The 'Plateau-ing' of the European better regulation agenda: An analysis of activities carried out by the Barroso commission

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 423-447

  Lofstedt, Ragnar E ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Better regulation; European union; Risk management

Indexed keywords

RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS (RIA); STAKEHOLDERS;

PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 34547328830     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870701417793     Document Type: Article

References (136)

1. Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling, L. (2004) Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing (New York: New Press).
2. Alemanno, A. (2006) The evolution of food safety in the EU, in: D. Vogel & C. Ansell (Eds) What's the Beef? The Contested Governance of European Food Safety, pp. 237-258 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
3. Allio, L., Ballantine, B. and Hudig, D. (2004) Achieving a new regulatory culture in the European Union (Brussels: European Policy Centre).
4. Ambler, T., Chittenden, F. and Shamutkova, M. (2003) Do Regulators Play by the Rules (London: British Chambers of Commerce).
5. Ambler, T., Chittenden, F. and Obodovski, M. (2004a) How much Regulation is Gold Plate? A study of UK Elaboration of EU Directives (London: British Chambers of Commerce).
6. Ambler, T., Chittenden, F. and Obodovski, M. (2004b) Are Regulators Raising Their Game? (London: British Chambers of Commerce).
7. Ambler, T., Chittenden, F. and Hwang, C. (2005) Is EU Regulation Good for Us? (London: The British Chambers of Commerce).
8. Andrews, R. N. L. (1999) Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A history of American environmental policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
9. rd September, 2005, Edinburgh, pp. 27-31 (London: Cabinet Office).
10. Ballantine, B. (2001) Regulatory Impact Analysis: Improving the quality of EU regulatory activity (Brussels: European Policy Centre).
11. Ballantine, B. (2003) Improving the quality of risk management in the European Union: Risk communication (Brussels: European Policy Centre).
12. Ballantine, B. (2005) Enhancing the role of science in the decision-making of the European Union (Brussels: European Policy Centre).
13. Begg, I. and Larsson, A. (2005) A 'smart growth' strategy for sustainable development (London: Centre for European Reform).
14. Begg, I. and Larsson, A. (2006) Time to grow smarter, E!Sharpe, March-April, pp. 29-31.
15. Better Regulation Task Force (2005a) Regulation-Less is More: Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes-A BRTF report to the Prime Minister (London: Better Regulation Task Force (Cabinet Office)).
16. Better Regulation Task Force (2005b) Get Connected, Effective Engagement in the EU (London: Better Regulation Task Force (Cabinet Office)).
17. Buck, T. and Minder, R. (2005) Commission battle over environment comes to head, Financial Times, 19 July, pp. 9.
18. Defraigne, P. (2006) Lisbon misses vital point, European Voice, 9 February, pp. 9.
19. DG SANCO (2005a) Guidelines for the Preparation of a SANCO Scoping Paper (Brussels: DG SANCO).
20. DG SANCO (2005b) Maximising the contribution of science to European Health and Safety. A DG SANCO discussion paper (Brussels: DG SANCO).
21. th February.
22. th June.
23. th October.
24. Donkers, R. (2006) U.S. changed course, and EU surged forward, Environmental Forum, 23(2), p. 49.
25. Eaglesham, J. (2006) Red tape burden as heavy as ever in spite of reform promises, Financial Times, 13th April, p. 2.
26. ENDS Report (2005) Dimas wins first round in battle over EU green strategies, ENDS Report, 267, pp. 43-44.
27. ENDS Report (2006) EU sustainable development strategy fails to impress, ENDS Report, 372, p. 49.
28. EU-US Economic Initiative (2005) Implementation of the Economic Initiative of the June 2005 EU-US Summit: Joint EU-US Work Programme (Brussels and Washington: DG Enterprise and the US State Department).
29. European Commission (2001) Communication: Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2001 88 Final)).
30. European Commission (2002a) Communication: European Governance: Better lawmaking (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 275 Final)).
31. European Commission (2002b) Communication: Impact Assessment (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 276 Final)).
32. European Commission (2002c) Communication: Consultation Document: Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue-proposal for general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 277 Final)).
33. European Commission (2002d) Communication: Action plan "Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2002 278 Final)).
34. European Commission (2005a) Communication: Better regulation for growth and jobs in the European Union (Brussels: 16th March, (COM 2002 97 Final)).
35. European Commission (2005b) Impact Assessment Guidelines - 15th June (Brussels: European Commission).
36. European Commission (2005c) Communication: Outcome of the screening of legislative proposals pending before the legislator (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2005 462 Final)).
37. European Commission (2005d) Commission Working Document: Better regulation and the thematic strategies for the Environment (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2005 466 Final)).
38. European Commission (2005e) Communication: Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing-towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2005 474 Final)).
39. European Commission (2005f) Communication: An EU common methodology for assessing administrative costs imposed by legislation (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2005 518 Final)).
40. European Commission (2005g) Communication: Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment (Brussels; European Commission (COM 2005 535 Final)).
41. European Commission (2005h) Communication: On the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy: A platform for action (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2005 658 Final)).
42. European Commission (2006) Communication: Time to Move Up a Gear: The new partnership for growth and jobs (Brussels: European Commission (COM 2006 Final)).
43. European Environment Agency (2001) Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The precautionary principle 1896-2000 (Copenhagen: European Environment Agency).
44. European Panel for Sustainable Development (2004) From Here to Sustainability: Is the Lisbon/Goteborg agenda delivering? (Gothenburg: Chalmers University, EPSD).
45. European Panel for Sustainable Development (2006) Technology for Sustainable Development: Smart growth (Gothenburg: Chalmers University, EPSD).
46. th January.
47. Gillberg, M. (1999) From Green Image to Green Practice (Lund: Lund University, Lund Studies in Sociology of Law).
48. th May.
49. Godard, O. (2005) The Precautionary Principle: Between social norms and economic constructs (Paris: Ecole Polytechnique).
50. Godard, O. (2006) The precautionary principle and catastrophism on tenterhooks: Lessons from a constitutional reform in France, in: E. Fisher, J. Jones & R. von Schomberg (Eds) Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects, pp. 63-87 (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar).
51. Graham, J. D. (2001a) A future for the precautionary principle? Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), pp. 109-111.
52. Graham, J. D. (2001b) Decision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle, Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), pp. 127-141.
53. th January.
54. Graham, J. D. and Hsia, S. (2002) Europe's precautionary principle: Promise and pitfalls, Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), pp. 371-390.
55. Graham, J. D. and Wiener, J. (1995) Risk vs Risk (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
56. Hahn, R. W. and Litan, R. E. (2005) Counting regulatory benefits and costs: Lessons from the US and Europe, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(2), pp. 473-508.
57. Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
58. Hammitt, J. K., Wiener, J. B., Swedlow, B., Kail, D. and Zhou, Z. (2005) Precautionary regulation in Europe and the United States: A quantitative comparison, Risk Analysis, 25, pp. 1215-1228.
59. Institute for European Environmental Policy (2004) Sustainable Development in the European Commission's Integrated Impact Assessments for 2003 (London: Institute for European Environmental Policy).
60. Institute for European Environmental Policy (2005) For Better or for Worse? The EU's 'Better Regulation' agenda and the Environment (London: Institute for European Environmental Policy).
61. Jones, D. (2005) UK Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Legislation (London: Foreign Policy Centre).
62. Kagan, R. A. (1997) Should Europe worry about adversarial legalism? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 17, p. 165.
63. Kagan, R. A. (2006) American and European ways of law: Six entrenched differences (Berkeley: University of California Berkeley, JSP/Center for the Study of Law and Society Faculty Working Papers).
