doing very well on CiteScore provided by Scopus, with a score of 7.7, which implies that JEPP is ranked 2/157 in Public Administration and 16/1243 in Sociology and Political Science.
We won’t tire of thanking our family of authors who have chosen JEPP as the venue to publish their research, our board members and reviewers for their outstanding and continuing support, and our readers without whom JEPP would have never made it this far!
The JEPP Reviewer Prize provides special recognition to our colleagues for their selfless investment as peer-reviewers, offering guidance to authors to improve their work, to us as editors to take well-informed decisions on manuscripts, and hence to ensure that JEPP’s standards continue to be high. This year we have the pleasure to award the prize to two cherished colleagues who have supported JEPP for decades: They have rarely declined our review requests, and always provided submitting authors and us editors with detailed and constructive comments.
We are thus very happy to award the reviewer prizes to:
Rachel Epstein (University of Denver),
R. Daniel Kelemen (Rutgers University).
Congratulations to our prize winners!
Developments around EU healthcare services law have been characterized by a puzzling phenomenon. Buzzing political activity in Brussels and member state officials vying to shape EU law in accordance with their respective preferences contrasts with minimal practical changes in national healthcare systems. In their article “Destabilization rights and restabilization politics: Policy and political reactions to European Union healthcare services law” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Scott Greer and Simone Rauscher Singh explain this disjunction. Drawing on evidence from interviews with German and British public health officials, members of EU institutions and lobbyists, Scott and Simone show that the observed pattern of a broadening political activity at the European level and few actual changes on the ground is a consequence of policy-makers’ strategic choices. Given broad compliance with the patchy legal framework of EU healthcare law is costly for member states, healthcare policy-makers opt for the smallest possible change necessary to comply whenever a national practice is at odds with EU law. Relative to compliance, stepping up their political engagement at the European level to wrest back control over healthcare policy from EU institutions is far less costly for member states. Scott and Simone’s analysis shows that member states’ political engagement in Brussels does not necessarily imply their preference for European policies on healthcare services but “reflects states’ desire to restabilize healthcare law.”
Ever since the 1950s, EU member states have sought to protect national competences to organize, finance and provide healthcare from integration at the European level. Despite these efforts, the EU has a become a significant player in public health, regulating key questions on the access to and delivery of healthcare in member states. In their article “The making of a European healthcare union: a federalist perspective” published in the Journal of European Public Policy, Hans Vollaard, Hester van de Bovenkamp and Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen explain how the EU attained authority in public health against all odds, and offer an outlook on a European healthcare union in the making. Hans, Hester and Dorte show that the free movement of goods, services and workers allowed the European Commission to expand its involvement in healthcare, complemented by the Court of Justice’s favourable interpretations of EU healthcare legislation. Member states’ use of EU fora to pursue voluntary co-operations in the health sector and their willingness to delegate competences to the EU-level in exchange for financial support further facilitated the development of a European healthcare union. However, Hans, Hester and Dorte caution that this union remains fragile. While EU officials see the Europeanization of healthcare as an “instrument to foster a European sense of belonging among the citizens of the EU member states”, evidence that a European healthcare union cultivates citizens’ loyalty toward the EU appears thin at best.