Policy Change and Policy Incoherence: The Case of Competition Versus Public Safety in Standardization Policies

Abstract

This paper analyzes the struggle for policy coherence between two EU policy domains: competition policies and public safety policies. We use the notion of ‘policy coherence’ to demonstrate the difficulty of reconciling divergent policy aims, both within the EU and between the EU and its member states. We analyze the question what caused policy incoherence and why it occurred at a certain time. We aim to contribute to a further development of this concept in two ways: first, we apply it, for the first time, to an empirical domain that deals with EU internal relations. Second, we seek to enrich existing literature on policy incoherence with added insight into the causes and timing thereof. We use the notion of ‘policy framing’ to explain the occurrence of policy incoherence. In this way, we provide policy-makers and area stakeholders with advance warnings of the likelihood of its occurrence.

Keywords:

• Policy coherence
• policy framing
• standardization
• competition policy
• public safety policy
• European Union
• telecommunication

Acknowlegement

This research has been funded by the Dutch research council (NWO, project number 458-06-027). We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on this paper. We also thank the interviewees for sharing their ideas and sources with us.

Notes

1. See report Oosting, and report Berghuijs: De toekomst van de rampenstrijding en het risicomanagement. Een evaluerende rapportage naar aanleiding van de vuurwerkramp in Enschede op 13 mei 2000, oktober 2000. (The future of fighting disasters and risk management. An evaluative report in response to the fireworks disaster in Enschede on 13 May 2000.)

2. Report Berghuijs.

3. That is, archives of the Schengen Telecom group (personal archive Hans Borgonjen, based at VTS-PN), archives of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior on C2000, the NELO archive and ETSI documents.

4. Letter Heckmann to Oliver, 5 January 1994. The Article 44 that is referred to here is part of the ‘Schengen Executive Agreement’ of 11/12 October 1990.

5. Minutes of the meeting on the improvement of police communication in cross-border cooperation in the Schengen framework. Bonn-Bad Godesberg: 11/12 July 1989 (3). Later on the involvement was expanded in some countries to include all emergency services (fire brigades and ambulance services as well).

6. Annex 1 85/C 136/01 of the Council Resolution of 7 May 1985 on a new approach to technical harmonization and standards (85/C 136/01); Official Journal of the European Communities, 4.6.85, No C 136/1–9; Council Directive of 28 March 1983, laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (83/189/EEC); Official Journal of the European Communities, 26.4.83, No L 109/8–12. Amm. 22 March 1988 (88/182/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities, 26.3.88, No L 81/75-76; the introduction of Commission of the European Communities (1990) and Commission of the European Communities, DG III/B/2 (August 1992). Standardization and legislation, Brussels (7 August 1992, 1).

7. Note J.B.M. Borgonjen to J.H.A.M. Peek, Ministry of Justice, 11 October 1993.

8. Letter D. Kynaston, to M. Bangemann, 20 September 1995.

9. Ibid. See also: Letter M. Bangemann to H. Dijkstal, 29 April 1998.

10. Letter from Tetra MoU Chairmen’s Committee to members, 30 October 1996. Moreover, ‘the logical conclusion is that true interoperability can only be achieved with one digital technology standard. Allowing more than one standard will destroy the vision of a harmonized and fully interoperable emergency services radio communications infrastructure across the many nations of Europe.’

11. Ibid.

12. Letter H. Azémard to F. Chumbinho, chairman Schengen Telecom, 15 April 1997, our italics.

13. Letter Verrue to Chumbinho, 17 June 1997 (our emphasis).

14. Minutes of 23/24 October meeting Jeppe Jensen (Motorola, MoU) to H. Borgonjen and others, 25 October, 1996, p. 4.

15. Letter H. Azémard to K-H. Rosenbrock, 24 January 1997.

16. Letter M. Bangemann to H. Dijkstal, 29 April 1998.

17. Note from Presidency (Council of the European Union) to Police Cooperation Working Group, 16 November 1999 (italics added). Moreover, ‘[the] inter-working issue has been discussed in the Schengen Sub-Group on Telecommunication under the aegis of Working group 1, and the Police Cooperation Working Group of the Council of the European Union’ (ibid., 1).

18. Cogent Defence System’s Response to The Radio Spectrum Review Consultation Paper, 2001, p. 6.

19. Minutes, Dutch DG Public Safety and Security to the Deputy minister of the Interior 22 September 1999.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Email B. van Nus to others, on the competition row, 4 October 1999. See also 1st Interim Report, 2006: ‘Most often, public authorities have to reconcile in the standardization process the achievement of single market objectives with the safeguarding of fundamental community interests’ (11).

23. CEN (European Committee for Standardization) and CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization) are, together with ETSI, the only three officially EU recognized standardization institutes.

24. The Commission may also have backed away from supporting one (specific) standard because of its probably traumatic experience with the OSI standard. See Egyedi (1996).

25. The ‘Bangemann report’, called Europe and the global information society, Recommendations to the European Council stems from the High-Level Group on the Information Society/European Council (Brussels, 26 May 1994).