Swiss Political Science Review 20(2): 197 207 doi:10.1111/spsr.12097 Debate Twenty Years After the EEA Vote: The Europeanization of Swiss Policy-Making ROY GAVA, PASCAL SCIARINI AND FREDERIC VARONE University of Geneva Introduction: What do we know about the Europeanization of Swiss policy-making? While Switzerland is not a member state of the European Union (EU), it is strongly influenced by the European integration process. Since the referendum on the European Economic Area (EEA) in 1992, the relationship with the EU has been at the top of the political agenda, and Swiss citizens have been repeatedly asked to vote on EU-related issues. 1 Switzerland s European policy has remained a highly controversial issue all along, and it has strongly contributed to the redefinition of the cleavage structure and to changes in electoral competition and party system (Kriesi et al. 2008). During the last two decades, Switzerland has concluded more than 15 bilateral agreements in various policy fields. It has thus reached a level of integration that can be characterized as customized quasi-membership (Kriesi and Trechsel 2008: 189). This, in turn, has had far-reaching consequences at the domestic level. Switzerland is, therefore, a case worth considering for scholars interested in the Europeanization of policy-making. Not surprisingly, then, there are countless contributions on the impact of EU-related factors on Swiss politics and policy outputs (for an overview see Fischer 2007). Twenty years after the popular rejection of the EEA, it is time to take stock of these contributions and to make their findings available to a wider audience. What do we know about the Europeanization of Swiss policy-making? This is the opening question of this debate. The international literature on Europeanization has demonstrated a strong preference for qualitative studies over quantitative studies (Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2012b). This also holds for Switzerland. A number of small-n studies 2 have provided insights into the effects on Swiss decision-making processes and on related power relations, conflict and coalition among domestic actors. Legal scholars, for their part, have discussed how and to which extent EU norms influence the Swiss legal order (Epiney 2009). Large-N studies are scarcer, and they have mainly focused on legislation. More specifically, authors have adopted a quantitative approach to measure how much Swiss legislation is Europeanized, 1 In fact, there have been more popular votes on European integration in Switzerland than in any EU member state. 2 Afonso 2010, 2013, Afonso et al. 2010, Afonso and Papadopoulos 2013, Fischer 2005, Fischer et al. 2002, Fischer 2012, Fischer et al. 2009, Fischer et al. 2012, Fischer and Sciarini 2013, Lavenex 2001, 2009, Linder 2011, 2013, Mach 2006, Mach et al. 2003, Papadopoulos 2008, Sciarini 2014, Sciarini et al. 2004, Sciarini et al. 2014, Sciarini and Nicolet 2005, Sciarini et al. 2002. 2014 Swiss Political Science Association
198 Roy Gava, Pascal Sciarini and Frederic Varone and to establish causal links between EU factors and domestic policies (Arbia 2008, Gava and Varone 2012, Jenni 2013, Kohler 2009, Linder et al. 2009, Mallepell 1999). While Switzerland is strongly integrated in the EU, it still stands apart as a non-eu and non-eea country. In a comparative perspective, it thus offers variation on a crucial institutional variable, namely (non-)membership to these two European supranational organizations. Switzerland appears consequently as a valuable control case for crossnational inquiries that aim at identifying the effects of the EU on national political systems and outcomes (Bartle 2006, Fontana et al. 2008, Haverland 2007, Levi-Faur 2004). Differences in the extent of Europeanization within the country, with some policy fields strongly affected and others largely immune from EU-driven influence, further motivate the comparison of Europeanization effects across policy fields in Switzerland (e.g. Papadopoulos 2008, Sciarini et al. 2004). In the EU, there is a strong preference for studying the policy effects of Europeanization, whereas there is definitely less intellectual appetite for appraising the politics dimension (Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2012a: 24). Switzerland tends to depart in that respect as several studies have dealt with decision-making processes and have focused on the related politics and, to some extent, polity dimensions. Against this background, the purpose of this Debate is threefold. First, we wish to provide scholars with the opportunity to present and wrap up the main results of their work on Europeanization. Second, we wish to invite them to exchange their respective findings, and to engage in a fruitful dialogue regarding which theoretical and empirical lessons can be drawn from the existing literature, and where we should go from there. Third, we wish to give non-swiss scholars the opportunity to comment on the Swiss literature, to highlight its strengths and weaknesses in a comparative perspective, and to put forward recommendations for the future. To this end, we have asked contributors to this Debate to address the four following questions: 1 How to measure the Europeanization effects on Swiss policy-making and related outputs 2 Which policy domains and periods are the most Europeanized? 