Agenda Dynamics in the European Politics of Land: Explaining the Soil Protection Gap

Henning Deters
{"title":"Agenda Dynamics in the European Politics of Land: Explaining the Soil Protection Gap","authors":"Henning Deters","doi":"10.1108/S0895-993520190000026009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nSoil is a non-renewable and increasingly deteriorating resource, yet it is barely protected by European Union (EU) legislation. This constitutes a puzzling gap within the otherwise encompassing and progressive environmental policy of the EU. To explain the integration resistance of soil protection, I draw on insights from rationalist and sociological institutionalist theory. The institutional rigidity of the community method of environmental decision-making limits policy change to favorable interest constellations, but this constraint is usually compensated by agenda competition among the national environmental pioneers. However, successful agenda-setting depends on the skillful combination of political venues and issue frames. Matters of land politics, such as soil protection, are difficult to frame in terms that make them suitable for European policy venues. The theoretical argument is illustrated using an in-depth case study of the agenda-setting, negotiation, and eventual withdrawal of the ill-fated proposal for an EU soil framework directive, with a focus on the changing role of Germany. Reframing of soil politics as locally bound and as essentially national affair, subnational actors extended the conflict to include the German federal chamber as policy venue. As a result, Germany turned from “pusher by example” and first mover to “defensive front-runner,” successfully pursuing a blocking strategy.","PeriodicalId":431806,"journal":{"name":"Research in Political Sociology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0895-993520190000026009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Soil is a non-renewable and increasingly deteriorating resource, yet it is barely protected by European Union (EU) legislation. This constitutes a puzzling gap within the otherwise encompassing and progressive environmental policy of the EU. To explain the integration resistance of soil protection, I draw on insights from rationalist and sociological institutionalist theory. The institutional rigidity of the community method of environmental decision-making limits policy change to favorable interest constellations, but this constraint is usually compensated by agenda competition among the national environmental pioneers. However, successful agenda-setting depends on the skillful combination of political venues and issue frames. Matters of land politics, such as soil protection, are difficult to frame in terms that make them suitable for European policy venues. The theoretical argument is illustrated using an in-depth case study of the agenda-setting, negotiation, and eventual withdrawal of the ill-fated proposal for an EU soil framework directive, with a focus on the changing role of Germany. Reframing of soil politics as locally bound and as essentially national affair, subnational actors extended the conflict to include the German federal chamber as policy venue. As a result, Germany turned from “pusher by example” and first mover to “defensive front-runner,” successfully pursuing a blocking strategy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲土地政治中的议程动态:解释土壤保护差距
摘要土壤是一种不可再生的、日益恶化的资源,但它几乎没有受到欧盟立法的保护。这在欧盟包容和进步的环境政策中构成了一个令人困惑的差距。为了解释土壤保护的整合阻力,我借鉴了理性主义和社会学制度主义理论的见解。社区环境决策方法的制度刚性将政策变化限制在有利的利益组合上,但这种约束通常由国家环境先锋之间的议程竞争来补偿。然而,成功的议程设置取决于政治场所和问题框架的巧妙结合。土地政治问题,如土壤保护,很难用适合欧洲政策场所的术语来描述。通过对议程设置、谈判和最终退出命运多舛的欧盟土壤框架指令提案的深入案例研究,阐述了理论论点,重点关注了德国不断变化的角色。将土壤政治重新定义为地方约束和本质上的国家事务,次国家行动者将冲突扩展到包括德国联邦议院作为政策场所。因此,德国从“以身作则”、“先行者”转变为“防守领跑者”,成功实施了阻击战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Systemic Inequality, Sustainability and COVID-19 Creative Disappointment: How Movements for Democracy: Spawn Movements for Even More Democracy * Stones versus Routines: Students and Politicians in Higher Education Tuition Policy * Index Prelims
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1