Politics or management? Analysing differences in local implementation performance of the EU Ambient Air Quality directive
Politics or management? Analysing differences in local implementation performance of the EU Ambient Air Quality directive
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0143814x19000035
复制
发表时间：
2020-09-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Mastenbroek, Ellen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bondarouk, Elena;Liefferink, Duncan;Mastenbroek, Ellen
就地方政府负责实际执行许多欧盟（EU）政策而言，它们共同决定成员国的欧盟合规记录和欧盟立法的命运。然而，它们以截然不同的方式这样做，例如荷兰市政当局对环境空气质量指令2008/50/EC的多样化实施。从欧盟合规文献的指导下，在这篇文章中，我们解释了在当地的实施绩效的差异的基础上的政治和管理方法。了解这两种方法中的哪一种驱动了当地对欧盟政策的不同反应，这对不执行政策的适当补救措施产生了影响。沿着有目的地选择了四个城市，并在空气质量领域采用了二乘二执行绩效评分矩阵。一个比较内的情况下，分析说明如何政治解释超过管理解释在会计执行业绩的变化和蒸馏的驱动因果机制的“政策显着性”。
As far as local governments are responsible for the practical implementation of many European Union (EU) policies, they codetermine member states' EU compliance records and the fate of EU legislation. Yet, they do so in remarkably different ways, as exemplified by the variegated implementation of the Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC by Dutch municipalities. Taking guidance from the literature on EU compliance, in this article we explain the differences in local implementation performance based on the political and managerial approaches. Understanding which of the two approaches drives different local responses to EU policy bears consequences for the appropriate remedy for nonimplementation. Four municipalities were purposefully selected along with the two-by-two implementation performance scoring matrix in the realm of air quality. A comparative within-case analysis specifies how political explanations outweigh managerial explanations in accounting for variation in implementation performance and distils 'policy saliency' as the driving causal mechanism.