3 What is the extent of direct and indirect Europeanization? 4 Are there other major effects of Europeanization? Not all contributors were able to answer these four questions. However, for the sake of consistency we thought it was worth starting with an ambitious purpose and asking contributors to do their best to address the same set of questions. Non-Swiss scholars were then invited to react and to elaborate on the insights provided by the Swiss contributors. How to measure the Europeanization of Swiss policies? The first question addresses conceptual and methodological issues. While most authors agree that Europeanization is a process and not an outcome variable (Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2012a), they disagree on how to define Europeanization and on how to study the impact of this process at the domestic level. In this Debate, and in line with the bulk of Swiss literature, we focus primarily on the Europeanization of policy-making and related outputs. This means that we give priority to these dimensions, but contributors were invited to address politics and polity impacts under question 4 below. Authors first presented how they have defined their dependent variable, and how they have measured the EU-induced effects. This is not a trivial issue. Studies with too diverg-
Twenty Years After the EEA Vote 199 ing dependent variables might run the risk to talk past each other and to hinder the development of cumulative knowledge. In her review of non-swiss, quantitative studies mapping the domestic consequences of EU policies, T oller (2012) highlights some key definitional issues for the study of policy outputs. First, how can we measure policy creation, policy changes and/or policy continuity induced by Europeanization? Most empirical studies tend to equate Europeanization with policy change. But it is also worthwhile considering policy stability or continuity as one possible outcome of Europeanization. This is in particular the case when the legislator deliberately decides not to support a policy proposal that would be incompatible with EU norms or that would render the domestic rule less compatible with the EU norm. Given that they resort to comprehensive datasets and long time-periods, quantitative approaches may privilege simplified measures of Europeanization and policy (change). In contrast, comparative case studies may analyze the substantive content of policies more in depth (policy objectives, instruments, implementation arrangements, etc.), but face the challenges of case selection and external validity. Second, Europeanization scholars adopting quantitative approaches have resorted to legislation to assess the EU s influence on domestic policies. Assessing policy outputs by means of legislation has two major advantages: it allows for a quantification of Europeanization processes and outputs, and it facilitates comparison across countries and sectors over time (see Brouard et al. 2012). However, to what extent is legislation a pertinent proxy for public policy? This may make sense for regulatory policies, but much less so for policies where EU effects are hardly traceable, such as budgetary policy. Third, through which kinds of legislation does Europeanization exert its influence on domestic policies? Does Europeanization occur through primary legislation (i.e. constitutional amendments, international treaties, and federal laws and decrees), enacted by Parliament and subject to referendum? Is it more of a technocratic process taking place behind the scenes in the form of secondary legislation (i.e. through government ordinances, regulatory decisions made by independent agencies)? This raises the more general question regarding the mechanisms of Europeanization (Knill and Lehmkuhl 2002). Further, what about soft law, which may have a dramatic impact on public policies, as demonstrated by the emblematic example of the Bologna reform in higher education policy? While the three previous points may particularly concern scholars interested in policy outputs, those privileging policy processes also face significant challenges. How to measure the degree of Europeanization of domestic policy-making? How can we distinguish decisionmaking processes that are Europeanized from those that are not? Which criteria may help us to draw the line between