Between commitment and control: varieties of delegation in the European postal sector

Abstract

Postal regulation has changed dramatically within the European Union over the past decade. This article theorizes and empirically investigates domestic conditions which have shaped the institutional realization of regulatory reform. It seeks to explore how the commitment–control problem, inherent to any delegated setting, has been resolved in different countries. In which ways have national governments delegated regulatory powers to independent agencies and how do these operate in practice? Combining delegation theory and the variety of capitalism approach, expectations for three distinct varieties of delegation are formulated which are then exposed to empirical scrutiny studying the UK, Germany and France. The typology accounts for cross-country variance in de facto agency independence and regulatory practice, but contradicts patterns of formal delegation. In view of a striking discrepancy between formal arrangements and actual practice, the author makes a strong argument in favour of studying the dynamic and longitudinal effects of interaction.

Keywords:

• Delegation
• independent agencies
• postal services
• regulatory reform
• varieties of capitalism

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute for having hosted me as a research assistant in the framework of the FP 6-funded programme ‘New Modes of Governance’ (NEWGOV) from December 2004 to October 2008, and to the Centre for European Integration at the Free University Berlin where I was based as a pre-doctoral fellow within the Research College (FOR 1026) ‘The Transformative Power of Europe’, financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG), from November 2008 to February 2009. The author would like to thank Tanja Börzel, Fabrizio Gilardi, Adrienne Héritier and two anonymous reviewers for their most helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

Gilardi's scheme has been specified in terms of the regulatory competencies which are relevant for the postal sector (WIK-Consult 2006: country appendix 4).

The Commission initially aimed at enhancing regulatory independence (COM 2006/0196: 9), yet the final text refers to limits posed by national administrative law and property rights (directive 2008/6/EC: consideration 47).

The UK only joined the supporters' camp with the third directive, Agence Europe 5 May 1997 ‘Council adopts its common position, Commission still preparing its notice on application of competition rules to the postal sector’; 22 December 2000 ‘Council tries for whole day to find a compromise on liberalisation of postal services’; 1 October.2007 ‘Political Agreement at Council on Liberalisation of Postal Services no later than end 2010 – 11 member states get two extra years’.

Agence Europe 15 April 1996 ‘The Council Presidency foresees a common position of the ‘postal services’ directive – will to end WTO negotiations' and 5 October 2000 ‘Council maintains aim of reaching, in December, an agreement on continuation of liberalisation of postal service, despite divergences between member states’; FAZ.Net 18 October 2006 ‘Post-Liberalisierung. Die letzten Briefmonopole sollen 2009 fallen’.

At the same time the incumbent had an interest in consolidating its domestic business in view of high losses resulting from expansion strategies abroad, Handelsblatt 2 August 2006 ‘Übernahmen bremsen die Post’.

Agence Europe 19 December 1996 ‘Council agrees on timetable for partial and gradual liberalisation of postal services’ and 28 December 2000 ‘Council not able to reach agreement on continued liberalisation of postal services’; LeMonde.fr 11 December 2006 ‘Libéralisation des postes: pays du nord et du sud de l'Europe s'affrontent’; EUobserver.com 12 December 2006 ‘Paris and Rome oppose postal liberalisation’.

The Bill had envisaged the abolition of Postcomm at some point in the 2009–2010 business year, yet, on 1 July 2009, the Secretary of State Lord Mandelson announced that reform was put on hold, Hansard Vol. 712 no. 100, House of Lords Official Report Wednesday 1 July 2009, ‘Questions: Royal Mail’ and guardian.co.uk 01 July 2009: ‘Peter Mandelson abandons plan for part-privatisation of Royal Mail’.

‘The Coalition: our programme for government’, available online at http://www.hmg.gov.uk (accessed 24 June 2010); According to press coverage a bill was not likely to be introduced before mid-2011, FT.com 26 May 2010 ‘Market jitters poised to test Royal Mail sail’.

The number of authorisation exceeds 2,000. Exact figures can be retrieved at the regulator's website http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de (accessed 24 June 2010).

The pro-competitive stance of the president was criticized by DPAG chief Zumwinkel and the financial departments at federal and state level who were concerned about the value of their DPAG shares, Manager-magazin.de 23 November 2000, Klaus Dieter Scheurle. Beraten statt regulieren'.

Welt Online 12 May 2000 ‘Streit um Postmonopol entbrannt’; Handelsblatt.com 09 February 2001 ‘Müller: Postmonopol wird weiter verlängert’.

WIWO.de 21 August 2007 ‘Koalition will Mindestlohn für Postdienste ab 2008’.

Ruling of the Federal Administrative Court dated 28 January 2010, BVerwG 8 C 19.09.

tF1.lci.fr 27 October 2005 ‘Réforme – Villepin détaille sa modernisation de l'Etat’.

With quite some delay a law (no. 2010-123) introducing organisational privatization has been passed in February 2010, LeMonde.fr 05 May 2009 ‘La réforme du statut de La Poste est reportée’ and 01 March 2010 ‘La Poste change de statut’.