Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T18:52:59.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Democracy by Delegation? Who Represents Whom and How in European Governance1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Abstract

The democratic legitimacy of European governance is often said to rest on its ‘output’. However, such arguments also make the implicit ‘input’ claim that the community method and new modes of governance offer a more participatory and deliberative style of democratic politics to standard democratic processes, which is best suited to represent the European interest. We test such claims by analysing them from three different perspectives: functional, societal and delegatory. We conclude that they are grounded on a substantive conception of representation in which the agents of European governance ‘stand’ or ‘act’ for the European public. However, such claims are empty without formal democratic processes of authorization and accountability that ensure European governance effectively promotes the democratic values of political equality and responsiveness.

Type
Symposium on Democracy and New Modes of Governance
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

A draft of this paper was delivered to a panel on ‘Political Representation in Times of Governance’ at the ECPR Conference in Potsdam in September 2009. We are grateful to the other participants, especially Chris Lord, for their comments on that occasion, to Sandra Kröger, David Coen, Christine Reh, and this journal's referees for helpful written observations, and to Jonas Tallberg, Sofia Näsström and other members of a Department of Politics seminar at the University of Stockholm for their stimulating discussion of a penultimate version. Research for this paper was undertaken as part of the Democracy Taskforce of the EU-funded 6th Framework Integrated Project on New Modes of Governance (Contract no CIT1-CT-2004-506392).

References

2 European Commission, European Governance: A White Paper, Brussels, Commission of the European Communities, COM (2001) 428, available at lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf.

3 Cf. Majone, Giandomenico, ‘The Regulatory State and its Legitimacy Problems’, West European Politics, 22: 1 (1999), pp. 124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Giandomenico Majone, Dilemmas of European Integration, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.

4 Scott, Joanne and Trubeck, David M., ‘Mind the Gap: Law and New Approaches to Governance in the European Union’, European Law Journal, 8 (2002), pp. 118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Sabel, Charles F. and Zeitlin, Jonathan, ‘Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the EU’, European Law Journal, 14: 3 (2008), pp. 271327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cf. Scharpf, F., Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, at pp. 2 and 6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Majone, Dilemmas, p. 44.

8 Wallace, Helen and Wallace, William, ‘Overview: The European Union, Politics and Policy-Making’, in Jørgensen, Knud E., Pollack, Mark A. and Rosamond, Ben (eds), The Handbook of European Union Politics, New York, Sage, 2007, pp. 339–58Google Scholar.

9 Majone, Dilemmas, p. 47.

10 Majone, Dilemmas, pp. 46–51; Tallberg, Jonas, ‘Delegation to Supranational Institutions: Why, How, and With What Consequences?’, West European Politics, 25: 1 (2003), pp. 2346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Coen, David and Thatcher, Mark, ‘The New Governance of Markets and Non-Majoritarian Regulators’, Governance, 18: 3 (2005), pp. 329–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 330–1.

11 Scott and Trubeck, ‘Mind the Gap’.

12 Hix, Simon, The Political System of the European Union, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, at pp. 52–3Google Scholar.

13 Scott and Trubeck, ‘Mind the Gap’, pp. 2–3.

14 Ibid., p. 2.

15 Manuele Citi and Martin Rhodes, ‘New Forms of Governance in the European Union’, in Knud Erik Jørgensen, Mark A. Pollack and Ben Rosamond (eds), The Handbook of European Union Politics, New York, Sage (2007), pp. 463–82.

16 Cf. Scott and Trubeck, ‘Mind the Gap’, pp. 3–6.

17 Wallace and Wallace, ‘Overview: The European Union’, p. 349.

18 Sabel and Zeitlin, ‘Learning from Difference’; and Alberta M. Sbragia, ‘Distributed Governance: The Changing Ecology of the European Union’, in B. Kohler-Koch and F. Larat (eds), Efficient and Democratic Governance in Multi-Level Europe, CONNEX Report Series, Vol. 9, 2008, pp. 339–55.

19 Pitkin, Hanna F., ‘Representation and Democracy: Uneasy Alliance’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27: 3 (2004), pp. 335–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 335; cf. also Runciman, David, ‘The Paradox of Political Representation’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 15: 1 (2007), pp. 93114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 See Saward, M., ‘The Representative Claim’, Contemporary Political Theory, 5: 3 (2006), pp. 297318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

22 Plotke, David, ‘Representation is Democracy’, Constellations, 4: 1 (1997), pp. 1934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 David M. Farrell and Roger Scully, Representing Europe's Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the Failure of Parliamentary Representation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.

24 See R. Bellamy, D. Castiglione and J. Shaw, Making European Citizens: Civic Inclusion in a Transnational Context, Houndmills, Palgrave, 2006, for an overview of this and related issues.

25 Hix, Political System, pp. 27–71.

26 Majone, Dilemmas, p. 47.

27 Ibid., p. 48.

28 Ibid.

29 Kohler-Koch, Beate, ‘Civil Society and EU Democracy: “Astroturf” Representation?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17: 1 (2010), pp. 100–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 European Commission, European Governance: A White Paper, p. 8, [emphasis added].

31 Dryzek, J. and Niemer, S., ‘Discursive Representation’, American Political Science Review, 102: 1 (2008), pp. 481–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 481.

32 Simon Hix, ‘The European Union as a Polity (I)’, in Knud Erik Jørgensen, Mark A. Pollack and Ben Rosamond (eds), The Handbook of European Union Politics, New York, Sage, 2007, pp. 141–58: at 145–9.

33 European Commission, European Governance: A White Paper, pp. 16–17.

34 Ibid., p. 17.

35 Ibid.

36 Kohler-Koch, B. and Finke, B., ‘The Institutional Shaping of EU–Society Relations: A Contribution to Democracy via Participation?’, Journal of Civil Society, 3: 3 (2007), pp. 205–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and B. Kohler-Koch, ‘Does Participatory Governance Hold its Promises?’, in B. Kohler-Koch and F. Larat (eds), Efficient and Democratic Governance in Multi-Level Europe, CONNEX Report Series, Vol. 9, 2008, pp. 265–95, at p. 275.

37 European Commission, European Governance: A White Paper, p. 34.

38 Smismans, S., ‘New Modes of Governance and the Participatory Myth’, West European Politics, 31 (2008), pp. 880–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Coen, D., ‘Empirical and Theoretical Studies in EU Lobbying’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14: 3 (2007), p. 335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 S. Kröger, ‘Nothing but Consultation: The Place of Organised Civil Society in EU Policy-Making across Policies’, European Governance Papers, EUROGOV No. C-08-03, 2008, at http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-connex-C-08-03.pdf.

41 Coen, ‘Empirical and Theoretical Studies in EU Lobbying’, pp. 335–6.

42 Broscheid, A. and Coen, D., ‘Insider and Outsider Lobbying of the European Commission: An Informational Model’, European Union Politics, 4 (2003), pp. 165–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Hunold, C., ‘Green Political Theory and the European Union: The Case for a Non-Integrated Civil Society’, Environmental Politics, 14: 3 (2005), pp. 324–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Coen and Thatcher, ‘New Governance’, p. 331.

45 Fabio Franchino, ‘Delegation in the European Union: Debates and Research Agenda’, in D. Braun and B. Gilardi (eds), Delegation in Contemporary Democracies, London, Routledge, 2006, pp. 216–38.

46 Cf. Hanna F. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967; and also Dario Castiglione and Mark Warren, ‘Rethinking Democratic Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues’, paper delivered at the Conference on Rethinking Democratic Representation, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia, 2006.

47 Cf. Dietmar Braun and Bruno Gilardi, ‘Introduction’, in Dietmar Braun and Bruno Gilardi (eds), Delegation in Contemporary Democracies, London, Routledge, 2006, pp. 1–23, at pp. 4–11; and K. Strøm, W. C. Muller and T. Bergman, ‘The (Moral) Hazards of Parliamentary Democracy’, in Braun and Gilardi, Delegation in Contemporary Democracies, pp. 27–51, at pp. 32–3.

48 Majone, Dilemmas, pp. 64–7.

49 Coen and Thatcher, ‘New Governance’, pp. 233 and 236.

50 Ibid.

51 Cf. Adrienne Héritier, ‘Managing Regulatory Developments in Rail’, in D. Coen and A. Héritier (eds), Redefining Regulatory Regimes: Utilities in Europe, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2005; Thatcher, Mark and Sweet, Alec Stone, ‘Theory and Practice of Delegation to Non-Majoritarian Institutions’, West European Politics, 25: 1 (2002), pp. 122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 5–7; and Coen and Thatcher, ‘New Governance’, p. 334.

52 Cf. Majone, Dilemmas.

53 Edmund Burke, ‘Speech to the Electors of Bristol’ (1774), in I. Hampshire-Monk (ed.), The Political Philosophy of Edmund Burke, Harlow, Longman, 1987, pp. 108–10.

54 Cf. Coen and Thatcher, ‘New Governance’.

55 Fossum, J. E. and Trenz, H-J., ‘The EU's Fledging Society: From Deafening Silence to Critical Choice in European Constitution-Making’, Journal of Civil Society, 2: 1 (2006), pp. 5777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see also Kohler-Koch, Beate, ‘The Three Worlds of European Civil Society – What Role for Civil Society for What Kind of Europe?’, Policy and Society, 28: 1 (2009), pp. 4757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Kohler-Koch, ‘Civil Society and EU Democracy’.

57 Kröger, S., ‘The End of Democracy as We Know It? The Legitimacy Deficits of Bureaucratic Social Policy Governance’, European Integration, 29: 5 (2007), pp. 565–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Smismans, ‘New Modes of Governance’, pp. 884–90.

59 Kohler-Koch, ‘Civil Society and EU Democracy’.

60 L. Lebessis and J. Paterson, ‘Developing New Modes of Governance’, Working Paper of the Forward Studies Unit, Luxembourg, European Commission, 2000, at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/cdp/working-paper/nouveaux_modes_gouvernance_en.pdf, p. 27.

61 Citi and Rhodes, ‘New Forms of Governance’ pp. 468–72.

62 Kröger, ‘Nothing but Consultation’, and ‘The End of Democracy as We Know It?’.

63 Pitkin, Concept of Representation.

64 Ibid., p. 114.

65 Weale, A., Democratic Citizenship and the European Union, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2005, pp. 130–5Google Scholar.

66 Pitkin, Concept of Representation, pp. 112–43.

67 Ibid., p. 121.

68 Ibid., p. 126.

69 Ibid., p. 125.

70 For a discussion of the issues of representation and governance in a more national context, see David Judge, Representation: Theory and Practice in Britain, London, Routledge, 1999, ch. 6.

71 For the general issue of the benefits of the democratic process, and the consequences of their absence in those mechanisms that seek to provide democratic ‘output’ without an appropriate democratic ‘input’, see Bellamy, R., ‘Democracy Without Democracy? Can the EU's Democratic “Outputs” be Separated from the Democratic “Inputs” Provided by Competitive Parties and Majority Rule?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17: 1 (2010), pp. 219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.