the two types of processes? In this regard, can we expect to grasp degrees of Europeanization? Which policy domains and periods are the most Europeanized? The second research question addressed in this Debate concerns the variations of Europeanization across policy domains, and the changes in the scope of Europeanization across time: Do we actually observe significant differences between policy domains and periods? And what are the underlying explanatory factors? For example, does the extent of Europeanization vary according to the degree of export orientation of a policy sector or according to the rhythm and agenda of negotiations with the EU? These sub-questions are important for both academic and political reasons. In media and partisan circles, the Delors myth is still very vivid: according to the famous claim of the former President of the EC Commission, 80% of national law-production related to
200 Roy Gava, Pascal Sciarini and Frederic Varone economics in EU members states originates at the European level. 3 This mythical figure continues to be echoed without strong empirical support (K onig and M ader 2008). A recent study compared the share of Europeanized domestic laws in eight EU countries (Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain) across 19 policy areas and over the period 1986-2007 (Brouard et al. 2012). The average impact of EU activities on domestic legislation is far lower than suggested by Delors: it ranges from 14% in France to 26% in Austria. Variations between policy domains are also considerable. Policy sectors like Law, Macroeconomics, Government Operations, Agriculture, Banking & Finance, and Environment are much more influenced by the EU than Defense, Housing, and Social Welfare. Finally, there is a clear trend towards a higher Europeanization of domestic laws over time. The issue of the EU s influence on the Swiss legal order and policies has special democratic relevance given the absence of Switzerland s participation in EU decision-making processes. The level of Europeanization of Swiss policies has naturally attracted the attention of academics and policy-makers alike. For instance, MPs have more than once requested the Federal Council to provide figures on the proportion of Swiss legislation influenced by the EU. 4 The Federal Council has acknowledged the lack of information and the inherent difficulties of establishing such a systematic inventory. 5 Despite the Government s reticence, in September 2013 the National Council finally adopted a postulate formally inviting the Federal Council to consider the issue. The present Debate takes on this challenge. Of course, we do not claim that it will provide a definitive answer to concerns raised by MPs. Nevertheless, it offers a systematic overview of findings from empirical studies assessing Europeanization impacts on Swiss policies during the last decades. At the time of writing, Swiss empirical research on Europeanization has essentially focused on the 1990s and 2000s. Unfortunately, the inherent time-lag proper to data collection, analysis and publication processes renders difficult the assessment of how relatively recent events, such as the financial or the Eurozone crises, affected the Europeanization of Swiss policy-making. In other words, on the basis of current empirical research it is too early to tell if, and to what extent, trends have changed during these last (particularly turbulent) years. Despite these limitations, the existing scholarship is able to provide a good picture of how Europeanization has varied at different critical moments of Swiss-EU relations. What is the extent of direct and indirect Europeanization? While Europeanization exerts its influence beyond the EU (Lavenex and Schimmelfennig 2009) and even beyond Europe (Schimmelfennig 2007) it is especially relevant for a country like Switzerland that is located in the middle of the continent and that is strongly dependent on its economic relationships with the EU. During the last five decades, Switzerland has followed the so-called third way between full EU membership and isolation, i.e. a way aim- 3 See Delors Speech before the European Parliament (Bulletin No 2-367/157, 6 July 1988). 4 Nordmann, Roger. Adaptation sur une base volontaire du droit suisse aux normes europeennes. Rapport et mise en evidence dans le RS (Postulate 06.3839), December 20, 2006 ; Reymond, Andre. Avalanche legislative et perte de souverainete (Interpellation 10.3810), October 1, 2010 ; Nordmann, Roger. Reprise autonome du droit de l UE. Ameliorer l information (Postulate 11.3916), September 20, 2011. 5 See the reply of the Federal Council to the three above-mentioned parliamentary interventions and its Rapport du Conseil federal sur les effets de divers instruments de politique europeenne sur le federalisme de la Suisse, p. 12, June 15, 2007.