64. Kagan, R. A. and Axelrad, L. (2000) Regulatory Encounters: Multinational corporations and American adversarial legalism (Berkeley: University California Press).
65. Keeney, R. L. and von Winterfeldt, D. (2001) Appraising the precautionary principle-a decision analysis perspective, Journal of Risk Research, 42, pp. 191-202.
66. Landy, M. K., Roberts, M. J. and Thomas, S. R. (1994) The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the wrong questions from Nixon to Clinton (New York: Oxford University Press).
67. Lee, N. and Kirkpatrick, C. (2004) A pilot study on the quality of European Commission extended impact assessments (Manchester: University of Manchester).
68. Little, A. D. (Gmbh). (2002) Economic effects of the EU substances policy-commissioned by the BDI (Berlin: BDI).
69. Lofstedt, R. E. (2003a) Swedish chemical regulation: An overview and analysis, Risk Analysis, 23(2), pp. 411-421.
70. Lofstedt, R. E. (2003b) A European perspective on the NRC redbook - risk assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the process, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9, pp. 1273-1281.
71. Lofstedt, R. E. (2004) The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: From precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis, The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3), pp. 237-260.
72. Lofstedt, R. E. (2005) Risk Management in Post Trust Societies (Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillan).
73. Lofstedt, R. E. (2007) European Chemical Control Policy: The case of REACH. Unpublished working paper.
74. Lofstedt, R. E. and Vogel, D. (2001) The changing character of regulation: A comparison of Europe and the United States, Risk Analysis, 21, pp. 399-405.
75. Lowe, P. and Ward, S. (Eds), (1998) British Environmental Policy and Europe: politics and policy in transition (London: Routledge).
76. Lundqvist, L. J. (2000) Capacity building or social construction? Explaining Sweden's shift towards ecological modernisation, Geoforum, 31, pp. 21-32.
77. MacShane, D. (2006) Britain's Voice in Europe: Time for a change (London: Foreign Policy Centre).
78. Majone, G. (Ed), (1990) Deregulation or Re-Regulation? Regulatory reform in Europe and the US (New York; St Martins).
79. Majone, G. (1996) Regulating Europe (London: Routledge).
80. Majone, G. (2005) Dilemmas of European integration - The ambiguities and dilemmas of integration by stealth (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
81. Majone, G. (2006) Strategic issues in risk regulation and risk management (Paris: OECD, Working Party on Regulatory Management and Reform).
82. Marchant, G. E. (2001) The precautionary principle: An 'unprincipled' approach to biotechnology regulation, Journal of Risk Research, 4(2), pp. 143-157.
83. Marchant, G. E. and Mossman, K. L. (2004) Arbitrary and Capricious: The precautionary principle in the European Union courts (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute).
84. Mather, G. and Vibert, F. (2005) Rebalancing UK and European Regulation (London: European Policy Forum).
85. McLauchlin, A. (2005a) Barroso's regulatory purge spells trouble for environmentalists, European Voice, 22 September, p. 39.
86. McLauchlin, A. (2005b) Wallstrom vents fury at Barroso's REACH retreat, European Voice, 13 October, pp. 1-2.
87. McLauchlin, A. (2006) Verheugen puts faith in Lisbon, European Voice, 16 March, p. 20.
88. Mettler, A. (2006) Lisbon agenda R.I.P, Wall Street Journal Europe, 27 February, p. 13.
89. Murray, J. (2006) Director of BEUC. Speech at better regulation workshop, Brussels, February.
90. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2006) EU SDS: Ingredients for the 2006 revision (Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency).
91. Network of Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies (2005) The contribution of good environmental regulation to competitiveness (Prague: Network of Heads of European Environment Protection Agencies).
92. OECD (1997) Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best practices in OECD countries (Paris: OECD).
93. OECD (2003) Prom Red Tape to Smart Tape: Administrative simplification in OECD countries (Paris: OECD).
94. OECD (2004) Regulatory Performance: Ex-post evaluation of regulatory tools and institutions (Paris: OECD).
95. Office of Management and Budget (2006) Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin (Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, White House Office of the President).
96. Pelkmans, J., Labory, S. and Majone, G. (2000) Better EU quality: Assessing current initiatives and new proposals, in: G. Galli & J. Pelkmans (Eds) Volume 1 - Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness in Europe (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar).
