Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-22T21:32:47.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimacy in the multilevel European polity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Fritz W. Scharpf
Fritz W. Scharpf*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Paulstrasse, Cologne, Germany
*
E-mail: scharpf@mpifg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To be at the same time effective and liberal, governments must normally be able to count on voluntary compliance – which, in turn, depends on the support of socially shared legitimacy beliefs. In Western constitutional democracies, such beliefs are derived from the distinct, but coexistent traditions of ‘republican’ and ‘liberal’ political philosophy. Judged by these criteria, the European Union – when considered by itself – appears as a thoroughly liberal polity which, however, lacks all republican credentials. But this view (which seems to structure the debates about the ‘European democratic deficit’) ignores the multilevel nature of the European polity, where the compliance of citizens is requested, and needs to be legitimated, by member states, whereas the Union appears as a ‘government of governments’, which is entirely dependent on the voluntary compliance of its member states. What matters primarily, therefore, is the compliance–legitimacy relationship between the Union and its member states – which, however, is normatively constrained by the basic compliance–legitimacy relationship between member governments and their constituents. Given the high consensus requirements of European legislation, member governments could, and should, be able to assume political responsibility for European policies in which they had a voice, and to justify them in ‘communicative discourses’ in the national public space. That is not necessarily so for ‘non-political’ policy choices imposed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). By enforcing its ‘liberal’ programme of liberalization and deregulation, the ECJ may presently be undermining the ‘republican’ bases of member-state legitimacy. Where that is the case, open non-compliance is a present danger, and political controls of judicial legislation may be called for.

Keywords

EUlegitimacyrepublicanismliberalismECJ

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 173 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alter, K. (2001), Establishing the Supremacy of European law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T.Listhaug, O. (2005), Losers’s Consent. Elections and Democratic Legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Argument: voting rights. Florida Law Review, 41, 443–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristoteles (1989), Politik. Schriften zur Staatstheorie. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von Franz F. Schwarz, Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S. (2005), Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Restructuring between the Nation State and the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartolini, S. (2008), Taking ‘Constitutionalism’ and ‘Legitimacy’ Seriously, Ms. Florence: Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute.Google Scholar
Bellamy, R. (2007), Political Constitutionalism. A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, I. (1958), Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, A. (1962), The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Börzel, T.A., Dudziak, M., Hofmann, T., Panke, D.Sprungk, C. (2007), ‘Why member states do (not) comply with European law’. CES Working Paper 148. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M.Tullock, G. (1962), The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Burkhart, S. (2008), Blockierte Politik. Ursachen und Folgen von ‘Divided Government’ in Deutschland, Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
Caporaso, J.A. (2000), The European Union. Dilemmas of Regional Integration, Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Caporaso, J.A., Tarrow, S. (2008), ‘Polanyi in Brussels: European institutions and the embedding of markets in society’. Paper presented at the APSA 2008 annual meeting, August 28, 2008, Boston.Google Scholar
Cappelletti, M., Seccombe, M.Weiler, J.H.H. (eds) (1985a), Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Cappelletti, M., Seccombe, M.Weiler, J.H.H. (1985b), ‘A general introduction’, in Cappelletti et al., Integration Through Law: Europe and the American Federal Experience, Berlin: DeGruyter, pp. 1–68.Google Scholar
Cicero, M.T. (1995), De re publica, K. Büchner (Hrsg.), Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Cichowski, R.A. (2004), ‘Women’s rights, the European Court, and supranational constitutionalism’, Law & Society Review 38(3): 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1967), Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
de Vreese, C., Schmitt, H. (eds) (2007), ‘A European public sphere: how much of it do we have and how much do we need?’, Connex report series no. 02, Mannheim: University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edin, P.-A.Topel, R. (1997), ‘Wage policy and restructuring: the Swedish labor market since 1960’, in R.B. Freeman, R. Topel and B. Swedenborg (eds), The Welfare State in Transition: Reforming the Swedish Model, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 155–201.Google Scholar
Egle, C.Zohlhöfer, R. (Hg.) (2007), Ende des rot-grünen Projekts. Eine Bilanz der Regierung Schröder 2002–2005, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1998), ‘Introduction’, in J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M.Leiber, S. (2005), Complying with Europe. EU Harmonisation and Soft Law in the Member States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrera, M. (2005), The Boundaries of Welfare. European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, L. (1988), Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, A.Hix, S. (2006), ‘Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: a response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3): 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganghof, S.Genschel, P. (2008a), ‘Taxation and democracy in the EU’, Journal of European Public Policy 15(1): 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganghof, S.Genschel, P. (2008b), ‘Deregulierte Steuerpolitik: Körperschaftsteuerwettbewerb und Einkommensbesteuerung in Europa’, in M. Höpner and A. Schäfer (Hg.), Die politische Ökonomie der europäischen Integration, Frankfurt/M.: Campus, pp. 311–334.Google Scholar
