Ever more soft law? A dataset to compare binding and non-binding EU law across policy areas and over time (2004–2019)
| Author | Bartolomeo Cappellina,Anne Ausfelder,Adam Eick,Romain Mespoulet,Miriam Hartlapp,Sabine Saurugger,Fabien Terpan |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221111985 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Forum |
Ever more soft law?
A dataset to compare
binding and non-binding
EU law across policy
areas and over time
(2004–2019)
Bartolomeo Cappellina
Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences Po Bordeaux, Bordeaux,
France
Anne Ausfelder
Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
Adam Eick
Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
Romain Mespoulet
PACTE, Sciences Po Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Miriam Hartlapp
Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
Sabine Saurugger
PACTE, Sciences Po Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Fabien Terpan
CESICE, Sciences Po Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Corresponding author:
Bartolomeo Cappellina, Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences Po Bordeaux, 11 Allée Ausone, 33607 Pessac, France.
Email: bartolomeo.cappellina@gmail.com
Forum
European Union Politics
2022, Vol. 23(4) 741–757
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14651165221111985
journals.sagepub.com/home/eup
Abstract
What characterizes European Union soft law and what are its implications for the EU
multilevel system? What is the proportion of hard and soft law in EU policy? Which
types of soft law act are adopted in different policy sectors? This article introduces
the conceptual and analytical framework that encompasses the EfSoLaw dataset and
explains its methodology, advantages, and limitations. This dataset unites information
on thousands of EU hard and soft law acts from seven different policy sectors, drawn
from over fifteen years (2004–2019) and from various sources (EUR-Lex, DGs, agen-
cies). We present implementation options of the dataset making it exploitable for
other scholars and we propose hypotheses to explain the variation in the adoption of
soft law in different policy sectors.
Keywords
Comparison, database, European Union law, soft law
Introduction
Non-binding norms, generally termed soft law, are widely perceived to be on the rise
(Guzman and Meyer, 2010). This is also the case in the European Union (EU)
(Snyder, 1994; Stefan et al., 2019; Terpan, 2015). With ever more complex decision-
making in Brussels, it has been stated that EU norms increasingly often take the form
of soft law (Hartlapp and Hofmann, 2021). However, it is difficult to quantify how
much soft law is being adopted in the EU. The Effects of Soft Law (EfSoLaw
1
)
dataset provides an answer to this question and offers an all-encompassing database to
study how this affects EU policy making. The EfSoLaw dataset compares for the first
time the number and characteristics of EU soft law acts across policy sectors and time.
To illustrate the potential of the dataset, we present its structure and discuss two ques-
tions: What is the proportion of hard and soft law in specific policy sectors and over
time? Which type of soft law acts are there, who are the authors, and what determines
their adoption as regulatory tools at the EU level?
Many studies have either provided a clear definition or analyzed the nature of EU soft
law decision making (Blutman, 2010; Guinard, 2013; Hillgenberg, 1999; Korkea-aho,
2015; Senden, 2004; Terpan, 2015). Others have explored specific types of soft law
instrument such as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) (e.g. Trubek and Trubek,
2005) or state aid guidelines (e.g. Cini, 2001). Zhelyazkova et al. (2015) quantify soft
law acts, but limit their selection to acts produced by the European Commission, the
European Council, or the EU member states. This raises the question of generalizability
as EU soft law takes many more forms: opinions, codes of conduct, communications,
notices, guidelines, and resolutions (including parliamentary resolutions). Yet, there is
a dearth of empirical analyses that spans different EU soft law instruments as well as
policy sectors. Providing a systematic descriptive account is therefore important to
capture the provision and adaptation of non-binding norms within the EU more
broadly. The dataset also offers a framework for developing existing analyses and
742 European Union Politics 23(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial