Studies on how the European Union’s (EU) directives are transposed by national governments have consistently concluded that bureaucratic efficiency of member-states is a crucial determinant of timely transposition. These studies usually focus on the bureaucracy as a whole and utilize static aggregate measures of efficiency. They do not examine how differences in management performance among ministries impact transposition outcomes. This study advances our insight by disaggregating the features of the bureaucracy and examining whether differences in ministries’ decentralization, leadership, past experience with timely transposition, and budgetary allocations explain how bureaucratic processes impacts effective transposition. An original dataset focusing on transposition of EU directives by Ireland is constructed and applied to the problem. Quantitative analysis, informed by original field research, reveals that significant differences in performance can exist among a member state’s ministries. Ministerial leadership, past experience, and favorable budgetary allocations predict the most timely transposition of Brussels’ directives.
AuerADemmkeCPoletR (1996) Civil Services in the Europe of the Fifteen: Current Situation and Prospects, Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.
2.
BawnK (1995) Political control versus expertise: Congressional choices about administrative procedures. American Political Science Review89(1): 62–73.
3.
Berglund S (2009) Putting politics into perspective: A study of the implementation of EU public utilities directives. Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers.
4.
BerglundSGangeIvan WaardenF (2006) Mass production of law: Routinization in the transposition of european directives: A sociological-institutionalist account. Journal of European Public Policy13(5): 692–716.
5.
BorghettoEFranchinoFGiannettiD (2006) Complying with the transposition deadlines of EU directives: Evidence from Italy. Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche5(1): 7–38.
6.
Börzel T, Duziak M, Hofmann T, et al. (2008) Recalcitrance, inefficiency, and support for European integration: Why member states do (not) comply with European law. Center for European Studies Working Paper, No. 151. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
7.
BörzelTHormannTPankeD (2012) Caving in or sitting it out? Longitudinal patterns of noncompliance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy19(4): 454–471.
8.
CalvertRMcCubbinsMWeingastB (1989) Political control and agency discretion. American Political Science Review33(3): 588–611.
9.
DavisCBermeoS (2009) Who files? Developing country participation in WTO adjudication. Journal of Politics71(3): 1033–1049.
10.
DimitrovaASteunenbergB (2000) The search for convergence of national policies in the European Union: An impossible quest?’. European Union Politics1(2): 201–226.
11.
Demmke C (2001) Towards effective environmental regulation: Innovative approaches in implementing and enforcing european environmental law and policy. Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/01. Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA.
12.
DuinaF (1997) Explaining legal implementation in the European Union. International Journal of the Sociology of Law25(2): 155–180.
13.
FalknerGTreibO (2008) Three worlds of compliance or four? The EU-15 compared to new member states. Journal of Common Market Studies46(2): 293–313.
14.
FalknerGHartlappMLeiberSet al. (2004) Non-compliance with EU directives in the member states: Opposition through the backdoor?’. West European Politics27(3): 452–473.
15.
FalknerGTreibOHartlappMet al. (2005) Complying with Europe? The Impact of EU Minimum Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
FalknerGTreibOHartlappM (2007) Worlds of compliance: Why leading approaches to European Union implementation are only ‘sometimes-true theories’. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 395–416.
17.
GriecoJ (1988) Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization42(3): 485–507.
18.
HardimanNMacCarthaughM (2011) The unpolitics of new public management in Ireland. In: Eymeri-SouzansJMPierreJ (eds) Administrative Reforms and Democratic Governance, Oxon, UK: Routledge, pp. 55–67.
19.
HaverlandM (2000) National adaptation to European integration: The importance of institutional veto point. Journal Public Policy20(1): 83–103.
20.
HillePKnillC (2006) It’s the bureaucracy, stupid. European Union Politics7(4): 531–552.
21.
HoodC (1991) Public management for all seasons?Public Administration69(1): 3–19.
22.
KaedingM (2006) Determinants of transposition delay in the European Union. Journal of Public Policy26(3): 229–253.
23.
KaedingM (2008a) In search of better quality of EU regulations for prompt transposition: The Brussels perspective. European Law Journal14(5): 583–603.
24.
KaedingM (2008b) Lost in translation or full steam ahead? The transposition of EU transport directives across EU member states. European Union Politics9(1): 115–144.
25.
KonigTLuetgertB (2009) Troubles with transposition? Explaining trends in member-state notification and the delayed transposition of EU directives. British Journal of Political Science39(1): 163–194.
26.
KrasnerS (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
27.
LinosK (2007) How can international organizations shape national welfare states?: Evidence from compliance with European Union directives. Comparative Political Studies40(5): 547–570.
28.
McGauranAVerhoestKHumphreysP (2005) The Corporate Governance of Agencies in Ireland: Non-Commercial National Agencies, Dublin, Ireland: Institute of Public Administration.
29.
MastenbroekE (2007) The Politics of Compliance. Explaining Transposition of EC Directives in the Netherlands, Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen.
30.
MastenbroekEKaedingM (2006) Europeanization beyond the goodness of fit: Domestic politics in the forefront. Comparative European Politics4(4): 331–354.
31.
MbayeH (2009) Assessing competing explanations for compliance and non-compliance with European Union policies. MidSouth Political Science Review40: 63–82.
32.
OECD (2001) Public Sector Leadership for the 21st Century, Paris: OECD.
33.
OECD (2008) Review of the Irish Public Service, Paris: OECD.
34.
PerkinsRNeumayerE (2007) Do membership benefits buy regulatory compliance? An empirical analysis of EU directives 1978–1999. European Union Politics8(2): 180–206.
35.
PollittC (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services, Blackwell: Oxford.
36.
PollittCBouckaertG (2004) Public Management Reform A Comparative Analysis—New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
RauhC (2014) Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013. European Union Politics16(1): 116–138.
38.
SteunenbergB (2006) Turning swift policymaking into deadlock and delay: National policy coordination and the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics7(3): 293–319.
39.
SteunenbergBKaedingM (2009) As time goes by: Explaining the transposition of maritime directive. European Journal of Political Research48(3): 432–454.
40.
SteunenbergBRhinardM (2010) The transposition of European law in EU member states: Between process and politics. European Political Science Review2(3): 495–520.
41.
Treib O (2003) EU governance, misfit, and the partisan logic of domestic adaptation: An actor-centered perspective on the transposition of EU directives. In: EUSA 8th biennial international conference. Available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/6566/1/001317_1.PDF (accessed 23 July 2016).
42.
VersluisETarrE (2013) Improving compliance with European Union law via agencies: The case of the European Railway Agency. Journal of Common Market Studies51(2): 316–333.
43.
Van WartM (2003) Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review63(2): 214–228.
