Lost in translation: how street-level bureaucrats condition Union solidarity

Abstract

Translating complex, politicised and ambiguous European legislation and case law into practice is the difficult everyday condition for street-level bureaucrats in European Member States. Yet their crucial role remains remarkably understudied in EU compliance literature. This paper argues that 40street-level bureaucrats at local implementing levels in Europe are bound to manoeuver between what we define as respectively a European and a national legal logic in the patchwork of EU rules on free movement, equal treatment and cross-border social rights. The two legal logics are strikingly different, yet coexisting. Nonetheless, street-level bureaucrats are left without sufficient guidance in how to prioritise and administer the rules. Consequently, discretion of unclear, core concepts in European social law such as 'unreasonable burden', 'jobseeker' and 'worker' is decentralised, resulting in fragmented outcome on the ground. In the limbo between a European and national logic, Union solidarity, we find, gets lost in translation.

Instrumental goals shape EU citizens' attitudes to the Russia–Ukraine war over time

“…The Europeanization movement (Cowles et al, 2001; Héritier, 2001) suggests that all EU member states over time endorse practices that are in line with European regulations rather than merely with national interests (Chatzopoulou, 2015; Sampson Thierry & Martinsen, 2018). This movement reflects the concept of identifying with a superordinate group and acting in line with that group's interests (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005).…”

“…According to the European Union (EU) legislation, all EU member states are expected to adopt practices that are in line with European goals and interests rather than solely with national ones and, hence, implement policies that match EU standards (Chatzopoulou, 2015; Sampson Thierry & Martinsen, 2018). This tendency, known as Europeanization (Cowles et al, 2001; Héritier, 2001) illustrates the idea of identifying with a superordinate group (i.e., a larger group identity that encompasses subgroups of both the ingroup and outgroup; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005), such as EU, and acting in line with the superordinate group's interests and objectives.…”

“…The EU expects its member states to comply with all regulatory measures of the Treaties such as the decisions, directives and regulations that spring from it. The so‐called Europeanization movement (Cowles et al, 2001; Héritier, 2001) imposes the EU member states to act in line with the broader EU interests rather than the confined national interests (Chatzopoulou, 2015; Sampson Thierry & Martinsen, 2018). The social identity literature (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), and particularly the superordinate identity theory, can effectively elucidate these expectations of the EU.…”

‘Social Citizenship’ at the Street Level? EU Member State Administrations Setting a Firewall

“…To which extent street‐level bureaucrats ‘comply’ with ECJ case law depends on different domestic factors which may vary between and also within Member States, and over time. As street‐level bureaucrats generally follow rules which are clear, easy and in line with the overall goal, it is decisive whether or not the vague provisions and terms of EU law are reflected in national laws or guidelines (Sampson Thierry and Martinsen, ; Martinsen et al, ). If there are no clear rules, local authorities are granted discretion.…”