Abstract

Most compliance studies share the epistemological assumption of the existence of a one-best-way assuring good transposition and implementation of EU norms, and, symmetrically, a set of variables that homogeneously produce problems and failures. Alternatively, in the article we will elaborate on the idea of different paths to (non-)compliance, adopting a qualitative comparative perspective. We will test this intuition using data on compliance levels in the fifteen EU member states. Our methodological exercise shows the existence of two sets of remote conditions - resembling the distinction between Westminster and Consensus democracies - that enhance non-compliance. Within those institutional set-ups, different combinations of proximate conditions trigger that outcome. Some factors even play the opposite role in the two contexts, thus suggesting to reconsider the mentioned one-size-fits-all assumption.