Download the Deliverable

Deliverable D1.3 Report on a regulatory regime perspective on trust and the analysis of the regulatory regimes’ structure in the involved countries Point of Contact DAVID LEVI-FAUR Institution Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI) E-mail [email protected] Deliverable D1.3 Project Acronym TiGRE Project Title Trust in Governance and Regulation in Europe Grant Agreement No. 870722 Topic H2020-SC6-GOVERNANCE-01-2019: Trust in Governance Project start date 01 January 2020 Nature Report Dissemination level Public Due date M12 Revised due date M15 Date of delivery M15 Lead partner HUJI Contributing partners All Authors See each section and sub section for authorship Reviewer UNIL © TiGRE 2020. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870722 (TiGRE). This document reflects only the view of the author(s). The Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. ii Deliverable D1.3 Revision History Version Date Author Comment 0.1 19.03.2021 David Levi-Faur First draft 0.2 23.03.2021 Edoardo Guaschino, Review Martino Maggetti, Ioannis Papadopoulos 0.3 29.03.2021 David Levi-Faur Updates based on UNIL comments 0.4 29.03.2021 Edoardo Guaschino, Review by the coordinator Martino Maggetti, Ioannis Papadopoulos 0.5 29.03.2021 Clara Roujeau, Peter Ulrich Editing and minor corrections 1.0 30.03.2021 Clara Roujeau Final version, approved by the coordinator iii Deliverable D1.3 Contents Abbreviations, Participant short names vii Abbreviations vii … vii Participant short names vii Introduction to the deliverable 1 zfj 1 Abstract 2 tzj 2 A Regime Perspective on Trust and Regulation 3 ztj 3 1 The Relations between Trust and Regulation 5 fdh 5 1.1 Trust and Regulation are Separate, Independent and Essentially Different 5 1.2 Trust and Regulation Compete with Each Other 6 1.3 Trust and Regulation Are Substitutive 6 1.4 Trust and Regulation Are Mutually Supportive 7 2 Trust and Reregulation: Actor-centered Analysis 9 uzu 9 2.1 How to Conceptualize the Actors: Beyond Regulator-Regulatee 9 2.2 How to Conceptualize the Content of the Interactions? 9 2.3 Dyads or Triads? 10 2.4 Triads or Tetrad? 10 3 Trust and Distrust in Polycentric and Monocentric Regimes 11 hh 11 3.1 Certification and Accreditation 12 3.2 Reporting 13 3.3 Ranking & Rating 13 3.4 Auditing 14 4 Strategies of Trust and Strategies of Distrust 15 hbj 15 5 Conclusions 17 ih 17 Bibliography 19 uz 19 Appendix: Mapping the Regulatory Regimes in Data Protection, Finance and Food Safety 23 zuo 23 1 Introduction and Rationale of the Mapping Exercise 25 1.1 A. Sector description and general instructions: Data Protection 25 1.2 Sector description: Finance 26 1.3 Sector description of food safety regulation 27 1.4 The selection of the organisations 29 iv Deliverable D1.3 2 Mapping the Swiss Regulatory Regimes 33 2.1 The Swiss Data Protection Regime 33 2.2 The Swiss Financial Regime 36 2.3 The Swiss Food Safety Regime 39 3 Mapping the Dutch Regulatory Regimes 44 3.1 The Dutch Data Protection Regime 44 3.2 The Dutch Financial Regime 46 3.3 The Dutch Food Safety Regime 48 4 Mapping the Danish Regulatory Regimes 51 4.1 The Danish Data Protection Regime 51 4.2 The Danish Financial Regime 52 4.3 The Danish Food Safety Regime 53 5 Mapping the Belgian Regulatory Regimes 55 5.1 The Belgian Data Protection Regime 55 5.2 Financial Sector (Belgium) 60 5.3 Food safety (Belgium) 62 6 Mapping the Polish Regulatory Regimes 69 6.1 The Polish Data Protection Regime 69 6.2 The Polish Financial Regulatory Regime 72 6.3 The Polish Food safety Regime 75 7 Mapping the Israeli Regulatory Regimes 79 7.1 The Israeli Data Protection Regime 79 7.2 The Israeli Financial Regulatory Regime 82 7.3 The Israeli Food Safety Regime 85 8 Mapping the Spanish and Catalan Regulatory Regimes 88 8.1 The Spanish and Catalan Data Protection Regime 88 8.2 The Spanish and Catalan Financial Regime 94 8.3 The Spanish and Catalan Food Safety Regime 97 9 Mapping the German Regulatory Regimes 103 9.1 The German Data Protection Regime 103 9.2 The German Financial Regime 105 9.3 The German Food Safety Regime 109 10 Mapping the Norwegian Regulatory Regimes 113 10.1 The Norwegian Data Protection Regime 113 10.2 The Norwegian Financial Regime 117 v Deliverable D1.3 10.3 The Norwegian Food Safety Regime 120 11 Mapping the EU Regulatory Regimes 125 11.1 The EU Data Protection Regime 125 11.2 The EU Financial Regime 126 11.3 The EU Food Safety Regime 128 12 Mapping of relevant actors at the European level 130 12.1 Legislative bodies 130 12.2 Executive bodies 130 12.3 Regulatory agency 131 12.4 Stakeholders and interest groups 131 12.5 Legal Framework 132 vi Deliverable D1.3 Abbreviations, Participant short names Abbreviations … DPO Data Protection Officer EU European Union WP Work Package Participant short