This article analyses transposition of European Union (EU) social policy legislation in the new member states (NMS) from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). In order to account for the varying rate of adoption of EU law at the national level the article develops several hypotheses about the impact of government preferences and administrative capacity on the pace of transposition in the social policy field. The hypotheses are tested on a new dataset comprising data on the transposition of EU social policy directives in the new member states. The results of the quantitative empirical analysis show that government support for European integration and administrative effectiveness has positive and substantial effects on the number of directives transposed in a given period of time. However, government positions on the Left—Right and libertarianism—traditionalism dimensions do not affect the adoption of EU social policy legislation in CEE.
Berglund, S., Gange, I. and Waarden, F. v. (2006) `Mass Production of Law. Routinization in Transposition of European Directives. A Sociological-institutionalist Account', Journal of European Public Policy13 (5): 692—716.
2.
Börzel, T.A. (2001) `Non-compliance in the European Union: Pathology or Statistical Artefact?', Journal of European Public Policy8 (5): 803—24.
3.
Bursens, P. (2002) `Why Denmark and Belgium Have Different Implementation Records: on Transposition Laggards and Leaders in the EU', Scandinavian Political Studies25 (2): 173—95.
4.
Chayes, A. and Chayes, A.H. (1993) `On Compliance', International Organization47 (2): 175—205.
5.
Dimitrakopoulos, D. (2001a) `Learning and Steering: Changing Implementation Patterns and the Greek Central Government', Journal of European Public Policy8 (4): 604—22.
6.
Dimitrakopoulos, D. (2001b) `The Transposition of EU Law: “Post-decisional Politics” and Institutional Autonomy', European Law Journal7 (4): 442—58.
7.
Dimitrova, A. (2002) `Enlargement, Institution-building and the EU's Administrative Capacity Requirement', West European Politics25 (4): 171—90.
8.
Dimitrova, A. and Rhinard, M. (2005) `The Power of Norms in the Transposition of EU Directives', European Integration Online Papers (EIoP)16 (9). Accessed on 15 April 2006 at: [http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2005-016a.htm].
9.
Dimitrova, A. and Steunenberg, B. (2000) `The Search for Convergence of National Policies in the European Union: an Impossible Quest?', European Union Politics1 (2): 201—26.
10.
Duina, F. (1997) `Explaining Legal Implementation in the European Union', International Journal of the Sociology of Law25 (1): 155—79.
Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M. and Leiber, S. (2005) Complying with Europe? The Impact of EU Minimum Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member StatesCambridge : Cambridge University Press.
13.
Haas, P. (1998) `Compliance with EU Directives: Insights from International Relations and Comparative Politics', Journal of European Public Policy5 (1): 17—37.
14.
Haverland, M. and Romeijn, M. (forthcoming) `Do Member States Make European Policies Work? Analysing the EU Transposition Deficit', Public Administration.
15.
Kaeding, M.(2007)` Determinants of Transposition Delayinthe European Union', Journal of Public Policy26 (3): 229—53.
16.
Kaufman, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2005) Governance Matters IV. Governance Indicators for1996—2004. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
17.
Knill, C. (2001) The Europeanization of National Administrations . Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Lampinen, R. and Uusikyla, P. (1998) `Implementation Deficit — Why Member States do not Comply with EU Directives?', Scandinavian Political Studies21 (3): 231—51.
19.
Leiber, S. (2005) `Implementation of EU Social Policy in Poland: Is there a Different “Eastern World of Compliance”?', paper presented at the Ninth Biennial International Conference of the European Union's Studies Association (EUSA) (Mar.—Apr.), Austin, TX, USA.
20.
Linos, K. (2004) `How can International Organizations Shape National Welfare States? Evidence from Compliance with EU Directives', Center for European Studies Working Paper 107, Harvard University.
21.
Marks, G., Hooghe, L., Nelson, M. and Edwards, E. (2006) `Party Competition and European Integration in East and West. Different Structure, Same Causality', Comparative Political Studies39 (2): 155—75.
22.
Mastenbroek, E. (2003) `Surviving the Deadline. The Transposition of EU Directives in the Netherlands.' European Union Politics4 (4): 371—95.
23.
Mastenbroek, E. (2005) `EU Compliance: Still a “Black Hole”'?' , Journal of European Public Policy12 (6): 1103—20.
24.
Mbaye, H. (2001) `Why National States Comply with Supranational Law? Explaining Implementation. Infringements in the European Union, 1972—1993 ', European Union Politics2 (3): 259—81.
25.
Nicolaides, P. (1999) `Enlargement of the EU and Effective Implementation of Community Rules: an Integration-based Approach', EIPA Working Paper 99/W/04, Maastricht.
26.
Raustiala, K. and Slaughter, A-M. (2002) `International Law and Compliance', in W. Carlstnaes, T. Risse and B. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage.
27.
Sayrs, L. (1989) Pooled Time Series Analysis. London: Sage.
28.
Sissenich, B. (2005) `The Transfer of EU Social Policy to Poland and Hungary', in F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier (eds) Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
29.
Steunenberg, B. (2006) `Turning Swift Policymaking into Deadlock and Delay: National Policy Coordination and the Transposition of EU Directives', European Union Politics7 (3): 293—319.
30.
Tallberg, J. (2002) `Paths to Compliance: Enforcement, Management and the European Union', International Organization56 (3): 609—43.
31.
Tallberg, J. and Jonsson, C. (2005) `Compliance Bargaining', in O. Elgstrom and C. Jonsson (eds) European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks and Institutions . London and New York: Routledge.
32.
Vachudova, M.A. (2005) Europe Undivided. Democracy, Leverage, and Integration after Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
