Although member states are obliged to transpose directives into domestic law in a conformable manner and receive considerable time for their transposition activities, we identify three levels of transposition outcomes for EU directives: conformable, partially conformable and non-conformable. Compared with existing transposition models, which do not distinguish between different transposition outcomes, we examine the factors influencing each transposition process by means of a competing risk analysis. We find that preference-related factors, in particular the disagreement of a member state and the Commission regarding a directive’s outcome, play a much more strategic role than has to date acknowledged in the transposition literature. Whereas disagreement of a member state delays conformable transposition, it speeds up non-conformable transposition. Disagreement of the Commission only prolongs the transposition process. We therefore conclude that a stronger focus on an effective sanctioning mechanism is warranted for safeguarding compliance with directives.
BailerS (2004) Bargaining success in the European Union: The impact of exogenous and endogenous power resources. European Union Politics5: 99–123.
2.
BerglundSGangeIWaardenF (2006) Mass production of law. Routinization in the transposition of European directives: A sociologicalinstitutionalist account. Journal of European Public Policy13: 692–716.
3.
BorghettoEFranchinoFGiannettiD (2006) Complying with the transposition deadlines of the EU directives: Evidence from Italy. Revista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche7–38.
4.
BörzelTA (2001) Non-compliance in the European Union: Pathology or statistical artefact?Journal of European Public Policy8: 803–824.
5.
BörzelTARisseT (2003) Conceptualising the domestic impact of Europe. In: FeatherstoneKRadaelliCM (eds) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–80.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJJonesBS (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CarrubbaCJ (2005) Courts and compliance in international regulatory regimes. Journal of Politics67: 669–689.
8.
CarrubbaCJGabelMHanklaC (2008) Judicial behavior under political constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review102: 435–452.
9.
Ciavarini AzziG (2000) The slow march of European legislation: The implementation of directives. In: NeunreitherKWienerA (eds) European Integration after Amsterdam: Institutional Dynamics and Prospects for Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–67.
10.
DimitrakopoulosD (2001) Learning and steering: Changing implementation patterns and the Greek central government. Journal of European Public Policy8: 604–622.
11.
DuinaF (1997) Explaining legal implementation in the European Union. International Journal of the Sociology of Law25: 155–179.
12.
EpsteinDO’HalloranS (1999) Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
FalknerGTreibOHartlappM (2005) Complying with Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FranchinoF (2004) Delegating powers in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science34: 269–293.
15.
GiulianiM (2003) Europeanization in comparative perspective: Institutional fit and national adaption. In: FeatherstoneKRadaelliCM (eds) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 134–155.
16.
GrambschPMTherneauTM (1994) Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika81: 515–526.
17.
HartlappMFalknerG (2009) Problems of operationalisation and data in EU compliance research. European Union Politics10: 281–304.
18.
HaverlandMRomeijnM (2007) Do member states make European policies work? Analysing the EU transport deficit. Public Administration85: 757–778.
19.
HillePKnillC (2006) ‘It’s the Bureaucracy, Stupid’: The implementation of the acquis communautaire in EU candidate countries, 1999–2003. European Union Politics7: 531–552.
20.
JensenCB (2007) Implementing Europe: A question of oversight. European Union Politics8: 451–477.
21.
KaedingM (2006) In good times and bad: Legal transposition in the European Union. Assessing correlational and necessary/sufficient causation. German Working Papers in Law and EconomicsVol. 2006(Article 29): 1–47.
22.
KaedingM (2008) Lost in translation or full steam ahead. European Union Politics9: 115–143.
23.
KaufmannDKraayAMastruzziM (2006) Governance Matters V: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators for 1996–2005. Washington DC: World Bank.
24.
KeeleT (2010) Proportionally difficult: Testing for nonproportional hazards in Cox models. Political Analysis18: 189–205.
25.
KnillCLenschowA (1998) Coping with Europe: The impact of British and German administrations on the implementation of EU environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy5: 595–614.
26.
KönigTLuetgertB (2009) Troubles with transposition? Explaining trends in member state notification and the delayed transposition of EU directives. British Journal of Political Science39: 163–194.
27.
KönigTLuetgertBMäderL (2005) Troubles with timeliness: Explaining trends in transposition delay. Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions. Grenada, Spain.
28.
LampinenRUusikylaP (1998) Implementation deficit – Why member states do not comply with EU directives?Scandinavian Political Studies21: 231–251.
29.
LichtAA (2011) Change comes with time: Substantive interpretation of nonproportional hazards in event history analysis. Political Analysis19: 227–243.
30.
LuetgertBDannwolfT (2009) Mixing methods: A nested analysis of EU transposition patterns. European Union Politics10: 307–334.
31.
MastenbroekE (2003) Surviving the deadline: The transposition of EU directives in the Netherlands. European Union Politics4: 371–395.
32.
MbayeHAD (2001) Why national states comply with supranational law: Explaining implementation infringements in the European Union, 1972–1993. European Union Politics2: 259–281.
33.
PerkinsRNeumayerE (2007) Do membership benefits buy regulatory compliance? An empirical analysis of EU directives 1978–1999. European Union Politics8: 181–207.
34.
PrechalS (2005) Directives in EC Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
SiedentopfHZillerJ (1988) Making European Policies Work: The Implementation of Community Legislation in the Member States. London: Sage.
36.
SimmonsBA (2009) Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press.
37.
SteunenbergB (2006) Turning swift policy-making into deadlock and delay: National policy coordination and the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics7: 293–319.
38.
SverdrupU (2004) Compliance and conflict management in the European Union: Nordic exceptionalism. Scandinavian Political Studies27: 23–43.
39.
TallbergJ (2002) Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization56: 609–643.
40.
ThomsonR (2007) Time to comply: National responses to six EU labour market directives revisited. West European Politics30: 987–1008.
41.
ThomsonR (2010) Opposition through the back door in the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics11: 577–596.
42.
ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCH (2006) The European Union Decides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
ThomsonRTorenvliedRArreguiJ (2007) The paradox of compliance: Infringements and delay in transposing European Union directives. British Journal of Political Science37: 685–709.
44.
TreibO (2003) EU governance, misfit, and the partisan logic of domestic adaption: An actor-centered perspective on the transposition of EU directives. Paper presented at the EUSA 8th International Biennial Conference27–29 March, Nashville, Tennessee.
45.
VersluisE (2004) Explaining variations in implementation of EU directives. European Integration online Papers (EIoP)8.
46.
ZhelyazkovaATorenvliedR (2009) The time-dependent effect of conflict in the Council on delays in the transposition of EU directives. European Union Politics10: 35–62.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
