Abstract

The translation of the word ‘document’ in the 2003/98/EC directive on the re-use of public sector information into Swedish had several alternative words but used the word ‘handling’. The administrative law precedence for the word ‘handling’ has embedded several assumptions of the actual document, and based on a precedence that started in the 1760s the interpretation became path dependent. The Swedish case of how bureaucratic inertia and path dependence can stall the implementation of EU directives is. The Swedish government’s initial stance claimed that public sector information is not within the European Commission’s jurisdiction and driven by the definition of ‘handling’. This posture has been supported and defended by the Swedish bureaucracy, unwilling to share the information with private entities, and seeking to maximize the bureaucratic influence. The Swedish case visualizes the complexity to implement legislation pursuing information dissemination requiring the cooperation of an established path dependent bureaucracy.

Highlights

  • Decision-making processes can take a long time

  • The inquiry conducted in this paper is seeking to explain why the Swedish government first delayed, and later refused full implementation of the public sector information (PSI)-directive, using theory on institutional inertia and path dependence to understand the process

  • Janssen is targeting the legal compliance of the PSI-directive. She writes: The general principle in Article 3 shows the limited ambition of the PSI directive: The Member States have to ensure that, where the re-use of documents held by public sector bodies is allowed; these documents shall be re-usable for commercial or non-commercial purposes in accordance with the provisions of the directive

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In this paper we explore how the interaction between self-interested civil servants, differences in legal traditions, and secondary effects on national legislation can contribute to delays of implementation of EU-directives. The inquiry conducted in this paper is seeking to explain why the Swedish government first delayed, and later refused full implementation of the PSI-directive, using theory on institutional inertia and path dependence to understand the process. European integration is based on a system where legislation on EU-level is implemented on national level. In this context the case could be used to understand how local institutions influences which directives will be implemented in the manner intended by the EU, if at all. It could be used to understand which decisions might face resistance

Background
On the PSI-Directive
Previous Research
A Single Word Makes a Difference
The Financial Upside for the Administration
Administrative Resistance through Confusion
The Swedish Definition of Document
10. Administrative Resistance through Delayed Action
11. Administrative Resistance Supported by Political Fear
Findings
12. Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call