EU Regulatory Decision Making and the Role of the United States: Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation as a Gateway for U. S. Economic Interests?

269 Pages·2013·1.733 MB·English

by  Oliver Ziegler (auth.)

EU Regulatory Decision Making
and the Role of the United States
Oliver Ziegler
EU Regulatory Decision
Making and the Role
of the United States
Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation
as a Gateway for U. S. Economic
Interests?
RESEARCH
Oliver Ziegler
U. S. Embassy Berlin,
Germany
Dissertation Freie Universität Berlin, 2012
ISBN 978-3-658-00053-0 ISBN 978-3-658-00054-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-00054-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012948296
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Springer VS
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole
or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or schol-
arly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed
on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this pub-
lication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained
from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright
Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the
date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal
r esponsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty,
express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer VS is a brand of Springer DE. Springer DE is part of Springer Science+Business Media.
www.springer-vs.de
Acknowledgment

This book is a revised version of my dissertation, which I successfully defended
in October 2011 at the Otto-Suhr Institute for Political Science at the Free Uni-
versity Berlin.
I owe a debt of gratitude to a number of people and institutions for their
contribution to this book. I would like to thank Thomas Risse and Susanne Lütz
for their advice, supervision and support. Stormy Mildner provided detailed
comments on an earlier draft. The book would not have been possible without
the generous support given by the Stiftung Wissenschaft and Politik (SWP) in
Berlin. The SWP researchers and Ph.D. students in Berlin and Brussels offered
valuable comments and suggestions and provided for a great working environ-
ment. At a very early stage I could discuss my ideas with the participants of the
Spring Academy (2008) of the Heidelberg Center for American Studies. I am
grateful to Daniel Hamilton and Fredrik Erixon for the opportunity to spend
some months at the Center for Transatlantic Relations in Washington, DC as
well as the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) in
Brussels. Field research would not have been possible without the generous
funding by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Finally, I am eternally indebted to my family and friends for their support –
and for making the four years such an exciting time.