Twenty Years After the EEA Vote 201 ing to maximize the economic gains associated with access to the European market while minimizing the related political costs. To that end, Switzerland has relied on a twofold strategy. On the one hand, it has negotiated agreements with the EU on a bilateral basis. This is the so-called direct form of Europeanization. On the other hand, however, the country has also adapted unilaterally to existing EU rules. In Switzerland, this indirect form of Europeanization is also known as autonomous adaptation (autonomer Nachvollzug). As a founding member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Switzerland concluded a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on manufactured goods with the European Community (EC) in 1972, which became the cornerstone of the Swiss-EC relationship for the following fifteen years. Reacting to the EC plan to create a Single European Market based on the four EC freedoms (free circulation of goods, capital, services and people), EFTA countries negotiated the EEA. While the EEA agreement offered them access to the single market, it did not grant them full co-decision rights. As a result, the Swiss Government accepted the EEA agreement but applied, in parallel, for full membership to the EC. However, the popular rejection of the EEA agreement on 6 December 1992 forced the Swiss Government to revise its policy line, and to revert to bilateral sectoral negotiations with the EU (Dupont and Sciarini 2001). The first round of bilateral agreements, covering seven sectors, was concluded in 1999 and ratified by Swiss citizens in 2000 (Dupont and Sciarini 2007). The second round of bilateral talks resulted in nine additional agreements (Afonso and Maggetti 2007). 6 Although new negotiations on various topics have taken place (with some having already ended) since 2008, the whole process is currently on hold. Until recently, the lack of agreement on highly controversial institutional issues has been put forward as the main culprit for this situation. However, the historical adoption by Swiss citizens in February 2014 of the SVP s popular initiative against massive immigration, a direct challenge to the existing agreement on the free movement of people with the EU, has opened a new era of uncertainty. Although the direct influence arising from formal negotiations and related agreements with the EU is relatively well documented, this is less the case for indirect Europeanization. To be sure, we know that EU influence also occurs even in the absence of international negotiations, but we do not know exactly to which extent Switzerland has been affected. That is, we do not know which policy sectors have been most influenced by indirect Europeanization, and how much the country has unilaterally adapted. There are, however, good reasons to believe that the extent of autonomous adaptation is considerable. Since 1988 the Federal Council has introduced a euro-compatibility examination in the message accompanying bills submitted to the Parliament. From then on, Federal Council messages include a section that evaluates the compatibility of the new piece of legislation with European rules. In December 2002, the European clause was further institutionalized, i.e. it was incorporated in the Federal law regulating the relationship between the Executive and the Legislative. 7 In that sense, all decision-making processes include a European perspective, regardless of whether the outcome is euro-compatible or not. In practice, the euro-compatibility of Swiss legislation is the rule and the adoption of a legislative act which is not in conformity with European Community Law is the exception for which good reasons must be given (Epiney 2009: 181). 6 The treaty regarding Switzerland s participation in the Schengen/Dublin agreements was challenged by referendum, but was eventually endorsed by the Swiss people in 2005. 7 See the art. 141, al 2, let a. of the Law on the Federal Assembly.
202 Roy Gava, Pascal Sciarini and Frederic Varone Given the importance granted to the Euro-compatibility of Swiss legislation, the absence of knowledge regarding the extent of indirect Europeanization is especially striking. In fact, it is not unlikely that indirect Europeanization has stronger effects than direct Europeanization. Finally, while this Debate is dedicated to Europeanization policy processes and outputs, we have to keep in mind that the EU is but one partner among others even if it is arguably the most crucial partner for a country located in the middle of Europe such as Switzerland. The point we wish to make here is that Europeanization should be put in perspective with the impact of other international arenas. The internationalization of Swiss policies does not stop at the EU s borders. It also comprehends bilateral agreements with other countries and multilateral policies coordinated by the United Nations, the World Trade Organization or the OECD. The recent international disputes regarding tax evasion and its impact on Swiss banking secrecy come evidently to mind, but international commitments naturally affect a