Search

This paper explores the effects of the pandemic on corruption and mismanagement in Italy, a country where the Covid-19 crisis is supposed to have significantly increased the risk of corruption. It proposes a novel operationalization of safeguards for accountability that are attached to the disbursement of recovery funds. Emergency law decrees and their implementing acts have been coded to assess whether the discretion in the allocation of recovery funds has been constrained by transparency requirements and enforcement provisions. Findings reveal that safeguards for accountability have been strengthened over time but that they have followed various patterns across recovery measures targeting businesses and people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the main weaknesses of the EU and causes of citizens' disaffection is its alleged scarce effectiveness in achieving its targets among various policy sectors. This, among other reasons, is due to member states' (MS) lack of compliance or uneven implementation performance, which, in turn, results from the traditional share of tasks, according to which the EU institutions adopt policies, while the MS implement them and enforce them. After many and reiterated actions by the EU, aiming to foster better and more complete compliance to EU law through soft measures and incentives to MS, another trend is emerging, by which the EU is gradually taking on direct enforcement competences in a growing number of policy sectors. Moreover, the ways through which the EU is taking the field in the enforcement phase are many and diverse, ranging from direct full enforcement powers to differently shared and networked roles with the MS and the other actors involved. In such evolving governance, a crucial role is played by EU agencies, established ad hoc or attributed new tasks to deal with enforcement issues.Arguing that such verticalization of the enforcement powers is an expanding trend, we take the fisheries sector as a case study. Among the Common Fisheries Policy, indeed, this phenomenon is already gaining traction and displays a variety of new configurations of powers. We find that verticalized enforcement takes on different shapes, depending on the specific sub-phase of the enforcement process, In addition, we provide insights on how enforcement mechanisms of the Common Fisheries Policy work in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enforcement of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) has undergone a three-step process over time, leading it to a current networked configuration of powers and tasks between the EU and the national competent authorities (NCAs). In light of this, this paper has a twofold aim. First, it analyses the actual configuration of enforcement mechanisms in the ESFS, arguing that different patterns emerge across the three branches (banks, securities markets and insurance): as governance becomes more complex in terms of number of actors and functions, verticalisation of enforcement increases. Second, by taking into account the three Italian competent authorities, it assesses the concrete changes occurred both in organisation and in perceived effectiveness, through quantitative data and qualitative surveys. It therefore argues that the more institutionalised and verticalised is the enforcement governance, the less reluctant will NCAs be to transfer shares of their enforcing powers to the EU level and to change their practices and organisational structures concretely, according to harmonisation requirements by the European supervisory authorities and the European Central Bank. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is one of the ever-increasing policy areas that have witnessed the creation of forms of "networked enforcement", meaning enforcement structures in which several national and EU authorities cooperate. Amongst those are a number of legal requirements and applications for sharing data on fisheries between national and European competent authorities. This form of networked enforcement casts some questions as regards the existence of corresponding accountability mechanisms, which serve to legitimate the enforcement activities in the CFP. The aim of this paper is to examine the networked enforcement mechanisms arising from the CFP, with a special focus on the data-sharing activities and the role of European Fisheries Control Agency as pivotal to the cooperation between national authorities, with a view to assessing the gaps of accountability arising from them, and analysing the possible alternative ways to provide the enforcement phase with legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to articles in the issue is presented on topics including a framework to investigate and understand the EU legislator's choice between EU legacy, EU network, and a national enforcement authority; the issue of when certain institutions can be selected to enforce EU laws and policies or not; and the spillover effect between the regulatory and enforcement powers.

This article aims to broaden the debate about clustered Europeanization by using insights from a fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) and considering the European policies for growth and competitiveness (the so-called ‘Europe2020' strategy). We assess whether and to what extent different aspects of the EU2020 strategy have influenced the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), i.e., the policy tools by which each member state put its own pro-competitive strategy into practice. We look at the NRPs adopted by the member states during three years in order to assess to which extent they are ‘Europeanized'. By using fsQCA, we analyse the following conditions which can account for different levels of Europeanization of the national economic reforms: governmental and electoral stability; starting points referring to the targets for 2020; years passed after accession to the European Union; different levels of financial crisis in the moment when member states have adopted their own NRP. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]