The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments¹

Abstract

New Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) are becoming increasingly attractive. From a global perspective, there has been a rapid diffusion of these market-based, voluntary or informational instruments. This article examines the spread of four different NEPIs -eco-labels, energy or carbon taxes, national environmental policy plans or strategies for sustainable development, and free-access-of-information (FAI) provisions. The adoption of NEPIs by national policy makers is not simply a reaction to newly emerging environmental problems or to real or perceived deficits of traditional command and control regulation, rather the use of NEPIs can also be ascribed to the inner dynamics of international processes of policy transfer or policy diffusion. These processes make it increasingly difficult for national policy makers to ignore new approaches in environmental policy that have already been put into practice in 'forerunner' countries.

Hierarchy, networks, or markets: how does the EU shape environmental policy adoptions within and beyond its borders?

“…The EU ecolabel does not force the member states to abolish their national ecolabels, which are often similar to the 'European Flower' (cf. Tews et al 2003). As a result, in many countries the EU and the national ecolabels exist side by side.…”

Fostering Environment Efficiency through Transnational Linkages? Trajectories of CO2 and SO2, 1980–2000

“…A second mechanism of catch-up centres on the geographic spread of similar policy ideas, instruments and regulatory approaches (Tews et al, 2003). This may involve non-environmental policy developments with positive environmental consequences (Grubb et al, 2002).…”

Europeanisation and the Uneven Convergence of Environmental Policy: Explaining the Geography of EMAS

“…Unlike the majority of EU environmental policy, EMAS is voluntary, meaning that adoption decisions are taken directly by firms. Precisely for this reason, we expect geographic factors influencing acceptance or rejection of the standard to differ, albeit more in degree than in kind, from conventional regulatory instruments (Tews et al, 2003). Another important qualification is that our empirical analysis only focuses on the adoption of EMAS.…”

“…Drawing from the recent literature on policy diffusion, convergence and Europeanisation (Bennett, 1991;Börzel, 2003;Drezner, 2001;Knill, 2001;Potoski and Prakash, 2004;Tews et al, 2003), the following sub-sections detail three sets of factors that, directly or indirectly, might influence economic and institutional incentives in relation to EMAS. They are: (1) the geography of intra-EU market integration; (2) "goodness-of-fit" between the domestic regulatory context and European policy requirements; and (3) the level of "domestic mobilisation" by market and societal actors.…”

“…The practical implications of these requirements are likely to vary depending on a country's trading partners (Kern et al, 2001;Marginson and Sisson, 2002;Tews et al, 2003). Where they are predominantly located outside the EU, or comprise EU member states with low numbers of EMAS registrations, firms may well opt for ISO 14001, since it is an internationally-recognised standard, accepted in markets across the globe (Glachant et al, 2002).…”