Policy instruments and implementationregulatory agencies to build close relationships with those whom they regu-
late simply to gain an understanding of each situation. Once a relationship
is established, officials will often bargain with the polluter over targets,
timetables and investment in new technologies. The regulator will make
judgements and exercise discretion about whether to enforce rules fully,
or whether to negotiate compliance, taking into account individual local
circumstances such as culpability, negligence and the likelihood of future
compliance (Weale 1992 :17–18; Fiorino 2004 : 395–401; Rosenbaum2005a:
174–7). The dilemma is that the benefits of flexibility have to be weighed
against the costs of diluting standards so that slippage may occur between
policy and implementation. The exact way in which this dilemma is played
out may depend on the regulatory style prevailing in each country (Richard-
son 1982 ).
One characteristic of a national regulatory style is the extent to which
regulation relies on judicial or on administrative procedures. The approach
toenvironmental control pursued in many European countries is primarily
formaland legalistic. In France the aim is to establish clear legal frameworks
and procedures, backed up by state agencies and the judiciary (Buller 1998 :
70). Germany and Austria both have a preference for detailed command-
and-control regulations imposing uniform emissions standards and setting
clear rules (Lauber 2004 : 52; Wurzel 2004 :102–3). In principle, a judi-
cial approach should minimise the opportunity for regulatory officials to
exercise discretion when implementing policy in individual cases. By con-
trast, where environmental control is pervaded by administrative proce-
dures, as in Britain, the style is more informal, accommodative and tech-
nocratic (Lowe and Flynn 1989 ). Legislation tends to be broad and discre-
tionary with an avoidance of legislatively prescribed standards and quality
objectives:
It has long been traditional to rely upon, where practicable, the characteristics
of the local natural environment as a sensible disposal and dispersal route
for potential pollutants. This underlying approach in theory requires that
agencies should be given complete independence and discretion to determine,
in the light of local circumstances, the degree of seriousness of a potential
pollutant and the appropriate control measures. (Macrory 1986 :8)Asecond feature of any regulatory style is the way environmental pol-
icy is enforced: some systems are confrontational, others more co-operative.
In a comparison of British and American environmental practice, Vogel
(1986)noted that, despite key similarities in political and cultural tra-
ditions, common environmental conflicts and even shared organisational
responses, there were sharp differences between environmental controls in
theUnited Kingdom and the United States: ‘Americans rely heavily on for-
mal rules, often enforced in the face of strong opposition from the institu-
tions affected by them, while the British continue to rely on flexible stan-
dards and voluntary compliance – including, in many cases, self-regulation’