EU Regulatory Burden post-2009

by

Let’s take a loot at the post-2009 trend supposedly seeing a decrease in regulations from Brussels, while holding it up against the Green Deal specifically, while accounting for the nature of EU legislative acts.

Post-2009 Regulatory Trends: Quantity vs. Magnitude

  1. Raw Numbers Context:
    • As noted earlier, EUR-Lex data shows annual EU legal acts dropping from a peak of 4,000–6,000 in the early 2000s to a more stable 3,000–4,000 post-2010 (e.g., 3,576 in 2020). This superficial decline follows the Lisbon Treaty (2009), which aimed to streamline EU governance.
    • Historically, the EU’s regulatory output surged with enlargement (2004–2007) and monetary integration (1999–2009). Post-2009 stabilization could suggest a plateau—or a shift in approach.
  2. Shift to Broader Frameworks:
    • The EU increasingly favors framework directives and flagship regulations over numerous narrow acts. Framework directives set overarching goals, leaving implementation details to delegated acts or national governments, while flagship regulations (e.g., GDPR) apply uniformly across the bloc. This mirrors the omnibus bill analogy—fewer titles, but packed with substance.
    • The Lisbon Treaty enhanced the Commission’s ability to issue delegated acts (Article 290 TFEU) and implementing acts (Article 291 TFEU), shifting technical rulemaking from standalone regulations to subsidiary measures under broader laws. These don’t always count as separate “acts” in EUR-Lex tallies, masking their volume.
  3. Evidence of Consolidation:
    • Pre-2009, regulations were often granular (e.g., specific product standards). Post-2009, acts like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2016) or Renewable Energy Directive (recast 2018) bundle multiple objectives—data privacy across sectors or renewable targets with sub-policies—into single instruments. GDPR, one regulation, replaced dozens of national laws and spawned hundreds of delegated measures.
    • The Better Regulation Agenda (ongoing since 2002, revamped 2015) explicitly aims to reduce the number of acts by consolidating and simplifying, but critics argue it prioritizes optics over reducing actual regulatory burden (e.g., CEPS studies, 2018).

The European Green Deal: A Case Study

Launched in December 2019, the European Green Deal exemplifies your hypothesis. It’s framed as a cohesive “strategy” to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050, but its scope and regulatory implications are vast.

  1. Surface Appearance:
    • The Green Deal itself isn’t a single law but a roadmap with 50+ actions outlined in its initial communication (COM(2019) 640 final). By 2025, it’s spawned fewer than 20 major legislative acts (e.g., Climate Law, Fit for 55 package), suggesting a modest contribution to the annual act count.
    • In EUR-Lex, these appear as distinct entries (e.g., Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 for the Climate Law), keeping the superficial tally low.
  2. Packed Magnitude:
    • Climate Law (2021): One regulation, but it mandates a 55% emissions cut by 2030, triggering amendments to energy, transport, and industry laws—dozens of sub-regulations implicitly embedded.
    • Fit for 55 Package (2021): Presented as a single legislative push, it includes 13 proposals (e.g., revised Emissions Trading System, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism), each with cascading effects. By 2023, these had generated over 100 delegated and implementing acts (per Commission reports), yet the package counts as “13 acts” in headline figures.
    • Biodiversity and Circular Economy: Separate Green Deal strands (e.g., Farm to Fork Strategy) integrate into existing laws, amplifying their reach without standalone counts. For instance, the 2022 Sustainable Products Initiative revises multiple directives under one umbrella.
  3. Comparison to Omnibus Bills:
    • Like a U.S. omnibus spending bill (e.g., the 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1,500+ pages), the Green Deal consolidates diverse policies—emissions, agriculture, trade—into interconnected frameworks. Splitting Fit for 55 into standalone bills could easily yield 50+ acts, but bundling keeps the count low while expanding regulatory scope exponentially.
    • The EU Taxonomy Regulation (2020), another Green Deal pillar, defines sustainable finance but delegates classification of “green” activities to technical standards—hundreds of pages of rules not reflected in the primary act count.

Practicality or Politics?

You suggest two motives for this reorganization: practicality or a response to criticism of EU overreach (e.g., from Euroskeptic movements in the UK, Hungary, Poland).

  1. Practical Purposes:
    • Managing 27 member states requires coherence. Bundling regulations into frameworks like the Green Deal ensures uniform goals (e.g., climate neutrality) while delegating specifics, reducing fragmentation across 27 legal systems.
    • The Lisbon Treaty’s delegated act system reflects this: one law (e.g., REACH chemical regulation) spawns hundreds of technical updates, streamlining administration.
  2. Antics Amid Criticism:
    • Post-2009, Euroskepticism surged—Brexit (2016–2020), populist backlash in Italy, France, and Eastern Europe. Reducing the visible number of acts aligns with the Better Regulation Agenda’s promise to “do less, better,” countering perceptions of a bloated Brussels bureaucracy.
    • The Green Deal’s framing as a “growth strategy” rather than a regulatory burden (per von der Leyen’s 2019 rhetoric) softens its image, even as it imposes binding targets. Critics like the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) argue it’s a stealth power grab, with delegated acts evading parliamentary scrutiny.

Measuring True Magnitude

To test whether the regulatory framework’s magnitude is undiminished (or growing) despite fewer acts, consider these proxies:

  • Word Count: Pre-2009 regulations averaged 5,000–10,000 words; post-2009 flagships like GDPR (88 articles, ~30,000 words) or Climate Law (with annexes) are denser. The Fit for 55 package spans over 1,000 pages collectively.
  • Delegated Acts: The Commission issued 1,500+ delegated and implementing acts in 2020 alone (EUR-Lex), many tied to fewer primary laws. This dwarfs the DOGE-reported 18.5:1 ratio in the U.S., suggesting a hidden multiplier.
  • Economic Impact: The Green Deal’s estimated cost—€1 trillion over a decade (European Commission, 2020)—implies a regulatory footprint far exceeding its act count, affecting energy, transport, and agriculture sectors.
  • National Transposition: Directives (e.g., Renewable Energy Directive) require 27 national laws, amplifying a single EU act into hundreds of local regulations.

Conclusion

The post-2009 decrease in EU legal acts is indeed superficial when viewed through raw counts. Like an omnibus bill, initiatives like the Green Deal pack extensive regulatory changes into fewer, broader instruments, bolstered by a web of delegated acts. This reorganization serves both practical coherence for a sprawling Union and a political shield against overreach critiques. The true magnitude—measured by scope, complexity, and impact—hasn’t decreased; it’s been re-framed and concentrated, with Brussels retaining (or expanding) influence under a leaner facade.

Leave a Comment