Introduction -- An Origin Story Establishing Public Funding for European Political Parties -- Rising Subsidies and Creative Accounting The Income of European Political Parties and Foundations -- Ghost Offices and Artificial Membership Eurosceptic Involvement in the Funding Regime -- Changing the Rules of the Game The Evolution of the Finance Regime -- The Regulatory Straitjacket The Impact on Functioning of European Political Parties -- Conclusions Funding Democracy?
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
AbstractDoes Europe's transnational party system contribute to EU democracy? Existing debates on this issue have conventionally revolved around conflicting assumptions on the feasibility of supranational democracy in general, rather than examining the party system's structure as it is set up and regulated. In this paper we evaluate to what extent the transnational party system contributes to the democratic qualities of the EU by studying the regulatory framework for European political parties. We establish an analytical framework based on studies of party system governance, and focus on two specific characteristics: the contestability of the Europarty system and the extent to which it promotes citizen participation in European political parties. Our analysis demonstrates that the governance structure impedes rather than bolsters the democratic potential of Europarties, since the rules work to prevent new parties from entering the party system, and fail to provide incentives for a more active political participation of European citizens.
Malgré les nouveaux défis tels que le changement climatique et la numérisation, les organisations mondiales et régionales ont récemment traversé des périodes de turbulence en raison du manque d'adhésion de plusieurs de leurs États membres. À côté de cette crise du multilatéralisme, la pandémie de COVID-19 semble désormais remettre en cause la valeur ajoutée des organisations internationales en ce qui concerne plus spécifiquement les questions de gouvernance mondiale. Dans le présent article, nous analysons ce double défi auquel plusieurs organisations sont confrontées et comparons leurs manières de gérer la crise en examinant leur contexte institutionnel et politique, leur structure de gouvernance et leur comportement pendant la pandémie jusqu'en juin 2020. Plus précisément, nous allons tenter d'expliquer les réponses différentes et fragmentées de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, de l'Union européenne et du Fonds monétaire international/Banque mondiale. Afin de comprendre les problèmes anciens et nouveaux que ces organisations internationales tentent de résoudre, nous soutenons ici que le niveau d'autonomie vis-à-vis des États membres est déterminant pour comprendre la politique de gestion des crises. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens En tant qu'organismes intergouvernementaux, les organisations internationales ont besoin de l'accord de leurs États membres. Étant donné qu'elles ont aussi besoin de fonds pour assurer leur fonctionnement, différents degrés d'autonomie sont également importants pour réagir aux défis qui apparaissent, tels que la pandémie de COVID-19. Le potentiel des organisations internationales est limité, mais grâce à des initiatives proactives et audacieuses, elles peuvent profiter de la crise pour surmonter en partie les contraintes institutionnelles et politiques.
Despite new challenges like climate change and digitalization, global and regional organizations recently went through turbulent times due to a lack of support from several of their member states. Next to this crisis of multilateralism, the COVID-19 pandemic now seems to question the added value of international organizations for addressing global governance issues more specifically. This article analyses this double challenge that several organizations are facing and compares their ways of managing the crisis by looking at their institutional and political context, their governance structure, and their behaviour during the pandemic until June 2020. More specifically, it will explain the different and fragmented responses of the World Health Organization, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. With the aim of understanding the old and new problems that these international organizations are trying to solve, this article argues that the level of autonomy vis-a-vis the member states is crucial for understanding the politics of crisis management. Points for practitioners As intergovernmental bodies, international organizations require authorization by their member states. Since they also need funding for their operations, different degrees of autonomy also matter for reacting to emerging challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential for international organizations is limited, though through proactive and bold initiatives, they can seize the opportunity of the crisis and partly overcome institutional and political constraints.