Berlin, June 2012 Oliver Ziegler
5
Table of Contents

Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... 13(cid:1)
Part I: Introduction and theory ....................................................................... 19(cid:1)
1.(cid:1)(cid:1)Introduction and research problem ............................................................ 19(cid:1)
1.1 Regulatory cooperation vs. regulatory coordination ................................ 21(cid:1)
1.2 EU-U.S. regulatory cooperation ............................................................... 23(cid:1)
1.3 Environmental and consumer protection standards .................................. 25(cid:1)
1.4 Overview of this study ............................................................................. 25(cid:1)
1.5 The research problem ............................................................................... 27(cid:1)
1.5.1 The policy areas .............................................................................. 27(cid:1)
1.5.2 Product standards and process standards ........................................ 28(cid:1)
1.5.3 Prevention-focused regulatory cooperation .................................... 28(cid:1)
1.5.4 The countries involved in the process ............................................. 30(cid:1)
1.5.5 The time period ............................................................................... 33(cid:1)
1.5.6 The dependent variable ................................................................... 34(cid:1)
1.5.7 The explanatory variables ............................................................... 35(cid:1)
1.5.8 The research question ..................................................................... 36(cid:1)
1.6 The research design .................................................................................. 36(cid:1)
1.6.1 The selection of cases ..................................................................... 36(cid:1)
1.6.2 The use of sources ........................................................................... 39(cid:1)
1.7 Outline of the study .................................................................................. 41(cid:1)
2.(cid:1)(cid:1)A theoretical framework .............................................................................. 43(cid:1)
2.1 Level I: Intergovernmental negotiations .................................................. 47(cid:1)
2.1.1 Bargaining and arguing ................................................................... 47(cid:1)
2.1.1.1 Bargaining strategies ................................................................. 49(cid:1)
2.1.1.2 Arguing and communicative action .......................................... 50(cid:1)
2.1.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 51(cid:1)
2.2 Level II: Preferences and coalitions ......................................................... 52(cid:1)
2.2.1 Defenders of the status quo vs. Pro-change groups ........................ 52(cid:1)
7
2.2.2 Mattli’s and Woods’ model of regulatory capture .......................... 53(cid:1)
2.2.2.1 Institutional supply ................................................................... 57(cid:1)
2.2.2.2 Demand-side conditions ........................................................... 57(cid:1)
2.2.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 58(cid:1)
2.3 Level III: Political institutions and veto players ....................................... 59(cid:1)
2.3.1 EU decision making and veto players ............................................. 60(cid:1)
2.3.2 Risk governance .............................................................................. 61(cid:1)
2.3.2.1 Institutional setting ................................................................... 62(cid:1)
2.3.2.2 Precaution vs. economic analysis ............................................. 64(cid:1)
2.3.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 66(cid:1)
2.4 Summary .................................................................................................. 67(cid:1)
3.(cid:1)(cid:1)The institutional structure of transatlantic regulatory cooperation ....... 68(cid:1)
3.1 History, data, and structure ....................................................................... 68(cid:1)
3.2 Intergovernmental relations ...................................................................... 73(cid:1)
3.3 Transgovernmental relations .................................................................... 73(cid:1)
3.4 Transnational relations ............................................................................. 74(cid:1)
3.5 The Early Warning System ...................................................................... 77(cid:1)
3.6 Institutions ................................................................................................ 78(cid:1)
3.6.1 The regulatory procedures .............................................................. 79(cid:1)
3.6.1.1 Regulatory procedures in the European Union ......................... 79(cid:1)
3.6.1.2 Regulatory procedures in the United States .............................. 84(cid:1)
3.6.2 Precaution versus economic analysis .............................................. 85(cid:1)
3.6.2.1 Risk governance in the European Union .................................. 86(cid:1)
3.6.2.2 Risk governance in the United States ....................................... 89(cid:1)
Part II: Case Studies ......................................................................................... 93(cid:1)
1.(cid:1)(cid:1)Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment .............................................. 93(cid:1)
1.1 Background, terminology, and actors ....................................................... 94(cid:1)
1.1.1 Contested issues and terminology ................................................... 95(cid:1)
1.1.2 Policy context and historical background ....................................... 97(cid:1)
1.1.3 Actors and preferences at a glance .................................................. 98(cid:1)
1.2 The genesis of the Commission proposal ............................................... 102(cid:1)
1.2.1 The relevant actors in the Commission ......................................... 102(cid:1)
1.2.2 Five different drafts highlight tensions within the Commission ... 103(cid:1)
1.2.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 115(cid:1)
8
1.3 Negotiations in the Parliament ............................................................... 116(cid:1)
1.3.1 The relevant actors in the EP ........................................................ 116(cid:1)
1.3.2 The initial situation and the expectations of interested groups ..... 117(cid:1)
1.3.3 In the run up to the first reading MEPs turn to stakeholders ........ 118(cid:1)
1.3.4 The Florenz report proposes two directives .................................. 121(cid:1)
1.3.5 The first reading in plenum espouses individual responsibility .... 121(cid:1)
1.3.6 Summary ....................................................................................... 122(cid:1)
1.4 Negotiations in the Council .................................................................... 123(cid:1)
1.4.1 The relevant actors in the Council ................................................ 123(cid:1)
1.4.2 The initial situation and the expectation of interested groups ...... 123(cid:1)
1.4.3 The French presidency achieves a common orientation ............... 124(cid:1)
1.4.4 The Swedish presidency achieves a political agreement .............. 124(cid:1)
1.4.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 127(cid:1)
1.5 Negotiations in the Parliament II ............................................................ 127(cid:1)
1.5.1 The second reading in the ENVI committee discloses dissent ..... 128(cid:1)
1.5.2 The second reading in plenum strengthens the proposal .............. 128(cid:1)
1.6. The Conciliation Committee ................................................................. 129(cid:1)
1.6.1 The final outcome ......................................................................... 130(cid:1)
1.6.2 Stakeholders are appeased ............................................................ 131(cid:1)
1.7 Analysis .................................................................................................. 132(cid:1)
1.7.1 Did U.S. economic interests prevail in EU regulatory decision
making? ..................................................................................... 132(cid:1)
1.7.2 What factors may account for this outcome? ................................ 137(cid:1)
1.8 General conclusion ................................................................................. 140(cid:1)
2.(cid:1)(cid:1)Ozone-depleting substances ....................................................................... 142(cid:1)
2.1 Background, terminology, and actors ..................................................... 142(cid:1)
2.1.1 Contested issues and terminology ................................................. 143(cid:1)
