LIST OF PANELS

Member-state implementation is the subject of modern implementation research ever since Pressman and Wildavsky (1974) studied “[h]ow Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland.” Multi-level implementation research retains a strong top-down focus on member state compliance with central state decisions. However, particularly in EU implementation research it is argued that we should move beyond: First, “beyond compliance” (Schmidt 2008; Töller 2010); second, beyond the prevailing top-down perspectives that view the implementation of superordinate law as hierarchical guidance from above, and third, beyond the separation of research on national and international multi-level implementation (Pülzl and Treib 2007). This panel invites contributions of both established and young scholars that “move beyond” and take an innovative and systematic comparative approach to multi-level implementation. First, contributions may address other implementation outcomes than compliance; for example, the substantial similarity of domestic policies (Sager et al. 2014), situations when fully compliant member states go beyond the minimum requirements of superordinate law (Jans et al. 2009), or how and why EU policies are adopted by differentially integrated or non-integrated non-member states (Sager et al. 2014). Second, the panel particularly welcomes studies that deal with the processes, causes and outcomes of the member-state application and the domestic enforcement of central state policies after transposition. Third, the panel also invites studies that move multi-level implementation design forward (Exadaktylos and Radelli 2012); for example by analyzing under-researched policy fields, e.g., agriculture and food safety; testing complex explanations for implementation, in terms of interactions of variables and context-dependent patterns (Steunenberg 2007; Toshkov 2010); and/or addressing the issue of the relevant unit of analysis (Töller 2010; Toshkov 2010). Fourth, implementation studies analyzing all kinds of multi-level systems (federal, supranational) are welcome, especially when providing insights on how these perspectives can inform each other (Treib 2014). 

Ever since Pressman and Wildavsky (1974) studied “[h]ow Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland”, multi-level implementation research retains a strong top-down focus on member state compliance with central state decisions, as illustrated by the title of a recent study: “You Can't Make Me Do It” (Haeder and Weimer 2013). The currently dominant line of multi-level implementation research focuses on implementation in the European Union (EU) and Europeanization, analyzing how and why EU law is translated into and impacts domestic regulations and policy outcomes (Treib 2014). Despite their variety and sophistication, the concepts and explanations that have been proposed for implementation outcomes often focus on whether or not provisions of the EU directives are translated into domestic law as required (Treib 2014). Some argue that as much is known about legal compliance, we should move beyond: First, “beyond compliance” (Schmidt 2008); second, beyond the prevailing top-down perspectives that view the implementation of superordinate law as hierarchical guidance from above; and third, beyond the separation of research on national and international multi-level implementation (Pülzl and Treib 2007). There are more fine-grained patterns of implementation to explore, for example, how member states adjust superordinate law to domestic contexts (e.g., Steunenberg 2007; Sager et al. 2014). Furthermore, more research on how policies are implemented, applied and enforced beyond the legal stage is needed to understand how policy problems are resolved in multi-level systems (Falkner et al. 2005; Versluis 2007; Tosun 2012). Finally, EU implementation research should be extended to new, unexplored policy areas beyond environmental and social policies (Töller 2010). This panel invites contributions of both established and young scholars that “move beyond” and take an innovative and systematic comparative approach to multi-level implementation. First, contributions may address other implementation outcomes than compliance; for example, the substantial similarity of domestic policies (Sager et al. 2014), situations when fully compliant member states go beyond the minimum requirements of superordinate law (Jans et al. 2009), or how and why EU policies are adopted by differentially integrated or non-integrated non-member states (Sager et al. 2014). Second, the panel particularly welcomes studies that deal with the processes, causes and outcomes of the member-state application and the domestic enforcement of central state policies after transposition (Tosun 2012). Third, the panel also invites studies that move multi-level implementation design forward (Exadaktylos and Radelli 2012); for example by analyzing under-researched policy fields, e.g., agriculture and food safety; testing complex explanations for implementation, in terms of interactions of variables and context-dependent patterns (Steunenberg 2007); and/or addressing the issue of the relevant unit of analysis (Toshkov 2010). Fourth, implementation studies analyzing all kinds of multi-level systems (federal, supranational) are welcome, especially when providing insights on how these perspectives can inform each other.    References Exadaktylos, T. and Radaelli, C.M. (eds) (2012) Research design in European studies: establishing causality in Europeanization, Chippenham and Eastbourne: Palgrave Macmillan. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M. and Leiber, S. (2005) Complying with Europe: EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States, New York: Cambridge University Press. Haeder, S. F. and Weimer, D. L. (2013), You Can't Make Me Do It: State Implementation of Insurance Exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Public Administration Review, 73: S34–S47. Jans, J.H., Squintani, L., Aragão, A., Macrory, R. and Wegener, B.W. (2009) ‘‘Gold plating’ of European Environmental Measures?’, Journal of European Environmental Planning Law 6(4): 417- 435. Pressman, J.L., and Wildavsky, A.B. (1974) Implementation. How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Pülzl, H. and Treib, O. (2007) ‘Implementing Public Policy’, in F. Fischer, G.J. Miller and M.S. Sidney (eds), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, pp. 89-107. Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C. and Mavrot, C. (2014, forthcoming) ‘Confronting theories of European integration: A comparative congruence analysis of veterinary drugs regulations in five countries’, forthcoming in Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. Schmidt, S.K. (2008) ‘Beyond Compliance: The Europeanization of Member States through Negative Integration and Legal Uncertainty’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 10(3): 299-308. Steunenberg, B. (2007) ‘A policy solution to the European Union's transposition puzzle: Interaction of interests in different domestic arenas’, West European Politics 30(1): 23-49. Töller, A.E. (2010) ‘Measuring and comparing the Europeanization of national legislation: A research note’, Journal of Common Market Studies 48(2): 417-444. Toshkov, D. (2010) ‘Taking stock: a review of quantitative studies of transposition and implementation of EU law’, Institute for European Integration Research, Working paper No. 01/2010. Tosun, J. (2012) ‘Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement in Europe: A Review of Empirical Research’, Environmental Policy and Governance 22: 437–448. Treib, O. (2014) ‘Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs’, Living Reviews in European Governance 9(1). Versluis, E. (2007). ‘Even Rules, Uneven Practices: Opening the "Black Box" of EU Law in Action’, West European Politics 30(1): 50-67.