Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhile the Lisbon Treaty has been heralded as victory for the European Parliament, the crisis‐related reforms of the European Union's economic governance regime are commonly being considered to have empowered governments and supranational institutions – such as the Commission and ECB – at the expense of the EP and national parliaments. This article argues that the picture is more nuanced than suggested by the conventional wisdom: legitimacy‐seeking and interinstitutional bargaining arguments, which have been applied effectively to account for the expansion of the EP's power in the past, highlight the conditions under which the EP's struggle for more institutional power is either met with success (as in the case of the single supervisory mechanism) or faces virtually insurmountable obstacles (as in the case of the Troika and the European Stability Mechanism).

Representative democracy has been accorded constitutional status with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The European Parliament (EP) and the history of its empowerment embody this constitutional principle and its gradual institutionalization. To shed light on the EP's empowerment and the institutionalization of the principle of representative democracy in the EU, this article adopts a 'domain of application' approach. Instead of presenting rival theoretical approaches competing for explanatory superiority, the article shows that a more comprehensive picture of the EP's empowerment can be obtained by distinguishing between three types of institutional choice and associated explanations. Institutional creation, institutional change and institutional use are introduced as different types of institutional choice, and it is argued that each type gives primacy to particular explanatory mechanisms and dynamics to analyze the EP's empowerment. Adapted from the source document.

Deliberative approaches build on a large body of normative & positive political theory, which highlights the contribution of argumentative interaction for the coherence of a polity, its social acceptance & its normative acceptability. The purpose of this overview is to show the richness of deliberative approaches in integration studies & to stimulate researchers to apply them to empirical work. Deliberative approaches are a promising alternative to more established theoretical approaches. Their comparative strength is that they provide normative guidance to integration studies, open up a new research agenda for the analysis of interaction in European politics, & offer innovative interpretations for understanding the institutional design & the political process of the EU. References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractIn light of the German government's long‐held preference against EU‐wide fiscal burden‐sharing, a hallmark of the Euro crisis, its support for an EU‐wide debt‐instrument during the COVID‐19 pandemic constitutes a dramatic policy U‐turn. To make sense of the 'Berlin puzzle', we develop a theoretical mechanism that explores why an initially reluctant German government heeded to the call for transnational fiscal solidarity: First, to avoid a 'common bad' of a large‐scale economic contraction, proposals for an EU‐wide fiscal response became a political imperative. Second, the successful framing of the crisis as 'nobody's fault' rendered the call for European solidarity as the dominant standard of legitimacy to which all governments subscribed. Third, governments whose preferences were not aligned with this standard faced mounting normative pressure and isolation. As a result, governments changed their positions, but not their preferences. We probe this mechanism by carrying out a process‐tracing analysis of the German government's fiscal policy U‐turn in the crucial months preceding the adoption of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) recovery plan in July 2020. The paper contributes to the growing literature on fiscal burden‐sharing in the EU by demonstrating when and how member states can change their stance on transnational fiscal burden‐sharing.