names UNIL Université de Lausanne UAntwerpen Universiteit Antwerpen IBEI Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals, Fundacio Privada HUJI The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Uni-Speyer German University of Administrative Sciences AU Aarhus Universitet UiO Universitetet i Oslo UU Universiteit Utrecht Kozminski Akademia Leona Kozminskiego SCIPROM SCIPROM Sàrl vii Introduction to the deliverable zfj This deliverable D1.3 develops a common project-wide perspective on trust relations within regulatory regimes, and to map the structure of the selected regulatory regimes (finance, communications and data protection, food safety) in the nine polities involved. It builds on the first two deliverables to develop a project-wide approach to the study of trust and regulation. It offers a refinement of the theories of trust so that they will be used more fruitfully to understand daily and policy-oriented trust relations in regulatory settings. This report asks how can we best conceptualize the relations between trust and regulation? How can we conceptualize their relations to provide a better, e.g. deeper and wider, understanding of governance? The main assertion is that that we need to understand the role and interactions of trust and regulations as a politically contested issue. When we speak on (dis)trust, when we assess (de)regulation, when we consider their relations, we are in the terrain of conflicting worldviews, ideologies, institutions and interests. Trust and regulation are weaponized by all actors. Their relations are political issue and the analysis of their interactions is grounded in conflicting paradigms of the social sciences research. The first part of the report identifies four different approaches to the relations between trust and regulation and to the challenges of the decline of trust and the ‘war’ against regulation. The second part of the report extends a thin apolitical understanding of the trust-choice into a more political and policy oriented analysis of actors’ preferences in governance settings. This is done by in the context of actor-centred choice architectures as well as via structural-institutional analysis. Trust choices are embedded in two types of regimes: monocentric and polycentric and with regards to the design of four mechanisms of regulation: certification, reporting, ranking & rating and auditing. The structural analysis is thereafter complemented by an analysis of regulatory strategies of trust and distrust. The deliverable concludes with some suggestions on how to reframe the politics of regulation taking trust into account and how to reorient the study of trust so as to take the politics of regulation seriously. The annex of the deliverable offers a regulatory regime perspective on trust. It draws on a mapping of trust relations, issues and puzzles within the three sectors (finance, food safety, communications and data protection) and the ten polities that will be analysed in the TiGRE project. To that purpose, an analysis of the structure and legislation of each regulatory regime in each country taking part in the project, plus the regime at the EU level. The analysis of the structures and legislations is performed in order to identify and map stakeholders and trust issues to set a wide scope for the research’s framework and in order to feed into the next WPs. Deliverable D1.3 Abstract tzj How can we best conceptualize the relations between trust and regulation? How can we conceptualize their relations to provide a better, e.g. deeper and wider, understanding of governance? A useful starting point is to understand the role and interactions of trust and regulations as a politically contested issue. When we speak on (dis)trust, when we assess (de)regulation, when we consider their relations, we are in the terrain of conflicting worldviews, ideologies, institutions and interests. Trust and regulation are weaponized by all actors. Their relations are political issue and the analysis of their interactions is grounded in conflicting paradigms of the social sciences research. The first part of the report identifies four different approaches to the relations between trust and regulation and to the challenges of the decline of trust and the ‘war’ against regulation. The second part of the report extends a thin apolitical understanding of the trust-choice into a more political and policy oriented analysis of actors’ preferences in governance settings. This is done by in the context of actor-centred choice architectures as well as via structural-institutional analysis. Trust choices are embedded in two types of regimes: monocentric and polycentric and with regards to the design of four mechanisms of regulation: certification, reporting, ranking & rating and auditing.

Load more