2.1.2 Policy context and historical background ..................................... 144(cid:1)
2.1.3 Actors and preferences at a glance ................................................ 145(cid:1)
2.2 The genesis of the Commission proposal ............................................... 150(cid:1)
2.2.1 The relevant actors in the Commission ......................................... 150(cid:1)
2.2.2 DG Environment pursues its goals with determination ................ 150(cid:1)
2.2.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 156(cid:1)
2.3 Negotiations in the Parliament ............................................................... 156(cid:1)
2.3.1 The relevant actors in the EP ........................................................ 157(cid:1)
2.3.2 The initial situation and the expectations of interested groups ..... 158(cid:1)
2.3.3 The Graenitz report tightens the standards ................................... 158(cid:1)
2.3.4 The first reading in plenum backs the proposal ............................ 159(cid:1)
9
2.3.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 160(cid:1)
2.4 Negotiations in the Council .................................................................... 161(cid:1)
2.4.1 The relevant actors in the Council ................................................ 161(cid:1)
2.4.2 The initial situation and the expectations of interested groups ..... 161(cid:1)
2.4.3 The Austrian presidency reaches a compromise ........................... 162(cid:1)
2.4.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 164(cid:1)
2.5 Negotiations in the Parliament II ............................................................ 164(cid:1)
2.5.1 ENVI stands firm .......................................................................... 165(cid:1)
2.5.2 The plenum rejects the ENVI proposal ......................................... 167(cid:1)
2.6. The Conciliation Committee ................................................................. 168(cid:1)
2.7 Analysis .................................................................................................. 169(cid:1)
2.7.1 Did U.S. economic interests prevail in EU regulatory decision
making? ..................................................................................... 170(cid:1)
2.7.2 What factors may account for this outcome? ................................ 173(cid:1)
2.8 General conclusion ................................................................................. 175(cid:1)
3.(cid:1)(cid:1)Animal testing for cosmetic products ....................................................... 177(cid:1)
3.1 Background, terminology, and actors ..................................................... 177(cid:1)
3.1.1 Contested issues and terminology ................................................. 178(cid:1)
3.1.2 Policy context and historical background ..................................... 178(cid:1)
3.1.3 Actors and preferences at a glance ................................................ 181(cid:1)
3.2 The genesis of the Commission proposal ............................................... 185(cid:1)
3.2.1 The relevant actors in the Commission ......................................... 185(cid:1)
3.2.2 The Commission is united ............................................................ 186(cid:1)
3.2.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 191(cid:1)
3.3 Negotiations in the Parliament ............................................................... 191(cid:1)
3.3.1 The relevant actors in the EP ........................................................ 192(cid:1)
3.3.2 The initial situation and the expectations of interested groups ..... 192(cid:1)
3.3.3 The Parliament strikes back .......................................................... 193(cid:1)
3.3.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 197(cid:1)
3.4 Negotiations in the Council .................................................................... 197(cid:1)
3.4.1 The relevant actors in the Council ................................................ 197(cid:1)
3.4.2 The initial situation and the expectation of interested groups ...... 197(cid:1)
3.4.3 The Belgian presidency reaches a political agreement ................. 198(cid:1)
3.4.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 199(cid:1)
3.5 Negotiations in the Parliament II ............................................................ 200(cid:1)
3.5.1 ENVI backs the rapporteur’s firm stance on the marketing ban ... 200(cid:1)
3.5.2 The Plenum rallies behind the rapporteur ..................................... 200(cid:1)
10
3.6 The conciliation talks ............................................................................. 201(cid:1)
3.7 Analysis .................................................................................................. 203(cid:1)
3.7.1 Did U.S. economic interests prevail in EU regulatory decision
making? ..................................................................................... 206(cid:1)
3.7.2 What factors may account for this outcome? ................................ 208(cid:1)
3.8 General conclusion ................................................................................. 210(cid:1)
4.(cid:1)(cid:1)Metric Labeling .......................................................................................... 211(cid:1)
4.1 Background, terminology, and actors ..................................................... 211(cid:1)
4.1.1 Contested issues and terminology ................................................. 211(cid:1)
4.1.2 Policy context and historical background ..................................... 212(cid:1)
4.1.3 Actors and preferences at a glance ................................................ 213(cid:1)
4.2 The genesis of the Commission proposal ............................................... 216(cid:1)
4.2.1 The relevant actors ........................................................................ 216(cid:1)
4.2.2 “A microcosm of EU-U.S. relations full of drama, twists and turns”
................................................................................................... 217(cid:1)
4.2.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 222(cid:1)
4.3 Negotiations in the Parliament ............................................................... 222(cid:1)
4.3.1 The relevant actors in the EP ........................................................ 222(cid:1)
4.3.2 The initial situation and the expectations of interested groups ..... 223(cid:1)
4.3.3 The Parliament rubber-stamps the Commission proposal ............ 224(cid:1)
4.3.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 226(cid:1)
4.4 Negotiations in the Council .................................................................... 226(cid:1)
4.4.1 The relevant actors in the Council ................................................ 226(cid:1)
4.4.2 The initial situation and expectations of interested groups ........... 227(cid:1)
4.4.3 The Council rubber-stamps the proposal ...................................... 227(cid:1)
4.4.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 227(cid:1)
4.5 Reactions by stakeholders and external consequences ........................... 228(cid:1)
4.6 Analysis .................................................................................................. 229(cid:1)
4.6.1 Did U.S. economic interests prevail in EU regulatory decision
making? ..................................................................................... 231(cid:1)
4.6.2 What factors may account for this outcome? ................................ 232(cid:1)
4.7 General conclusion ................................................................................. 233(cid:1)
Part III: Summary and conclusions .............................................................. 235(cid:1)
1.(cid:1)(cid:1)The four cases and their outcomes ............................................................ 235(cid:1)
1.1 Explaining the outcomes ........................................................................ 237(cid:1)
11
1.1.1 The international negotiating environment ................................... 238(cid:1)
1.1.2 Interest group competition ............................................................ 239(cid:1)
1.1.3 Domestic institutions .................................................................... 242(cid:1)
1.2 An answer to the research question ........................................................ 244(cid:1)
1.3 Conclusion and hypotheses .................................................................... 247(cid:1)
2.(cid:1)(cid:1)Generalizing the conclusions to other cases ............................................. 249(cid:1)
2.1 Generalizing the conclusions to other issues .......................................... 249(cid:1)
2.2 Generalizing the conclusions to other issue areas .................................. 250(cid:1)
2.3 Generalizing the conclusions to other countries ..................................... 250(cid:1)
References ........................................................................................................ 251(cid:1)

12