97. Porter, M. E. (1998) The Competitive Advantage of Nations (Basingstoke: Palgrave).
98. Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C. (1995) Towards a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, pp. 97-118.
99. Radaelli, C. (2004) The diffusion of regulatory impact analysis in OECD countries: Best practices or lesson-drawing? European Journal of Political Research, 43, pp. 723-747.
100. Radaelli, C. (2005) What does regulatory impact assessment mean in Europe? AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Working Paper n.05-02 (Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings).
101. th October, p. 9.
102. Renda, A. (2006) Impact assessment in the EU: The state of the art and the art of the state (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies).
103. Schafer, S. and Young, E. (2006) Burden by Brussels or the UK? Improving the implementation of EU directives (London: Foreign Policy Centre).
104. Schorling, I. (2002) Swedish Green MEP. Comments made at the European Policy Centre's Closing Conference on Better Regulation (Brussels: European Policy Centre).
105. Scott, J. and Vos, E. (2002) The juridification of uncertainty: Observations on the ambivalence of the precautionary principle within the EU and the WTO, in: C. Joerges & R. Dehousse (Eds) Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
106. Sunstein, C. R. (2002) Risk and Reason: Safety, law and the environment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
107. Sunstein, C. R. (2005) Laws of Fear: Beyond the precautionary principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
108. Swedish Committee on New Guidelines on Chemicals Policy (2000) Non Hazardous Products: Proposals for implementation of new guidelines on chemicals policy (SOU 2000: 53) (Stockholm: Fritzes).
109. th April, p. 7.
110. Tickner, J. A. (Ed), (2003) Precaution, Environmental Science, and Preventive Medicine (Washington, DC: Island Press).
111. Torriti, J. (2007) (Regulatory) impact assessment in the EU: A tool for better regulation, less regulation, or less bad regulation? Journal of Risk Research, 10 (2), pp. 239-276.
112. UK Cabinet Office (2005) A Bill for Better Regulation: A consultation document (London: Cabinet Office).
113. UK Cabinet Office (2006) Davidson Review: Implementation of EU legislation (London: Cabinet Office).
114. UK National Audit Office (2006) Lost in Translation? Responding to the challenges of European law (London: NAO).
115. US Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment (Washington, DC: US EPA).
116. Van Asselt, M. B. A. (2005) The complex significance of uncertainty in a risk era: Logistics, manners and strategies in use, International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 5(2-4), pp. 125-158.
117. Van Asselt, M. B. A. and Vos, E. (2006) The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox, Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), pp. 313-336.
118. th December.
119. th March.
120. rd September, 2005, Edinburgh (London: Cabinet Office).
121. th September.
122. th October.
123. th October.
124. th November.
125. Vibert, F. (2004) The EU's New System of Regulatory Impact Assessment-A scorecard (London: European Policy Forum).
126. Vig, N. J. and Faure, M. G. (2004) Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
127. Vogel, D. (1995) Trading Up (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
128. Vogel, D. (2003) The hare and the tortoise revisited: The new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe, British Journal of Political Science, 33, pp. 557-580.
129. th April.
130. Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
131. Weale, A. (1993) Ecological modernisation and the integration of European environmental policy, in: J. D. Liefferink, P. D. Lowe & A. P. J. Mol (Eds) European Integration and Environmental Policy (London: Belhaven Press).
132. Weill, C. (2005) Report on Science and Precaution (Paris: IDDRI).
133. Wiener, J. B. (2002) Precaution in a multi-risk world, in: D. Paustenbach (Ed.) Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice, pp. 1509-1531 (New York: Wiley and Sons).
134. Wiener, J. B. (2003) Whose precaution after all? A comment on the comparison and evolution of risk regulatory systems, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 13, pp. 202-257.
135. Wiener, J. B. (2006) Risk and regulatory governance (Paris: OECD, Working party on regulatory management and reform).
136. Wiener, J. B. and Rogers, M. (2002) Comparing precaution in the US and Europe, Journal of Risk Research, 5, pp. 317-349.