Garrett, G. (1992), ‘International cooperation and institutional choice: the European community’s internal market’, International Organization 46: 533–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, G. (1995), ‘The politics of legal integration in the European Union’, International Organization 49(1): 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genschel, P., Kemmerling, A.Seils, E. (2008), Accelerating Downhill: How the EU Shapes Corporate Tax Competition in the Single Market, Bremen: Ms. Jacobs University.Google Scholar
Greven, M.T. (2000), ‘Can the European Union finally become a democracy?’, in M.T. Greven and L.W. Pauly (eds), Democracy Beyond the State? The European Dilemma and the Emerging Global Order, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 35–62.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1962), Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1992), Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theories, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2008), ‘Hat die Demokratie noch eine epistemische Dimension? Empirische Forschung und normative Theorie’, in J. Habermas, Ach Europa Kleine politische Schriften XI, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 138–191.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A.Soskice, D. (eds) (2001), Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haltern, U. (2007), Europarecht. Dogmatik im Kontext. 2. Auflage, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, C. (2002), Accountability in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemerijck, A., Unger, B.Visser, J. (2000), ‘How small countries negotiate change. Twenty-five years of policy adjustment in Austria, the Netherlands, and Belgium’, in F.W. Scharpf and V.A. Schmidt (eds), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, Vol. II: Diverse Responses to Common Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–263.Google Scholar
Héritier, A. (2003), ‘New modes of governance in Europe: increasing political capacity and policy effectiveness?’, in T.A. Boerzel and R.A. Cichowski (eds), The State of the European Union, Vol. 6: Law, Politics and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Héritier, A.Lehmkuhl, D. (2008), ‘Introduction: the shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance’, Journal of Public Policy 28(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, R., Gerken, L. (2008), ‘Stoppt den Europäischen Gerichtshof’, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 8, 2008, p. 8.Google Scholar
Hix, S. (2008), What’s Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1986), Leviathan: or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Höffe, O. (2002), Demokratie im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. Überarbeitete und aktualisierte Neuausgabe, München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Höpner, M.Schäfer, A. (2007), A New Phase of European Integration: Organized Capitalism in Post-Ricardian Europe. MPIfG discussion paper 2007/4. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.Google Scholar
Höreth, M. (2008), Die Selbstautorisierung des Agenten. Der Europäische Gerichtshof im Vergleich zum US Supreme Court, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Joerges, C.Ghaleigh, N.S. (eds) (2003), Darker Legacies of Law in Europe. The Shadow of National Socialism and Fascism Over Europe and Its Legal Traditions, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1961) (zuerst 1785), Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1966) (zuerst 1797), Metaphysik der Sitten. Einleitung in die Rechtslehre, Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1992) (zuerst 1793), Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis, Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, B.Rittberger, B. (2006), ‘Review article: The “Governance Turn” in EU studies’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44: 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, L.D. (2004), The People Themselves. Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzer, P. (2001), Markets and Moral Regulation. Cultural Changes in the European Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. (2005), ‘The Janus face of Brussels: socialization and everyday decision making in the European Union’, International Organization 59(4): 937–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lübbe-Wolff, G. (2007), ‘Expropriation der Jurisprudenz?’, in C. Engel and W. Schön (Hg.), Das Proprium der Rechtswissenschaft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 282–292.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, N. (1966), Discorsi. Gedanken über Politik und Staatsführung, Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (1984), After Virtue, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (1988), Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mair, P. (2008), ‘Popular democracy and the European Union polity’, in D. Curtin and A. Wille (eds), Meaning and Practice of Accountability in the EU Multi-Level Context, Connex report series no. 07, Mannheim: University of Mannheim, pp. 19–62.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (ed.) (1996), ‘Regulatory legitimacy’, in Regulating Europe, London: Routledge, pp. 284–301.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (1998), ‘Europe’s “democratic deficit”: the question of standards’, European Law Journal 4: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Institutions, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Martinsen, D. (2005), ‘The Europeanization of welfare. The domestic impact of Intra-European social security’, Journal of Common Market Studies 43(5): 1027–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, D. (2009), ‘Extending health care regulation in the European Union – through law and evidence’, West European Politics (in press).Google Scholar
