European governance and the transfer of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments (NEPIs) in the European Union

Abstract

This article examines the use of 'new' environmental policy instruments (NEPIs), particularly market-based instruments (for example, eco-taxes) and voluntary agreements, in the European Union (EU). It focuses on the actor motivation behind the recent increase in the adoption of new and innovative instruments in EU (and member state) environmental policies while also taking account of the external international arena. The article assesses whether new ideas put forward by policy entrepreneurs, such as member governments, EU institutions, expert groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are main motivation behind the EU adoption of NEPIs, or whether market and harmonization pressures are the main driving forces. It concentrates on eco-taxes, voluntary agreements and eco-labels, using the following three theoretical perspectives: (1) policy learning and transfer/ideational; (2) garbage can; and (3) institutional approaches

Synthesis of Constructs for Modeling Consumers’ Understanding and Perception of Eco-Labels

“…Eco-labels are one type of "new" environmental policy instruments with the emphasis on the role of information about environmental impacts associated with producing, distributing, consuming and/or disposing of a product. As informational devices, eco-labels are "non-binding voluntary policy tools" [11]. Eco-labels are meant to influence consumer behavior toward buying a sound eco-labeled product.…”

Governance change and governance learning in Europe: stakeholder participation in environmental policy implementation

“…In line with the general trends described above, the mode of environmental policy delivery has evolved, since the mid-1990s, to rely more on a range of new policy instruments, including economic measures, private self-regulation, and greater public and stakeholder participation in decision-making (Jordan, Wurzel, Zito, & Brückner, 2003). These instruments have been introduced in parallel with, and complementary to, more 'traditional' binding regulatory measures, however, which remain important -especially in the environmental policy field (Diedrichs et al, 2011).…”

Still the century of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments? Exploring patterns of innovation and continuity

“…Negotiated governance will, they argued, tend to trigger weaker forms of transfer, perhaps some synthesis and influence, while facilitated unilateralism will at best lead to a weak form of mutual influence (Bulmer and Padgett 2005, p. 106). Jordan et al (2003c) suggested that institutional dynamics in the EU may lead to substantial policy emulation, but may often result in weaker forms of transfer reflecting the bargaining process at the EU level and the vagaries of member state transposition and implementation. Pedersen (2007, p. 71) placed more emphasis on the subsequent process of legitimation, arguing that the ecotax innovation that occurred in Denmark, Norway and Sweden was less the recognition of the idea of taxation (something that was well established already in other sectors), but rather learning on the part of policymakers about how to frame the instruments as being legitimate and rational.…”

“…In an attempt to cut through the thicket of cause and effect, Jordan et al (2012b) took the choice affecting variables identified by Linder and Peters (1989), and related them to three main bodies of public policy theory: ideational; institutional; and episodic (Jordan et al 2003c). They argued that each theory emphasises a slightly different aspect of 'context' in its relationship to choices.…”

“…Episodic theories suggest that instruments are shaped by an unpredictable assortment of ideas, problems, solutions and decision-making priorities jockeying for attention. Jordan et al (2003c) used these theories to offer different explanations for the EU's selection of climate change instruments. They found that none is sufficient on its own.…”