The Structure of Conflict over EU Chemicals Policy
| Author | Thomas Persson,Karl-Oskar Lindgren |
| DOI | 10.1177/1465116507085956 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Structure of Conflict over
EU Chemicals Policy
Karl-Oskar Lindgren
Uppsala University, Sweden
Thomas Persson
Uppsala University, Sweden
ABSTRACT
There is a lively academic debate over whether political
cleavages in the European Union (EU) follow mainly terri-
torial (national) or non-territorial (ideological) patterns. This
article analyses the cleavages that structure the conflict over
European chemicals policy, the so-called REACH system.
Taking positions on this major policy as an empirical
example, we test these competing theories on the nature of
cleavages on environmental policy issues in the EU. We use
data from an expert survey of more than 600 individuals to
fulfil this aim. The results show that neither of the hypoth-
eses is unequivocally supported. But the data indicate that
cleavages based on non-territorial interests are much more
important than territorial interests in explaining positions
on REACH.
31
European Union Politics
DOI: 10.1177/1465116507085956
Volume 9 (1): 31–58
Copyright© 2008
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore
KEY WORDS
chemicals policy
cleavage structure
political contestation
territorial/non-territorial
interests
Introduction
Following the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, the European
Union (EU) has been transformed into a multi-level polity in which European
issues have become more and more contested. Traditionally, whereas much
effort has been put into determining the relative political strength of various
actors in EU policy-making, less attention has been paid to examining the
nature of political cleavages within the EU (see Treib, 2005). More recently
this has started to change, and there is now a number of studies dealing with
preferences and conflict structures within the European Commission
(Hooghe, 1999, 2001; Hooghe and Marks, 2001), the European Parliament (Hix
et al., 2006, 2007) and the Council of Ministers (Mattila, 2004; Zimmer et al.,
2005; Hagemann, 2007).
The literature on political contestation in EU politics is dominated by two
competing theories (Hooghe, 2000). The first assumes that conflicts in the EU
are primarily of territorial origin (Moravcsik, 1993, 1998). The second assumes
that EU policy reflects mainly non-territorial conflicts that resemble those in
domestic politics (Hix, 1999; Hooghe and Marks, 2001; Tsebelis and Garrett,
2000).1This article will put these theories to the empirical test by analysing
the cleavages that structure the conflict over European chemicals policy, the
so-called REACH system for the registration, evaluation and authorization of
chemicals (Commission, 2001, 2003). Analysis of this important policy – one
of the most widely debated law-making processes ever in the EU (Friedrich,
2007; Persson, 2007) – provides a good opportunity to assess the relative
merits of the two theoretical understandings of the structure of conflict on EU
policy: the international relations theories that emphasize territorial factors
and the domestic politics approaches stressing non-territorial factors. In
order to test which of these factors is decisive for determining actors’ policy
positions on the supranational regulation of chemicals, we use data from a
unique expert survey with more than 600 respondents covering a multitude
of public and private actors.
The study thus extends previous research in the field in at least two
important respects. First, we answer Hix’s (1999: 93) old, but largely
neglected, plea for testing theories on the nature of contestation in EU politics
not only on official high-level EU representatives but on a multitude of actors
‘such as public and private interests groups, EU bureaucrats, national and
European parliamentarians, and national governments’. Second, our study
adds to current knowledge by considering regulations in the field of environ-
mental politics, an area that has received scant attention in previous studies
of the EU’s political space. Nonetheless, the field of environmental politics
appears a highly suitable testing ground for theories concerned with the
European Union Politics 9(1)
32
To continue reading
Request your trial