List Of Footnotes

1		Since the term “European Union” has established itself as the common label to denote the supranational European polity, I will use this notion throughout. This pragmatic decision disregards the fact that most of the research discussed in the paper deals with policy outputs of the first pillar, which would make it legally correct to use the term “European Community”. In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, I also use the term for the period before the Maastricht Treaty, which introduced the term “European Union” into the official language.
2		A few Europeanisation researchers also use the term more or less synonymously with European integration (in particular, see Risse et al. 2001 ). Even these scholars, however, are interested in the domestic effects of European integration (or of “Europeanisation”, in this interpretation). The Europeanisation literature is thus marked by some confusion with regard to terminology, but still by great unity with regard to the object of research.
3		I borrow the “wave” metaphor from one of my earlier publications (Falkner et al. 2005 : 15). In the meantime, it seems to have found a certain degree of acceptance among scholars in the field (see e.g. Mastenbroek 2005 ).
4		Interestingly, Dimitrova and Rhinard (2005 ) have recently presented a very similar argument. The major difference is that they use the language of sociological rather than historical institutionalism, as most of the original proponents of the misfit approach did. They distinguish between different levels of norms embedded in a society. The degree of compatibility between the norms enshrined in a directive and especially the higher-level domestic norms then has a decisive influence on whether the European norms are incorporated smoothly or whether they meet with domestic resistance.
5		A similar argument was recently presented by van der Vleuten (2005 ).
6		The last interpretation seems to be true for many of the second-wave studies addressing the implementation of EU environmental policy, where indeed many (but not all!) problems seemed to occur at the application rather than the transposition stage (see e.g. Knill and Lenschow 1998 ; Börzel 2000 ; Bailey 2002 ).
7		Linos (2006 ) also uses the official information on transposition reported in the Commission’s annual reports. She does not analyse transposition rates as such, however. Instead, she looks at 54 specific directives from the field of EU employment and social policy and tracks down the years when the member states were reported to have notified transposition of these directives. This results in a proxy for transposition delays.
8		It has to be noted, however, that there are also qualitative studies that use this kind of framework (for example, see Zürn and Joerges 2005 ).
9		This finding contrasts sharply with the findings of Dimitrakopoulos (2001 ), who identifies one single “European style of transposition” across all the member states.
10		Within the Commission, there seem to be tendencies in favour of the former option. Thus, a “Commission staff working paper”, which was published in the run-up to the White Paper on European Governance, recommends that the Commission should, whenever possible, prefer regulations to directives (CEC 2001 ).
11		As for enforcement and application, there is an ongoing research project at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Vienna which focuses explicitly on the question of how the acquis communautaire is being put into practice in the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe (for more information, see IHS ). For further research on how the new member states have adjusted to the body of Community law, see the Living Review on “Europeanisation in new member and candidate states” by Sedelmeier (2006 ).