Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:37:28.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multi-level Governance of Nanotechnology in Europe: Policy Variation in Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

Ian P. McManus  and
Johannes Eijmberts
Ian P. McManus
Affiliation:
Political Science, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: mcmanus.i@husky.neu.edu
Johannes Eijmberts
Affiliation:
Bentley University, 175 Forest Street, Waltham, MA 02452, USA. E-mail: jeijmberts@bentley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within Europe, there has been the emergence of an EU-wide nanotechnology regulatory regime with regional authorities gaining greater decision-making power over a wide range of policy areas. However, despite the development of more comprehensive European nanotechnology policies, considerable variation remains in how member states implement these rules and regulations. In this article, we utilize a multi-level governance approach, to explore this seeming paradox in order to explain cross-national policy variation within a common European regulatory framework. This broader analytical approach allows us to account for the wide range of actors involved in European nanotechnology governance including, national governments, international organizations, research institutes, firms, and advocacy groups. Case study analysis of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands emphasizes how differences in domestic policy styles explain variation in the implementation of nanotechnology regulations across states. At the same time, the engagement of national governments with European and international regulatory efforts highlights the important role that states play in contributing to the development of a common nanotechnology regime in Europe.

Type
In Honour of Erol Gelenbe
Information
European Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 273 - 294
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Notes

1. ObservatoryNano (2011) European Nanotechnology Landscape Report. Available at: www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report145.pdf (accessed 19 May 2015).Google Scholar
2. Schimmelfennig, F. and Winzen, T. (2014) Instrumental and Constitutional Differentiation in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), pp. 354–370.Google Scholar
3. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration (Pennsylvania: Rowman & Littlefield), p. 28.Google Scholar
4. Bache, I. and Flinders, M. V. (2004) Multi-Level Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
5. Börzel, T. and Risse, T. (2003) Conceptualizing the domestic impact of Europe. In: K. Featherstone and C. Radaelli, (eds) The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 64.Google Scholar
6. Leuffen, D., Rittberger, B. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2012) Differentiated Integration: Explaining Variation in the European Union (London: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
7. Farrell, H. and Newman, A. (2010) Making global markets: historical institutionalism in international political economy. Review of International Political Economy, 17(4), p. 610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Verdier, D. and Breen, R. (2001) Europeanization and globalization: politics against markets in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 34, pp. 227–262.Google Scholar
9. Shambough, G. (1996) Dominance, dependence, and political power: tethering technology in the 1980s and today. International Studies Quarterly, 40, pp. 559–588. B. Simmons (2001) The international politics of harmonization: the case of capital market regulation. International Organization, 55(3), pp. 589–620. D. Drezner (2005) Globalization, harmonization, and competition: the different pathways to policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), pp. 841–859.Google Scholar
10. Drezner, D. (2007) All politics is global: explaining international regulatory regimes (Princeton: Princeton University Press), D. Vogel and R. Kagan (2004) Dynamics of Regulatory Change: How Globalization Affects National Regulatory Policies (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
11. Drezner, D. (2001) Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), p. 53.Google Scholar
12. Kerr, C. (1983) The Future of Industrial Societies: Convergence or Continuing Diversity? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), p. 3.Google Scholar
13. Krasner, S. (1983) International Regimes (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), A. Hasenclever P. Mayer and V. Rittberger (eds) (1997) Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
14. Meunier, S. and McNamara, K. (eds) (2007) Making History: European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 4.Google Scholar
15. Thelen, K. (1999) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), p. 387.Google Scholar
16. Pierson, P. (1996) The path to European integration: a historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), p. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Vogel, S. (1996) Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), p. 9.Google Scholar
18. Moravcsik, A. (2005) The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist legacy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), p. 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. European Commission (2005) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/nano_action_plan_en.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).Google Scholar
20. European Commission (2008) Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/nanocode-recommendation-pe0894c08424_en.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).Google Scholar
21. European Commission (2012) Europe 2020 Targets. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.html (accessed 5 May 2015).Google Scholar
22. European Commission (2000) Communication of the European Commission on the Precautionary Principle (Brussels, Belgium).Google Scholar
23. Sargent, J. F. Jr. (2011) The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service).Google Scholar
24. International Organization for Standardization (2011) TC 229 Nanotechnologies. Available at: www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commidid=381983 (accessed 15 January 2012).Google Scholar
25. OECD (2010) OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology Vision Statement. Available at: www.oecd.org/sti/nano/oecdworkingpartyonnanotechnologywpnvisionstatement.htm (accessed 17 December 2011).Google Scholar
26. NANoREG (2013) A Common European Approach to the Regulatory Testing of Nanomaterials. Available at: www.nanoreg.eu (accessed 5 May 2015).Google Scholar
27. Kingdon, J. (1995) Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies (New York: Harper Collins), p. 68.Google Scholar
28. FramingNano Project Consortium (2010) Framing Nano: Governance in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Available at: www.framingnano.eu (accessed 24 September 2014).Google Scholar
29. Newman, A. (2010) Flight from risk: unified Germany and the role of beliefs in the European response to the financial crisis. German Politics & Society, 28(2), p. 155.Google Scholar
30.Macrocorporatist forms of coordination include national-level institutions for fostering cooperation between actors such as workers’ unions and employers’ associations. For more information see Martin, C.J. and Thelen, K. (2007) The State and Coordinated Capitalism. World Politics, 60, p. 3.Google Scholar
31. Schmidt, V. (2006) Procedural democracy in the EU: the Europeanization of national and sectoral policy-making processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), p. 685.Google Scholar
32. O’Neill, K. (2000) Waste Trading among Rich Nations: Building a New Theory of Environmental Regulation (Cambridge: MIT Press), p. 127.Google Scholar
33. BAuA (2008) Exposure to nanomaterials in Germany. Accessed November 14, 2012. Available at: www.baua.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/717960/publicationFile/48348/survey.pdf.Google Scholar
34. BfR (2011) Safety of nano silver in consumer products: many questions remain open. Available at: www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2011/10/safety_of_nano_silver_in_consumer_products__many_questions_remain_open-70234.html (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
35. BfR (2013) The REACH regulation as an effective way of regulating nanomaterials. Available at: www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2013/02/the_reach_regulation_as_an_effective_way_of_regulating_nanomaterials-132673.html (accessed 6 March 2014).Google Scholar
36. Yeomans, M. (2014) Germany BfR publishes risk assessment of cosmetics. Available at: www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Regulation-Safety/Germany-BfR-publishes-risk-assessment-of-cosmetics (accessed 7 March 2014).Google Scholar
37.Political opportunity structures refer to the constraints and opportunities that actors face, which are influenced by institutional arrangements and prevailing patterns of political power. These opportunity structures shape the political contexts of collective action and are defined by characteristics such as how open or closed the policymaking process within a state is to civil society participation. For more information see Kitschelt, H. (1986) Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16, 57–85. D. Meyer and S. Staggenborg (1996) Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), pp. 1628–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.The UK has one of the largest nanotechnology markets in Europe with nearly 250 firms involved with the development and production of nanomaterials and chemicals (ObservatoryNano (2011) European Nanotechnology Landscape Report. Available at: www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report145.pdf (accessed 19 May 2015), p. 13).Google Scholar
39.Best practicable means essentially requires firms to establish reasonable measures that achieve a high standard of protection for the public and the environment, while taking into account factors such as the availability and cost of implementing such measures.Google Scholar
40. Lowe, P. and Ward, S. (1998) British Environmental Policy and Europe: Politics and Policy in Transition (London: Routledge), J. Richardson (2000) Government, interest groups and policy change. Political Studies, 48(5), pp. 1006–1025. I. Bailey and S. Rupp (2005) Geography and climate policy: a comparative assessment of new environmental policy instruments in the UK and Germany. Geoforum, 36(3), pp. 387–401.Google Scholar
41. Bailey, I. (2007) Market environmentalism, new environmental policy instruments, and climate policy in the United Kingdom and Germany. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(3), p. 535.Google Scholar
42. Breggin, L., Falkner, R., Jaspers, N., Pendergrass, J. and Porter, R. (2009) Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies: Towards Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation (London: Chatham House), p. 21.Google Scholar
43. UK DEFRA (2009) Archive: Nanotechnology Policy. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/nanotech/policy.htm (accessed 14 November 2012).Google Scholar
44. Lee, R. and Stokes, E. (2009) Twenty-first century novel: regulating nanotechnologies. Journal of Environmental Law, 21(3), p. 477.Google Scholar
45. Hodge, G., Bowman, D. and Maynard, A. (eds) (2010) International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing), p. 453.Google Scholar
46. Bowman, D. and Hodge, G. (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regulation & Governance, 2(3), pp. 145–164.Google Scholar
47. UK Government (2009) Novel Materials in the Environment: The Case of Nanotechnology. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228785/7620.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).Google Scholar
48. UK Health and Safety Executive Risk Management Basics (2013) Available at: www.hse.gov.uk/nanotechnology/risk-management-basic.htm (accessed 7 March 2013).Google Scholar
49. Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Available at: www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm (accessed 14 November 2012).Google Scholar
50. Royal Society (2008) Information on the Responsible NanoCode Initiative. Available at: www.nanoandme.org/downloads/The%20Responsible%20Nano%20Code.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).Google Scholar
51.European Commission Transparency Registry. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/search.do#searchResult (accessed 14 November 2012).Google Scholar
52. Kickert, W. J. (2003) Beneath consensual corporatism: traditions of governance in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 81(1), pp. 119–140.Google Scholar
53. Lijphart, A. (1968) The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
54. Woldendorp, J. (2007) The Dutch Polder Model reviewed: Dutch Corporatism 1965–2000. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28(3), pp. 317–347.Google Scholar
55. RIVM (2003) Nuchter Omgaan met Risico’s. Available at: www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/251701047.pdf (accessed 17 December 2010).Google Scholar
56. Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2004) Nuchter Omgaan met Risico’s: Beslissen met Gevoel voor Onzekerheden (The Hague, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
57. FOM, STW & NanoNed (2008) Strategische Research Agenda Nanotechnologie (Utrecht, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
58. NanoNextNL (2013) NanoNextNL. Available at: www.nanonextnl.nl (accessed 15 March 2013).Google Scholar
59. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation (2011) Tweede Voortgangsrapportage Nanotechnologie (The Hague, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
60. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation (2008) Actieplan Nanotechnologie (The Hague, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
61. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (2012) Roadmaps. Available at: www.htsm.nl/Roadmaps (accessed 15 May 2012).Google Scholar
62. KNAW (2004) How Big Can Small Actually Be? Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Amsterdam, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
63. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (2006) Cabinet View of Nanotechnologies: From Small to Great. Available at: www.ez.nl/content.jsp?objectid=148565 (accessed October 2009).Google Scholar
64. Reinhoudt, D. N. (2006) Naar een National Nanotechnologie Initiatief - 3 april 2006.Google Scholar
65. Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment (2008) REACH: Nieuwe Regels voor Chemische Stoffen. Available at: www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=2706&sp=2&dn=8259 (accessed 14 December 2009).Google Scholar
66. Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2011) Evaluatie uitvoering REACH in Nederland 2007-2010 (The Hague, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
67. Van Teunenbroek, T. (2010) Conversation - Senior Expert Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Utrecht, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
68. Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2012) Inzet Nederland in Europa in de periode 2011-2014 (The Hague, the Netherlands).Google Scholar
69. Van Teunenbroek, T. (2013) Conversation - Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Utrecht, the Netherlands).Google Scholar