Martinsen, D.Vrangbaek, K. (2008), ‘The Europeanization of health care governance. Implementing the market imperatives of Europe’, Public Administration 86(1): 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, E.Tirole, J. (1999), ‘Unforeseen contingencies and incomplete contracts’, Review of Economic Studies 66(1): 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mény, Y.Surel, Y. (eds) (2002), Democracies and the Populist Challenge, Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelman, F.I. (1989), ‘Conceptions of democracy in American constitutional argument: the case of pornography regulation’, Tennessee Law Review 56(2): 203–304.Google Scholar
Möllers, C. (2008), Die drei Gewalten. Legitimation der Gewaltengliederung in Verfassungsstaat, Europäischer Integration und Internationalisierung, Göttingen: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2002), ‘In defence of the democratic deficit: reassessing legitimacy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A.Sangiovanni, A. (2003), ‘On democracy and “public interest” in the European integration’, in R. Mayntz and W. Streeck (eds), Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie. Innovationen und Blockaden, Frankfurt/M.: Campus, pp. 122–150.Google Scholar
Münch, R. (2008a), Die Konstruktion der europäischen Gesellschaft. Zur Dialektik von transnationaler Integration und nationaler Desintegration, Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
Münch, R. (2008b), ‘Constructing a European society by jurisdiction’, European Law Journal 14(5): 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaidis, K.Howse, R. (eds) (2003), The Federal Vision. Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolaïdis, K.Schmidt, S.K. (2007), ‘Mutual recognition “on trial”: the long road to services liberalization’, Journal of European Public Policy 14: 717–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, C. (1985), The Problem of Political Obligation. A Critique of Liberal Theory, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H.F. (1981), ‘Justice. In relating private and public’, Political Theory 9: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, J.G.A. (1975), The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pollak, J. (2008), ‘Ist eine europäische Identität möglich? Warum wir lernen müssen, Zwiebeln zu lieben’, in C. Joerges, M. Mahlmann and U.K. Preuß (Hrsg.), Schmerzliche Erfahrungen der Vergangenheit’ und der Prozess der Konstitutionalisierung Europas, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preuss, U.K. (1999), ‘National, supranational and international solidarity’, in K. Bayertz (ed.), Solidarity. Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture, Vol. 5, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–292.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1972/1959), Der Gesellschaftsvertrag. Oder die Grundsätze des Staatsrechts. In der verbesserten Übersetzung von H. Denhardt, Stuttgart: Reclam 1769/70.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1988), ‘The joint decision trap. Lessons from German federalism and European integration’, Public Administration 66(3): 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1999), Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (2001), ‘Notes toward a theory of multilevel governing in Europe’, Scandinavian Political Studies 24(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (2008), ‘Community, diversity and autonomy: the challenges of reforming German federalism’, German Politics 17(4), 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W.Schmidt, V.A. (eds) (2000), Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, Vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2004), ‘The European Union: democratic legitimacy in a regional state’, Journal of Common Market Studies 42(4): 975–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2006), Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, S.K. (2007), ‘Mutual recognition as a new mode of governance’, Journal of European Public Policy 14: 667–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Q. (1998), Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Somek, A. (2008), Individualism: An Essay on the Authority of the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. (1992), The Ethics of Authenticity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, R.K. (1986), ‘The politics of blame avoidance’, Journal of Public Policy 6(4): 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, J.H.H. (ed.) (1999a), ‘The autonomy of the community legal order. Through a looking glass’, in The Constitution of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 286–323.Google Scholar
Weiler, J.H.H. (1999b) (ed.) ‘To be a European citizen: eros and civilization’, in The Constitution of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–357.Google Scholar
Weiler, J.H.H. (2003), ‘In defence of the status quo. Europe’s Constitutional Sonderweg’, in J.H.H. Weiler and M. Wind (eds), European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–23.Google Scholar
Weiler, J.H.H.Lockhart, N.J.S. (1995), ‘Taking rights seriously. The European Court and its fundamental rights jurisprudence’, Common Market Law Review 32(1): 51–94 and (3): 579–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollenschläger, F. (2007), Grundfreiheit ohne Markt. Die Herausbildung der Unionsbürgerschaft im unionsrechtlichen Freizügigkeitsregime, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Zürn, M.Joerges, C. (eds) (2005), Law and Governance in Postnational Europe. Compliance Beyond the Nation-State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar