This article assumes that a central problem for effective implementation of European legislation is the impact of national administrative traditions, since the formal and practical transformation of EU law rests mainly at the national level. The article investigates the interplay of national administrative traditions and European policy implementation. National administrative traditions prevalent in a policy field may differ from country to country. It is argued, that implementation effectiveness depends on the ‘’institutional scope'' of European adaptation pressure, which is not only affected by European requirements, but also by the embeddedness of the respective administrative traditions and national capacities for administrative reform. According to the degrees of adaptation pressure, different paths are distinguished, suggesting more or less effective implementation.

The transition from plan to market-driven economies of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe implied a major shift in their trade orientation. While before reform almost all trade took place within CMEA, in the mid-1990s trade relations are dominated by the OECD countries. This rapid change raises two questions: To what extent is the trade adjustment already accomplished? In case of a negative response, what factors account for observed differences in speed and pattern of this process among countries? From a comparison between actual and estimated potential trade flows in each year for 1988 to 1995, the econometric results suggest that the trade adjustment is far from being completed. Significant differences between countries can be explained by differences in the scope and speed of economic reform (such as liberalisation and macroeconomic stabilisation), differences in transactions costs (such as proximity to the West and previous market presence), and by differences in the demand and supply structure (such as economies of scale and differentiated trade structure). The results suggest a head-start for determined, sophisticated and proximate transition economies.

The policy literature often mentions the agenda-setting influence of focusing events, but few policy studies systematically examine the dynamics of these events. This article closes this gap by examining focusing events, group mobilization and agenda-setting. Using natural disasters and industrial accidents as examples, most focusing events change the dominant issues on the agenda in a policy domain, they can lead to interest group mobilization, and groups often actively seek to expand or contain issues after a focusing event. I explain how differences in the composition of policy communities and the nature of the events themselves influence group and agenda dynamics. The organization of policy communities is an important factor in agenda setting, but agenda setting and group politics vary considerably with the type of event and the nature of the policy community.

Firms are legitimate political actors, but few empirical studies examine how firms have re-structured their political organisation to maximise the political options in the constantly evolving European public policy system — or assessed the impact of these changes on the member states' industrial relations. Based on a study of Europe's largest firms, this article explores the degree to which the creation of the single market and the strengthening of European institutions has harmonised the firms' political activity across borders, sectors and issues. It concludes that multinationals have established a sophisticated political capacity that allows them to develop new multilevel and ad hoc political alliances and that this new political co-ordination has standardised political responses across issues and altered national public policy systems.