Bureaucratic politics in customized implementation of the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive in France and Germany
Bureaucratic politics in customized implementation of the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive in France and Germany (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X2500011X ) was written by Anna Simstich in 2025. It was published in the Journal of Public Policy (vol. 45, no. 3).
The design of the EU allows for some level of customized implementation for EU legislation. Some states take advantage of this customization, others do not. There is no clear assignment of roles in how these decisions are made across all EU states.
The author argues that the decision for a customized implementation follows from incentives of the policymaking bureaucracy, and these incentives follow from the government's agenda.
When a legislature is divided on a piece of EU legislation, then the efficient strategy for policymakers is to avoid blame and implement the directive as-is ("literal transposition"). "If national stakeholders are polarized regarding the EU policy, national policy bureaucracies have no incentive to deviate from the Directive."
- When there is clear consensus, or when the government has a clear mandate, policymakers are enabled to use an EU directive as an opportunity to substantially reform national policy.
The author studies the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD), which included a ban on single-use plastics, recycling quotas, and an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for plastics that are not easily replaceable (e.g., beverage bottles). These measures were required to be phased in across 2023 and 2024. This directive was customized in France but not in Germany.
- Both governments broadly supported the legislation and have histories of customized implementations.
- The case for a stakeholder-driven explanation for the discrepancy is dubious:
- These are redistributive policies, so it is expected that stakeholders have divided and sometimes opposite preferences.
- Both states have histories of similar environmental legislation. They have a demonstrated preference for similar policies, and proven administrative capacity to implement them.
- Issue seems to have low salience, based on media reporting.
- The legislation was politically controversial in both states.
The author uses comparative qualitative analysis of policy documents. They find that the major discrepancy is the misalignment of this policy with Germany's national agenda in terms of issue linkage, timing, and support from political executives.
- Ongoing economic reforms in France were complementary to this EU directive.
- The Ministry for the Environment (BMUV) lacked an ongoing parliamentary session and had to deal with a change of government, creating a time pressure to meet deadlines.