Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jb2ch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-23T02:55:42.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responding through transposition: public Euroskepticism and European policy implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

Christopher J. Williams*
School of Public Affairs, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA


Do public attitudes concerning the European Union affect the speed with which member states transpose European directives? It is posited in this article that member state governments do respond to public attitudes regarding the EU when transposing European directives. Specifically, it is hypothesized that member state governments slow transposition of directives when aggregate public Euroskepticism is greater. This expectation is tested using extended Cox proportional hazard modeling and data derived from the EU’s legislative archives, the official journals of EU member states, and the Eurobarometer survey series. It is found that member state governments do slow transposition in response to higher aggregate public Euroskepticism. These findings have important implications for the study of European policy implementation, as well as for our understanding of political responsiveness in the EU.

Research Article
© European Consortium for Political Research 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.)


Adams, J., Haupt, A.B. and Stoll, H. (2009), ‘What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies 42(5): 611639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L. and Glasgow, G. (2004), ‘Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?’, British Journal of Political Science 34(4): 589610.Google Scholar
Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L. and Glasgow, G. (2006), ‘Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The cause and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shits, 1976-1998’, American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513529.Google Scholar
Bartle, J., Dellepiane-Avellaneda, S. and Stimson, J.A. (2011), ‘The moving centre: preferences for government activity in Britain, 1950–2005’, British Journal of Political Science 41(2): 259285.Google Scholar
Berglund, S. (2009), Putting politics into perspective: a study of the implementation of EU public utilities directives. PhD thesis. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Berglund, S., Gange, I. and van Waarden, F. (2006), ‘Mass production of law. Routinization in the transposition of European directives: a sociological-institutional account’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(5): 692716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, S. and Jennings, W. (2014), ‘Representation, agendas, and institutions’, European Journal of Political Research 53(1): 3756.Google Scholar
Bølstad, J. (2015), ‘Dynamics of European integration: public opinion in the core and the periphery’, European Union Politics 16(1): 2344.Google Scholar
Borghetto, E., Franchino, F. and Giannetti, D. (2006), ‘Complying with the transposition deadline of EU directives: evidence from Italy’, Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 1(1): 738.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A. (2001), ‘Non-compliance in the European Union: pathology or statistical artifact’, Journal of European Public Policy 8(5): 803824.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A. and Risse, T. (2003), ‘Conceptualising the domestic impact of Europe’, in K. Featherstone and C. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 5782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M. and Jones, B.S. (2004), Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Braun, D., Mikhaylov, S. and Schmitt, H. (2010), European Parliament Election Study 2009, Manifesto Study, Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B. and Shotts, K.W. (2004), ‘The conditional nature of presidential responsiveness to public opinion’, American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 690706.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B., Herron, M.C. and Shotts, K.W. (2001), ‘Leadership and pandering: a theory of executive policymaking’, American Journal of Political Science 45(3): 532550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casillas, C.J., Enns, P.K. and Wohlfarth, P.C. (2011), ‘How public opinion constrains the U.S. supreme court’, American Journal of Political Science 55(1): 7488.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1971), Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
de Wilde, P. (2012), ‘Politicisation of the EU budget: conflict and the constraining dissensus’, West European Politics 35(5): 10751094.Google Scholar
Dimitrova, A. and Rhinard, M. (2005), ‘The power of norms in the transposition of EU directives’, European Integration Online Papers 9(16): 122.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C. and McIver, J.P. (1993), Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.S., MacKuen, M.B. and Stimson, J.A. (2002), ‘Public opinion and policy: causal flow in a macro system model’, in J. Manza, F.L. Cook and B.I. Page (eds), Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J. (1986), ‘Incumbent performance and electoral control’, Public Choice 50: 525.Google Scholar
Franklin, M. and Wlezien, C. (1997), ‘The responsive public: issue salience, policy change, and preferences for European unification’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(3): 347363.Google Scholar
Hakhverdian, A. (2012), ‘The causal flow between public opinion and policy: government responsiveness, leadership, or counter movement?’, West European Politics 35(6): 13861406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. and Klemmensen, R. (2005), ‘Responsive government? Public opinion and policy preferences in Britain and Denmark’, Political Studies 53(2): 379402.Google Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. and Klemmensen, R. (2008), ‘Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective’, Comparative Political Studies 41(3): 309337.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2009), ‘A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus’, British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 123.Google Scholar
Hutter, S. and Grande, E. (2014), ‘Politicizing Europe in the national electoral arena: a comparative analysis of five west European countries, 1970-2010’, Journal of Common Market Studies 52(5): 10021018.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L.R. (1993), The Health of Nations: Public Opinion and the Making of American and British Health Policy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. (1994), Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaeding, M. (2006), ‘Determinants of transposition delay in the European Union’, Journal of Public Policy 26(3): 229253.Google Scholar
Kaeding, M. (2008), ‘Lost in translation or full steam ahead: the transposition of EU transport directives across member states’, European Union Politics 9(1): 115143.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.D., Volkens, A., Bara, J.L., Budge, I. and McDonald, M. (2006), Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD, 1990–2003, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knill, C. and Lenschow, A. (1998), ‘Coping with Europe: the impact of British and German administrations on the implementation of EU environmental policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 5(4): 595615.Google Scholar
König, T. and Luetgert, B. (2009), ‘Troubles with transposition: explaining trends in member-state notification and delayed transposition of EU directives’, British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 163194.Google Scholar
Lampinen, R. and Uusikylä, P. (1998), ‘Implementation deficit – why member states do not comply with EU directives’, Scandinavian Political Studies 21(3): 231251.Google Scholar
Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S. and Laver, M. (2011), ‘Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1): 123155.Google Scholar
Mair, P. (2009), ‘Representative versus responsible government’. MPIfG Working Paper No. 09/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Mannheim, Germany. Retrieved 20 April 2016 from Google Scholar
Mair, P. and Thomasson, J. (2010), ‘Political representation and government in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy 17(1): 2035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manza, J. and Cook, F.L. (2002), ‘A democratic polity? Three views of policy responsiveness to public opinion in the United States’, American Politics Research 30(6): 630667.Google Scholar
Mastenbroek, E. (2003), ‘Surviving the deadline: the transposition of EU directives in the Netherlands’, European Union Politics 4(4): 371395.Google Scholar
Mbaye, A.D. (2001), ‘Why national states comply with supranational law’, European Union Politics 2(3): 259281.Google Scholar
Meijers, M.J. (2015), ‘Contagious Euroscepticism: the impact of Eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration’, Party Politics, doi:10.1177/1354068815601787.Google Scholar
Miller, W.E. and Stokes, D.E. (1963), ‘Constituency influence in congress’, American Political Science Review 57(1): 4556.Google Scholar
Page, B.I. and Shapiro, R.Y. (1983), ‘Effects of public opinion on policy’, American Political Science Review 77(1): 175190.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H.F. (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G.B. Jr (2000), Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2004), ‘Opinion representation and policy feedback: Canada in comparative perspective’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 37(3): 531559.Google Scholar
Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2005), ‘Opinion-policy dynamics: public preferences and public expenditure in the UK’, British Journal of Political Science 35: 665689.Google Scholar
Soroka, S.N. and Wlezien, C. (2010), Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spoon, J. and Klüver, H. (2014), ‘Do parties respond? How electoral context influences party responsiveness’, Electoral Studies 35: 4860.Google Scholar
Stimson, J.A., MacKuen, M.B. and Erikson, R.S. (1995), ‘Dynamic representation’, American Political Science Review 89(3): 543565.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, B. and Kaeding, M. (2009), ‘“As time goes by”: explaining the transposition of maritime directives’, European Journal for Political Research 48(3): 432454.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, B. and Rhinard, M. (2010), ‘The transposition of European law in EU member states: between process and politics’, European Political Science Review 2(3): 495520.Google Scholar
Taggart, P. and Szczerbiak, A. (2004), ‘Contemporary Euroscepticism in the party systems of the European Union candidate states of Central and Eastern Europe’, European Journal of Political Research 43(1): 127.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J. (2002), ‘Paths to compliance: enforcement, management, and the European Union’, International Organization 56(3): 609643.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. (2007), ‘Time to comply: national responses to six EU labour market directives revisited’, West European Politics 30(5): 9871008.Google Scholar
Thomson, R. (2009), ‘Same effects in different worlds: the transposition of EU directives’, Journal of European Public Policy 16(1): 118.Google Scholar
Thomson, R., Torenvlied, R. and Arregui, J. (2007), ‘The paradox of compliance: infringements and delays in transposing European Union directives’, British Journal of Political Science 37: 685709.Google Scholar
Toshkov, D. (2007), ‘Transposition of EU social policy in the new member states’, Journal of European Social Policy 17(4): 335348.Google Scholar
Toshkov, D. (2008), ‘Embracing European law: compliance with EU directives in central and Eastern Europe’, European Union Politics 9(3): 379402.Google Scholar
Toshkov, D. (2011), ‘Public opinion and policy output in the European Union: a lost relationship’, European Union Politics 12(2): 169191.Google Scholar
Van de Wardt, M. (2015), ‘Desperate needs, desperate deeds: why mainstream parties respond to the issues of niche parties’, West European Politics 38(1): 93122.Google Scholar
van Elsas, E. and van der Brug, W. (2015), ‘The changing relationship between left-right ideology and Euroscepticism, 1973-2010’, European Union Politics 16(2): 194215.Google Scholar
Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthiess, T., Merz, N., Regel, S. and Werner, A. (2015), The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2015a, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Williams, C.J. (2016), ‘Issuing reasoned opinions: the effect of public attitudes towards the EU on the usage of the “early warning system”’, European Union Politics, doi:10.1177/1465116516633301.Google Scholar
Williams, C.J. and Spoon, J. (2015), ‘Differentiated party response: the effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions’, European Union Politics 16(2): 176193.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (1995), ‘The public as thermostat: dynamics of preference for spending’, American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 9811000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, C. (2004), ‘Patterns of representation: dynamics of public preferences and policy’, Journal of Politics 66(1): 124.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. and Soroka, S. (2012), ‘Political institutions and the opinion-policy link’, West European Politics 35(6): 14071432.Google Scholar