Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/319339 
Year of Publication: 
2024
Citation: 
[Journal:] JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies [ISSN:] 1468-5965 [Volume:] 63 [Issue:] 3 [Publisher:] Wiley [Place:] Hoboken, NJ [Year:] 2024 [Pages:] 745-764
Publisher: 
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Abstract: 
In this article, we introduce an innovative theoretical framework to analyse the use of differentiated implementation in the implementation process of European Union (EU) Directives. We identify rationales for offering flexibility in EU Directives as well as motives for policy‐makers to make use of the discretion. We analyse patterns and drivers of differentiated implementation under the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) in four member states in order to assess whether practices of differentiated implementation conform to the rationales for offering flexibility. We show that member states mainly use the flexibility offered to retain existing policies. In addition, the EED led to some mutual learning based on experimentation, although this effect is limited. Whilst the EED offered a high potential for mutual learning, the member states did not use this opportunity. Overall, the implementation of the EED offers mixed evidence for the use of differentiated implementation to support differentiation.
Subjects: 
differentiated implementation
differentiated integration
Energy Efficiency Directive
implementation of EU policy
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.