wide array of policy fields, from environmental and health regulations to judicial procedures. In this regard, it is useful to assess Europeanization effects while keeping an eye on the more general internationalization of Swiss policies. What are the other effects of Europeanization? While the first three questions deliberately focus on the policy effects of Europeanization, the last question widens the analytical perspective. We have asked the contributors to this Debate to address additional EU-induced effects: What are the main effects of Europeanization with respect to politics and polity? Starting with politics-related effects, what does the Swiss case tell us with respect to the on-going, lively debate on the differential empowerment associated with Europeanization (B orzel and Risse 2003) i.e. regarding the changes in the balance of power between parliament and government, between executive actors and non-state actors, and among political parties or interest groups? Similarly, do empirical records help us to take sides on the issue of whether Europeanization increases or reduces domestic conflict? Finally, what are the polity effects, if any, brought about by Europeanization and what about the mediating role of domestic institutions (Haverland 2000)? Although the polity dimension is the least addressed by Europeanization studies European-wide (Exadaktylos and Radaelli 2012a), this is presumably different in Switzerland, as shown by some of the contributors to this Debate. The Contributions The first contribution by Sabine Jenni relies on the euro-compatibility assessment produced by the Government when submitting a bill to Parliament (1990-2000). Her content analysis focuses on the impact of direct and indirect Europeanization processes and the scope of adaptation to EU law. Her contribution shows an increasing impact of direct Europeanization across time. Furthermore, indirect Europeanization takes place in policy sectors such as social insurance including employment-related insurance, transportation, taxation and health, and often serves as preparation for future sectoral agreements. Roy Gava and Frederic Varone quantitatively assess the Europeanization of domestic policy changes by looking at legal reforms enacted between 1999 and 2012. They capture the EU s footprint in primary (i.e. laws, decrees) and secondary (i.e. ordinances) legislation through a computer keyword search. Results indicate that the share of Europeanized legal reforms is systematically higher for secondary legislation (enacted by the Executive)
Twenty Years After the EEA Vote 203 than for primary legislation (enacted by Parliament). Furthermore, manifest references to the EU in ordinances are mainly related to indirect Europeanization. In sum, a nonnegligible proportion of the Europeanization of Swiss policies seems to take place in the executive arena and cannot be linked to bilateral agreements. Wolf Linder s article allows situating this Debate on Europeanization within the broader and earlier internationalization phenomenon. He relies on the Official Collection of Federal Legislation to analyze the evolution of the stock of domestic versus international law (1948-2007), as well as the evolution of law-making activities (1982-2007). Moreover, he focuses on the politics dimension, by looking at the related effects on the balance of power between parliament and government. Three trends emerge in the long run: a continuous internationalization of the stock of federal law, with the proportion of international law reaching 53% in 2007; a growing role of the Government in laws that originate from international negotiations (including agreements with the EU); and, by contrast, a stronger impact of the Parliament on domestic legislation. The next contribution is complementary to the previous quantitative assessments of legislative outputs: it assesses the level of Europeanization of parliamentary interventions (initiatives, motions, questions, etc.) and media coverage (i.e. NZZ articles) of policy-making processes and politics for the period 1996-2003. Pascal Sciarini, Anke Tresch and Manuel Fischer find that Europeanization is higher for media articles (11.6%) than for parliamentary interventions (4.6%). Furthermore, direct Europeanization is predominant in both arenas. Finally, the parliamentary and media attention is concentrated on four highly Europeanized policy issues, namely Foreign Policy, Immigration, Transportation and Foreign Trade. Note that Gava and Varone have also identified these policy sectors as domains with a high EU footprint. Sciarini and his colleagues conclude that the low level of MP s activities in Europeanized policy issues tend to confirm the de-parliamentarisation hypothesis in relation to internationalized policy-making processes. This assessment is also supported by the study of Manuel Fischer and Pascal Sciarini on the legislative acts adopted by Parliament between 1995 and 2006. While the level of Europeanization of these acts is relatively low (9%), expert surveys suggest that the directly and indirectly Europeanized acts are considered as being more important than purely domestic ones. Furthermore, direct Europeanization tends to also weaken the importance of the formal consultation during the pre-parliamentary and the subsequent parliamentary phases. The case studies carried out in different policy domains consistently demonstrate that direct Europeanization reinforces the Executive and some interest groups (e.g. exportoriented business) at the expense of national MPs, political parties and other non stateactors. The involvement of organized interest in Europeanized policy-making processes is also the key topic of the contribution by Alexandre Afonso, Marie-Christine Fontana and Yannis Papadopoulos. The authors compare the level of social concertation in more or less Europeanized policy-making processes in Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and Ireland. Their major conclusion is that Europeanization per se is not a sufficient condition for a less inclusive pattern of policy-making. Domestic mediating factors play an important role. In this regard, the authors underline the role of partisan coalition dynamics, politicization and media attention. The Debate concludes with critical assessments of this state of the art by three internationally renowned Europeanization researchers: Markus Haverland, Frank Schimmelfennig and Dirk Lehmkuhl. Their contributions highlight strong and weak points of the current Swiss scholarship and revisit crucial comparativeness issues in different ways. Markus
204 Roy Gava, Pascal Sciarini and Frederic Varone Haverland argues that the extent to which the EU has infiltrated the Swiss political system puts into question its appropriateness as a control case for Europeanization research. However, he stresses that the peculiarity of its direct democracy institutions continues to make Switzerland particularly appealing for comparisons with EU member states. Frank Schimmelfennig adopts a differentiated integration approach to pinpoint open challenges to the current Swiss research on Europeanization. He argues that the relationship between Switzerland and the EU can be conceived in terms of a broader system of graded membership, sensitive to the differential validity of EU rules across countries and policy sectors. In particular, he shows how such a perspective invites to reconsider the way in which Swiss scholars have predominantly grasped the extent to which and how Swiss legislation is affected by EU policies. Last but not least, Dirk Lehmkuhl critically assesses some of the main take-away messages of the contributions to this Debate. He calls for a closer dialogue to improve the comparability between Swiss studies, a point also put forward by Schimmelfennig, and encourages scholars to adapt their research strategies to tackle the many pressing, but still open, why questions. The relationship between Switzerland and the process of European integration has been depicted as close, contradictory and generally misunderstood (Church, 2007). The present Debate will hopefully contribute to the collective understanding of this special relationship through a comprehensive overview of the Europeanization of Swiss policy-making. References Afonso, A. (2010). Europeanisation, Policy Concertation and New Political Cleavages: The Case of Switzerland. European Journal of Industrial Relations 16(1): 57 72. - (2013). Social Concertation in Times of Austerity: European Integration and the Politics of Labour Market Reforms in Austria and Switzerland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Afonso, A., M.C. Fontana and Y. Papadopoulos (2010). Does Europeanisation Weaken the Left? Changing Coalitions and Veto Power in Swiss Decision-Making Processes. Policy and Politics 38 (4): 562 582. Afonso, A. and M. Maggetti (2007). Bilaterals II: Reaching the limits of the Swiss third way? In Church, C. (Ed.), Switzerland and the European Union: a close, contradictory and misunderstood relationship. London and New York: Routledge (215 233). Afonso, A. and Y. Papadopoulos (2013). Europeanization or Party Politics? Explaining Government Choice for Corporatist Concertation. Governance 26(1): 5 29. Arbia, A. (2008). The Road not Taken. Europeanisation of Laws in Austria and Switzerland 1996-2005. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International Studies. Bartle, I. (2006). Europeans outside the EU: Telecommunications and Electricity Reform in Norway and Switzerland. Governance 19(3): 407 436. B orzel, T. and T. Risse (2003). Conceptualizing the Domestic Impact of Europe. In Featherstone, K. and C.M. Radaelli (eds.), The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press (57 80). Brouard, S., O. Costa and T. K onig, (eds.) (2012) The Europeanization of Domestic Legislatures: The Empirical Implications of the Delors Myth in Nine Countries. New York: Springer. Church, C. (ed.) (2007). Switzerland and the European Union: A close, contradictory and misunderstood relationship. London and New York: Routledge. Dupont, C. and P. Sciarini (2001). Switzerland and the European Integration process: Engagement without marriage. West European Politics 24(2): 211 232.
