Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking Meuwese, A.C.M
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Impact assessment in EU lawmaking Meuwese, A.C.M. Citation Meuwese, A. C. M. (2008, February 6). Impact assessment in EU lawmaking. Meijers-reeks. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12589 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the License: Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12589 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking Impact Assessment in EU Lawmaking PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. P.F. van der Heijden, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op woensdag 6 februari 2008 klokke 16.15 uur door Anne Claartje Margreet Meuwese geboren te Nijmegen in 1980 Promotiecommissie: Promotor: prof. dr. W.J.M. Voermans Referent: prof. dr. P. Popelier (Universiteit Antwerpen, België) Leden: prof. dr. R.J.A. van Gestel (Universiteit van Tilburg) prof. dr. C.M. Radaelli (University of Exeter, UK) prof. dr. R.C. Tobler prof. dr. H. Vording Lay-out: Anne-Marie Krens – Tekstbeeld – Oegstgeest Druk: Wöhrmann Print Service – Zutphen © 2008 A.C.M. Meuwese This PhD project was carried out as part of the Law Faculty research programme ‘Securing the Rule of Law in a World of Multilevel Jurisdiction’, sub-programme ‘Trias Europea’. A commercial edition of this thesis will appear with Kluwer Law International in the European Monographs series later this year. Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets uit deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. Voorzover het maken van reprografische verveelvoudigingen uit deze uitgave is toegestaan op grond van artikel 16h Auteurswet 1912 dient men de daarvoor wettelijk verschuldigde vergoedingen te voldoen aan de Stichting Reprorecht (Postbus 3051, 2130 KB Hoofddorp, www.reprorecht.nl). Voor het overnemen van (een) gedeelte(n) uit deze uitgave in bloemlezingen, readers en andere compilatiewerken (art. 16 Auteurswet 1912) kan men zich wenden tot de Stichting PRO (Stichting Publicatie- en Reproductierechten Organisatie, Postbus 3060, 2130 KB Hoofddorp, www.cedar.nl/pro). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher. Voor opa Dolf (1916 – 2007) Preface In the course of the four years working on this thesis I came up with various cover stories. To my hairdresser I would say my research was about ‘red tape’ from Brussels, to a fast-living consultant it was all about the Lisbon process – or so I claimed – and to a philosopher (I actually met a few) I would explain that my thesis dealt with legitimacy. In my own mind the mission had been clear when I first started to investigate the use of impact assessment in EU lawmaking: I would not only capture the first experiences with implementing impact assessment in the European legislative process, but also find out whether economic analysis of the consequences of legislation matters – and how. But in the course of the project this mission was both extended and narrowed down. I quickly discovered that EU impact assessment was not necessarily about a more rigorous use of economic analysis, at least not in any straightforward way. It was all about subsidiarity, procedural justice and inter-institutional power fights and as such it was ‘the continuation of constitu- tional debate by other means’. This in itself was an interesting finding, but it also made it impossible to pin down the ‘net effect’ of the introduction of impact assessment when it was part of a fundamental struggle that was unlikely to be resolved any time soon. While you try to shape the project, it also shapes you and your journeys. From Leiden it took me to Brussels for a five-month intermezzo as trainee at the unit Better Regulation and Institutional Matters of the European Com- mission’s Secretariat-General. During this happy period in Spring 2005 I learnt so much, for instance how theoretical notions have practical implications and how practical decisions are harder to take without theoretical back-up. A few months after returning to my desk in Leiden the chance to experience inter- disciplinarity first hand presented itself as a research job at the Politics Depart- ment of the University of Exeter. Here I discovered that the differences between political scientists and constitutional legal scholars were much greater than the overlaps in subject matter would suggest. ‘Advancing socio-scientific knowledge through making causal inferences’ is a long way from ‘advancing the law’ and I still do not understand the respective disciplines’ fixations on either. The stories on impact assessment accumulated, the angles multiplied and yet in the end it all had to turn into one book. The result is a detailed account of how all actors involved in EU lawmaking deal with impact assessment and VI Preface an argument about the trade-offs at the meta-level that need to be taken into account when reforming the current, malleable EU impact assessment system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people whose unwavering support has helped me to just get on with it. The first word of thanks is for my paranimfen and good friends Jacco and Zayènne. Jacco, I admire your intelligence, sense of humour and warmth and I am glad our friendship is still going strong. Zayènne, your passionate opinions as well as your professionalism were consistently refreshing during the trials and tribulations of PhD life. Our Florence trips even made thesis writing seem glamorous at times. Maris, despite the differences between us (many of them somehow related to the difference between a PhD in Astronomy and a PhD in Law) you are like family to me. It is great that we managed to spend so much time in Leiden together. Annelieke and Marieke have both provided almost permanent lifelines on many fronts, through Skype and in person. I would also like to extend words of thanks to other friends – old and new – who have hosted, fed, lectured, inspired and/or cherished me through- out the past years: Armando, Christien, Djordje, Emma, Felix, Frederik, Freya, Hristina, Ineke, Inge, Ivan, Julie, Lorna, Maja, Melissa, Michiru, Peter, Radostina, Simone and Sonja. Graciela at Waterside and Michelle & Robin at Bridge Cottages have been super-housemates (and great career examples) during my time in Exeter, speaking words of comfort to my pale face after I returned from another late night session at the office. I am grateful for the support that Marlies & Hendrik (who I often think is really my big brother) and Julia (who will always be my little sister but also the best travel companion ever) gave me. The warmest thanks are for my parents, Joost and Maria, to whom I owe everything. The Department Constitutional and Administrative Law in Leiden has been an amazing place to work, not least because Ymre has been a wonderful office mate, and a safe haven even after I started working in Exeter. I am particularly thankful that the department awarded me a non-stipendiary fellowship which enabled me to continue writing my thesis in an efficient way and I would like to thank Tom Barkhuysen as head of department for this. Many thanks go to Lars Mitek-Pedersen for the faith he placed in me as a trainee, as well as to all the colleagues in the unit. Let me especially mention Eric Philippart and Craig Robertson, who taught me not only about the politics and practice of impact assessment, but also about the perils of academia. I would further like to thank all colleagues at the Department of Politics of the University of Exeter and particularly the colourful and inspiring team at the Centre for Regulatory Governance, with a special word of appreciation for my former office mate Frank. Although this PhD research was carried out completely separately from the European Network for Better Regulation (ENBR) and Evaluating Impact Assessment (EVIA) – the two projects funded by the EU Sixth Framework Programme that I worked on in Exeter – I would like Preface VII to thank the researchers in these projects for providing a sense of community in impact assessment research. Other people whose intellectual input into either parts of the thesis or its overall conception I gratefully acknowledge are Jim Dratwa, Chris Jetten, Tim Keyworth, Bronwen Morgan, Robert Scharrenborg, Frank Schiller and Helen Toner. One of the best parts of this research project has been sharing experiences with other young researchers I met at various conferences and summer schools, notably the CARR Graduate Conference at the London School of Economics, the Academy of European Law and the First NEWGOV-Connex training course at the European University Institute, the Advanced Colloquium on Better Regulation at the University of Exeter and the PhD network for European Commission trainees (thanks to Pauline Le More and Wim Weymans). The final word of thanks is reserved for the people I interviewed as part of the research for this thesis, whether on a formal or informal basis, for their cooperation and time. Anne Meuwese Exeter/Leiden Table of contents PREFACE V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XIII IINTRODUCTION 1 I.1 Introducing