Path – Dependence and European Fisheries Management

Keywords: Fisheries Management, Common Fishing Policy, Path dependence theory


For a long time there has been an attempt to explain the current crisis in the fisheries sector in terms of a confrontation between those defending “fish” and those defending “fishermen”. However, the real problem concerns the governance of fisheries and how common resources are assigned; it is not just a crisis of resources per se. Therefore, an insightful understanding of the scenario leading to a satisfactory solution is more complex than it is often believed since there is a need to tackle problems related to the state of stocks, fishermen’s strategies and ecosystems. The fishing sector is not exclusively concerned with production activities as some analysts would have us believe. Rather, it is an area that integrates a number of important features and requires different approaches dealing with the industrial aspects of the sector, distribution and consumption. The fishing sector is characterised by a high level of public intervention, in terms of regulation, finance and state subsidies. The plethora of norms has become such that, currently, the main areas of debate are those concerning how best to preserve resources and ecosystems (by  managing and sustaining certain economic levels for example), the welfare of those who make their living from fishing, and the social impact on coastal communities among others. The main focus of debate used to be the conditions of access to fishing and fisheries. Nowadays, however, since early 2000s, efforts have concentrated on the limits of biological safety in order to guarantee sustainable and efficient fishing.This work carries out a dual analysis of the objectives of fisheries management. The first focuses on path dependence and the second on a debate among the three main players and their changing views. This approach allows us to clarify the different interests as regards policy-making, as well as to clearly define the different management implementation.


Arnason, R. (2001). On applied fisheries economics. EAFE, Salerno, 18-20, April.

Berkes (2012). Implementing ecosystem–based management: evolution or revolution. Fish and Fisheries. 13, 465-476. doi:

Boncoeur, J., Mesnil, B. (1999). Surexploitation des stocks et confits dans le secteur des pêches. Une discussion du «triangle des paradigmes» de A.Charles, dans le contexte européen. Informations et Commentaires, 107, 10-17.

Carciofi, I., Azqueta, D. (2012). Territorio, desarrollo tecnológico y gestión de recursos naturales renovables: el caso de la pesca. Investigaciones Regionales, 23.

Charles, A.T. (1992). Fishery conflicts: a midfield framework. Marine Policy. 16(5), 379-393. doi:

Clark, C. (2006). The worldwide crisis in fisheries. Cambridge University Press. UK.

Daw, T., Gray T.S. (2005). Fisheries Science and sustainability in international policy: a study of failure in the EU Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy. 29(3), 189-197. doi:

David, P.A. (1998). Path Dependence: its critics and the quest for historical. Oxford Stanford University. Working Paper.

Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R. (1994). An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. Evolutionary Economics. 4,153-172. doi:

European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2011). Have EU Measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? Special Report nº 12. Luxembourg.

Froese, R., Proelss A. (2010). Rebuilding fish stocks no later than 2015: will Europe meet the deadline? Fish and Fisheries. 11(2), 194-202. doi:

González-Laxe, F. (2002). Desarrollo y estrategia de la pesca europea. Ed.Netbiblo. A Coruña. doi:

González-Laxe, F. (2010). Dysfunctions in common fishing regulations. Marine Policy. 34(1), 182-188. doi:

Gray, T., Hatchard, J. (2003). The 2002 reform of the CFP system of governance-rhetoric or reality? Marine Policy. 27, pg. 545-554. doi:

Griève, Ch. (2001). Reviewing the CFP. EU fisheries management for the 21st century. Institute European Environmental Policy. London

Holden, M. (1994). The Common Fisheries Policy. Origin, evolution and future. The Buckland Foundation. Fishing News Books. Oxford.

Khalilian, S., Froese, R., Proelss, A., Requate, T. (2010). Designed for failure. A critique of the CFP of the European Union. Marine Policy 34, 1178-1182. doi:

Lequesne, Cl. (2001). L´Europe Bleue. A quoi sert la politique communautaire de la pêche. Presses de Sciences PO. Paris.

Mace, PM. (2001). New role for MSY in single species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stocks assessment and management. Fish and Fisheries 2(1), 2-32. doi:

Mesnil, B. (2012). The hesitant emergence of MSY in fisheries policies in Europe. Marine Policy, 36, 473-478. doi:

North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance.

Symes. D. (1997). The European Community Common Fisheries Policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 35(2-3), 137-155. doi:

Seijo, J.C., Defeo, O., Salas, S. (1997). Bio-economía pesquera. Teoría, Modelación y manejo,. FAO. Doc. Tec. Pesca, nº 368. Roma

Symes, D. (2007). Fisheries management and institutional reform: a European perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 28, 1-7. doi:

Villasante, C.S., García-Negro, Mª C., González-Laxe, F., Rodríguez, G. (2011). Overfishing and the CFP: (un)successful results from TAC regulation? Fish and Fisheries, 12(1), 34-50. doi:

How to Cite
Martín Palmero, F., & González Laxe, F. (2018). Path – Dependence and European Fisheries Management. European Journal of Government and Economics, 7(2), 138-153.