Twenty Years After the EEA Vote 205 -(2007). Back to the future: The first round of bilateral negociations with the EU. In Church, C. (ed.), Switzerland and the European Union: A close, contradictory and misunderstood relationship. London and New York: Routledge (202 214). Epiney, A. (2009). How does European Union law influences Swiss laws and policies. In Nahrath, S. and F. Varone (eds.), Rediscovering public law and public administration in comparative policy analysis. Lausanne and Bern: Haupt and Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes (179 195). Exadaktylos, T. and C.M. Radaelli (2012a). Looking for Causality in the Literature on Europeanization. In Exadaktylos, T. and C.M. Radaelli (eds.), Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan (17 43). -(eds.) (2012b). Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fischer, A. (2005). Die Auswirkungen der Internationalisierung und Europ aisierung auf Schweizer Entscheidungsprozesse. Z urich and Chur: Verlag R uegger. -(2007). Internationalization of Swiss Decision-Making Processes. In Kl oti, U., P. Knoepfel, H. Kriesi, W. Linder, Y. Papadopoulos and P. Sciarini (Eds.), Handbook of Swiss Politics. Zurich: NZZ Libro (547 568). Fischer, A., S. Nicolet and P. Sciarini (2002). Europeanisation of a Non-EU Country: The Case of Swiss Immigration Policy. West European Politics 25(4): 143 170. Fischer, M. (2012). Entscheidungsstrukturen in Der Schweizer Politik Zu Beginn Des 21 Jahrhunderts. Z urich and Chur: Verlag R uegger. Fischer, M., A. Fischer and P. Sciarini (2009). The Swiss Political Elite: An Aggregation of Sectoral Network Analyses. Swiss Political Science Review 15(1): 31 62. Fischer, M., K. Ingold, P. Sciarini and F. Varone (2012). Impacts of Market Liberalization on Regulatory Network: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Swiss Telecommunications Sector. Policy Studies Journal 40(3): 435 457. Fischer, M. and P. Sciarini (2013). Europeanization and the Inclusive Strategies of Executive Actors. Journal of European Public Policy 20(10): 1482 1498. Fontana, M.-C., A. Afonso and Y. Papadopoulos (2008). Putting the Special Case in Its Place: Switzerland and Small-N Comparison in Policy Research. Swiss Political Science Review 14(3): 521 550. Gava, R. and F. Varone. (2012). So close, yet so far? The EU s footprint in Swiss Legislative Production. In Brouard, S., O. Costa and T. K onig (Eds.), The Europeanization of Domestic Legislatures: The Empirical Implications of the Delors Myth in Nine Countries. New York: Springer (197 221). Haverland, M. (2000). National Adaptation to European Integration: The Importance of Institutional Veto Points. Journal of Public Policy 20(1): 83 103. - (2007). Methodology. In Vink, M.P. and P. Graziano (Eds.), Europeanization: New Research Agendas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (59 70). Jenni, S. (2013). The impact of the bilaterals on Swiss legal adaptation to the EU. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Swiss Political Science Association, January 31-February 2. Z urich. Knill, C. and D. Lehmkuhl. (2002). The National Impact of European Union Regulatory Policy: Three Europeanization Mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research 41(2): 255 280. Kohler, E. (2009). Influences du droit europeen sur la legislation suisse: analyse des annees 2004 a 2007. Jusletter 31(1): 2 12. K onig, T. and L. M ader. (2008). Das Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates un des Mythos einer 80- Prozent-Europ aisierung in Deutschland. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49(3): 438 463. Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, M. Dolezal, S. Bornschier and T. Frey. (2008). West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
