This essay is a comparative study of transposition records of EU directives in the case of Bulgaria and Romania in the years following EU accession in 2007. It will also consider the role the respective national parliament has played. It thereby closes an empirical gap in contemporary researches on the topic.
First, this study will review the academic literature on the roles that national parliaments in CEE countries have played after the collapse of the Soviet Union with special reference to transition efforts of these countries. Bulgaria’s and Romania’s cases will be further sketched out. Afterwards, the methodology for evaluating national parliament’s involvement in the transposition of EU directives will be outlined, before turning the attention to the comparative analysis of the two case studies.
The transposition of EU regulations into national legislation is at the heart of the European integration project as this step of the policy process provides for the congruence and non-discrimination of domestic policies among European Union (EU) member states. Compliance with supranational law shall guarantee state practice to common standards within a Union marked by economic disequilibria and political idiosyncracies of each country.
Indeed, empirical studies have revealed that timely transposition of EU directives vary across member countries as well as policy areas. More generally, the transposition of EU law within a fixed deadline is positively correlated to central national preferences and run rather smoothly in issue areas of secondary importance to relevant state actors. In countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) however it has been argued that EU accession would lead to some kind of ‘compliance fatigue’ once the intended goal of EU membership has been reached.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The Roles of National Parliaments in CEE Countries
2.1 After the Breakdown: Parliaments in Times of Transition
2.2 The Bulgarian & Romanian Parliament in EU Affairs
3 Complying with EU Legislation: Theoretical Perspectives
4 The Transposition of EU Directives after EU Accession: A Comparative Study
4.1 Methodology
4.2 Empirical Findings
4.3 Bulgaria
4.4 Romania
5 Parliamentary Transposition & Compliance with EU Law Reconsidered
6 Conclusion
7 References
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the post-accession compliance records of Bulgaria and Romania regarding EU legislation, specifically investigating whether the involvement of national parliaments in the transposition process serves as an inhibitor or a catalyst for timely implementation.
- Impact of parliamentary involvement on the timeliness of EU directive transposition.
- Comparative analysis of administrative capacities in Bulgaria and Romania following EU accession.
- Theoretical frameworks of compliance: enforcement, management, and legitimacy perspectives.
- Assessment of parliamentary roles in post-socialist democratic transition states.
- Analysis of transposition data from 2007 and 2008 for 194 EU directives.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
The transposition of EU regulations into national legislation is at the heart of the European integration project as this step of the policy process provides for the congruence and non-discrimination of domestic policies among European Union (EU) member states. Compliance with supranational law shall guarantee state practice to common standards within a Union marked by economic disequilibria and political idiosyncracies of each country. Indeed, empirical studies have revealed that timely transposition of EU directives vary across member countries as well as policy areas (cf. Börzel et al. 2010; Knill and Tosun 2009). More generally, the transposition of EU law within a fixed deadline is positively correlated to central national preferences and run rather smoothly in issue areas of secondary importance to relevant state actors. In countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) however it has been argued that EU accession would lead to some kind of ‘compliance fatigue’ once the intended goal of EU membership has been reached (Goetz 2005).
Although this argument has not turned out to be well-founded, EU member states do in fact differ on their transposition record and overall implementation capacity. Some scholars have thus quite convincingly made the case for untimely and incorrectly transposed EU legislation once national parliaments are involved in the implementation process (Krislov et al. 1986; König and Luetgert 2008; Ciavarini Azzi 2000). As participants in policy-shaping and/or policy-taking processes of EU-related legislation, they serve as powerful veto players and hence are seen to slow down the policy-making and implementation process (cf. Tsebelis 1999). Notwithstanding this conditional factor has not been sufficiently examined in CEE countries in the aftermath of accession.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Introduces the research problem regarding EU law transposition in CEE countries and outlines the comparative approach for Bulgaria and Romania.
2 The Roles of National Parliaments in CEE Countries: Explores the historical context of national parliaments in post-communist transition and their specific standing in Bulgaria and Romania.
3 Complying with EU Legislation: Theoretical Perspectives: Discusses the three main theoretical lenses of compliance—enforcement, management, and legitimacy—to analyze state behavior.
4 The Transposition of EU Directives after EU Accession: A Comparative Study: Details the research methodology and presents empirical findings on transposition timeliness for both countries.
5 Parliamentary Transposition & Compliance with EU Law Reconsidered: Reassesses the impact of parliamentary involvement, concluding that it does not inherently retard the implementation process.
6 Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings and highlights potential directions for future academic research in this field.
7 References: Lists the academic literature and sources used in the study.
Keywords
EU Legislation, Transposition, Compliance, Parliamentary Involvement, Bulgaria, Romania, CEE Countries, European Integration, Implementation Deficit, Democratic Transition, Post-Accession, Enforcement, Management, Legitimacy, EU Directives
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the role of national parliaments in Bulgaria and Romania regarding the timely transposition of EU directives in the years 2007 and 2008, questioning whether parliamentary participation hinders or facilitates compliance.
What are the primary themes analyzed?
Key themes include the impact of democratic transition on legislative capacity, the theoretical explanations of compliance (enforcement, management, and legitimacy), and a comparative performance evaluation of two specific CEE member states.
What is the core research question?
The research asks whether the parliamentary transposition of EU law acts as an inhibitor to timely compliance or as a catalyst, especially in the context of post-accession challenges in Bulgaria and Romania.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The study employs a quantitative comparative analysis of 194 EU directives, using data extracted from the EUR-Lex database and categorizing them based on a transposition-timeliness-nexus.
What is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers the historical role of parliaments in CEE, theoretical compliance frameworks, the methodological approach, and a detailed empirical assessment of parliamentary versus non-parliamentary execution of EU law.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The study is characterized by terms such as EU transposition, compliance, parliamentary involvement, CEE countries, and democratic transition.
Does parliamentary involvement in Romania and Bulgaria lead to delayed transposition?
The findings conclude that parliamentary involvement does not necessarily delay the implementation process and that performance varies significantly depending on the year and the institutional setup.
How did the performance in Bulgaria and Romania change between 2007 and 2008?
There was a notable drop in the number of directives transposed via parliamentary channels in 2008 compared to 2007, though this was partly attributed to higher default rates and legislative complexities.
What is the significance of the "management approach" in this study?
The study supports the management approach by suggesting that legislative overload and administrative capacity issues are more significant explanations for transposition delays than deliberate political obstruction.
- Citar trabajo
- Ron Böhler (Autor), 2012, Parliamentary Transposition of EU Legislation in Bulgaria and Romania, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/376560