206 Roy Gava, Pascal Sciarini and Frederic Varone Kriesi, H. and A.H. Trechsel. (2008). The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lavenex, S. (2001). The State, Sovereignity, and the Europeanization of Migration Policy. Swiss Political Science Review 7(3): 113 120. - (2009). Switzerland in the European Research Area. Integration without legislation. Swiss Political Science Review 15(4): 629 651. Lavenex, S. and F. Schimmelfennig. (2009). EU Rules Beyond EU Borders: Theorizing External Governance in European Politics. Journal of European Public Policy 16(6): 791 812. Levi-Faur, D. (2004). On the net impact of Europeanization: The EU s Telecoms and Electricity Regimes between the Global and the National. Comparative Political Studies 37(1): 3 29. Linder, W. (2011). Europe and Switzerland: Europeanization without EU membership. In Trampusch, C. and A. Mach (eds.), Switzerland in Europe: Continuity and Change in the Swiss Political Economy. New York: Routledge (43 59). - (2013). Switzerland and the EU: the puzzling effects of Europeanisation without institutionalisation. Contemporary Politics 19(2): 190 202. Linder, W., O. H umbelin and M. Sutter. (2009). Die Entwicklung der eidgen ossischen Gesetzgebungst atigkeit 1983 2007: eine quantitative Analyse. Bern: Institut f ur Politikwissenschaft. Mach, A. (2006). La Suisse entre internationalisation et changements politiques internes: legislation sur les cartes et relations industrielles dans les annees 1990. Zurich and Chur: R uegger Verlag. Mach, A., S. H ausermann and Y. Papadopoulos. (2003). Economic regulatory reforms in Switzerland: adjustment without European integration, or how rigidities become flexible. Journal of European Public Policy 10(2): 301 318. Mallepell, R. (1999) Der Einfluss des Gemeinschaftsrechts auf die schweizerische Gesetzgebung 1993-1995. Swiss Papers on European Integration 21. Papadopoulos, Y. (2008). Europeanization? Two Logics of Change of Policy-Making in Switzerland. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 10(3): 255 278. Schimmelfennig, F. (2007). Europeanization Beyond Europe. Living Reviews in European Governance 2(1). Sciarini, P. (2014). Eppure si muove: the changing nature of the Swiss consensus democracy. Journal of European Public Policy 21(1): 116 132. Sciarini, P., A. Fischer and S. Nicolet. (2004). How Europe hits home: evidence from the Swiss case. Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 353 378. Sciarini, P., M. Fischer and D. Traber (Eds.) (2014) Still a consensus democracy? Decision-making structures and processes in Switzerland. Geneva: Department of political science and international relations (book manuscript). Sciarini, P. and S. Nicolet. (2005). Internationalization and Domestic Politics: Evidence from the Swiss Case. In Kriesi, H., P. Farago, M. Kohli and M. Zarin-Nejadan (eds.), Contemporary Switzerland: Revisiting the Special Case. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (221 238). Sciarini, P., S. Nicolet and A. Fischer. (2002). L impact de l internationalisation sur les processus de decision en Suisse: Une analyse quantitative des actes legislatifs 1995-1999. Swiss Political Science Review 8(2): 1 34. T oller, A.E. (2012). Causality in Quantitative Approaches. In Exadaktylos, T. and C.M. Radaelli (Eds.), Research Design in European Studies: Establishing causality in Europeanization. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan (44 63).
Twenty Years After the EEA Vote 207 Roy Gava is a researcher at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Switzerland. He recently finished his PhD dissertation on the regulation of the Swiss banking sector. His research interests include comparative policy analysis, internationalization and financial regulation. Address for correspondence: Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Uni Mail, Bd du Pont d Arve 40, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. Phone: +41 22 379 83 78; E-mail: roy.gava@unige.ch Pascal Sciarini is Professor of Swiss and Comparative politics at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. His main research topics are decision-making processes, direct democracy, Europeanization and political behavior. He is one of the co-editors of the Handbook of Swiss politics, NZZ Libro (new French-German edition forthcoming in 2014). Address for correspondence: Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Uni Mail, Bd du Pont d Arve 40, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. Phone: +41 22 379 83 86; E-mail: pascal. sciarini@unige.ch Frederic Varone is professor of political science at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. His current research focuses on comparative policy analysis, program evaluation, public sector reforms and interest groups. Address for correspondence: Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Uni Mail, Bd du Pont d Arve 40, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland. Phone: +41 22 379 83 82; E-mail: frederic.varone@unige.ch