Why democracy? Institutions of government and others must meet conditions of legitimacy. Why? and what are they? what are principles of legitimacy, like the principle of subsidiarity? and how does democracy fit in a theory of legitimacy? The paper surveys what it takes to be the seven most important advantages of democratic government: civil and political rights, more extensive opportunities for people to engage in public affairs, responsiveness to the expressed preferences of the people, stability, peaceful transfer of power, loyalty and solidarity. It then considers the role of legitimation in securing these advantages. These reflection lead to the question whether other regimes can secure the same advantages? And more importantly: given that all democratic regime rely also on non-democratic institutions, how are we to debate questions like how much democracy is needed? A question which arises within a single regime and in the interaction between several, say national and international, regimes.
An interest in unravelling the issues that concern the development of Europeanisation is recurrent in the work of the Barcelona based political scientist. In the widest sense, this book is concerned with the so-called "Democratic Deficit" in the construction of Europe. And it does this dealing with what the European state parties say regarding integration in the Old World. The starting rationale in the conception of the book is perceptive. Is the European Union facing a situation in which the principal problem is the insufficient degree of democracy? ; Peer reviewed
The recent student and staff protests in Amsterdam and at other Dutch universities have brought to light fundamental disagreements about the future of the Dutch university. Many students and staff members of Dutch universities have argued that the level of democratic decisionmaking about central policy issues in universities should be increased. But what can democracy mean in the context of the contemporary university system? In this contribution we will first briefly sketch the public role of the university. Then we will put forward our main claim, that the Dutch university currently suffers from a triple democratic deficit: in the relation between society and the university, in the relation between university administration and the academic community, and in the relation between the academic community and society. We can only make progress by considering these three problems of democratic legitimation in their mutual relations.
In this paper we study the existence of a democratic deficit in intermunicipal cooperation in the Netherlands and the effect of the structure of intermunicipal cooperation on democratic quality. We study both direct effects and indirect effects through the cultural climate of cooperation. Rival hypotheses from monocentric (Regional Reform) and polycentric (New Regionalist) theories are put to the test using data from all Dutch municipalities. Our findings are mixed. In terms of a democratic deficit, the general conclusion is that, as far as the representative institutions are concerned, there is little evidence of a systematic deficit. Citizens and organizations are however to a large degree dependent on their representatives to have any influence in IMCs. With regard to the effects of structural complexity, our findings are mixed. Both rival theories find only limited support in the data. For the legal regime, we find weak support for the monocentric position.
Analizamos el difuso marco institucional de la Unión Europea y su inherente déficit democrático, junto a la hegemonía de las prescripciones neoliberales en sus instituciones, siguiendo el concepto de "financiarización", para estudiar las limitaciones de la Unión en materia de política exterior. Estas limitaciones convierten la capacidad exterior de la UE en un instrumento político débil, descoordinado e instrumental (WUI). Esto es particularmente relevante en la región del Oriente Próximo y el Norte de África, que constituye un marco analítico para estudiar la hipótesis WUI. Para entender el déficit democrático de la Unión y la financiarización, estudiamos las fuentes de legitimación directa e indirecta que dejan a la ciudadanía europea en una posición secundaria y subordinada, socavando la legitimación democrática en la UE. ; We analyse how the European Union's rather undefined institutional framework, the democratic deficit inherent in its institutions and the hegemony of neoliberal prescriptions expressed in the concept of "financialisation" are limiting EU's capacity of external action. These limitations are becoming the European foreign policy into a weak, uncoordinated and instrumental (WUI) policy instrument. This is particularly observable in the MENA region, especially during and after the so called "Arab Spring", which constitutes a powerful analytical framework to validate the WUI hypothesis. In order to understand the EU's democratic deficit and financialisation, we look at the sources of direct and indirect legitimation that leave European citizenship in a secondary and subordinate position, undermining the sources of democratic legitimacy in the EU.
This publication is the outcome of a project, run by the UCL European Institute in cooperation with the European Commission Representation in London entitled "Reconnect: Citizens, institutions and democracy after the Eurozone crisis". ; -- The democratic deficit, social justice and the Eurozone crisis, Richard Bellamy -- Democratic accountability for a monetary union, Pavlos Eleftheriadis -- Solidarity, democracy and the Eurocrisis, Ulrike Guérot -- Of bread, games and gladiators why magic bullets will not placate eu citizens and why we should nurture a European demoicracy instead, Kalypso Nicolaidis -- The democratic legitimacy of the EU: is federalism the solution or the problem?, Francis Cheneval -- The Eurodividend, Philippe Van Parijs -- Federalism, pan-European Parliament, and against Article 50: a comment on the EU's democratic deficit, Andrew Walton
Demokratični deficit je že več desetletji stalnica akademskih razprav o Evropski uniji. Vsebina raziskovanj se je skozi čas bistveno spremenila, ohranja pa se temeljna misel, da se demokracija v Evropski uniji sooča z velikimi težavami. Zaupanje Evropejcev v Evropsko unijo je nizko, podobno velja tudi za občutek povezanosti z njenimi organi, zato je očitno, da so spremembe nujno potrebne. Z vsako večjo reformo pride do sprememb, ki bistveno vplivajo na razmerja moči med evropskimi institucijami in na njihov odnos do Evropejcev. Najvidnejše spremembe v zadnjih desetletjih so krepitev moči Evropskega parlamenta, ki se je razvil v vplivno institucijo, uvajanje institutov neposredne demokracije in druge reforme, ki jih je prinesla Lizbonska pogodba. Napredek pa je, žal, na drugi strani uravnotežen s pojavom mehanizmov in institutov, ki demokratična varovala zaobidejo. To so na primer ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti kot odziv na dolžniško krizo evroobmočja in v velikem delu sploh ne spadajo med formalne pristojnosti Evropske unije. V svojem magistrskem delu sem analiziral in kritično ovrednotil procese, ki so bistveno vplivali na ključne organe Evropske unije, njihove spreminjajoče se medsebojne odnose ter predvidene učinke aktualnih reform. Pregledal sem širok izbor literature preteklih desetletji in predstavil različna teoretska izhodišča, na podlagi katerih avtorji skušajo opredeliti in analizirati demokratični deficit in z njim povezane tematike. Ključna ugotovitev mojega magistrskega mojega dela ni le, da so aktualne reforme premalo ambiciozne in demokratičnega deficita ne morejo odpraviti, ampak predvsem da demokratični deficit ni le kategorija akademskih razprav, temveč je zelo močno politično orodje in odločilno usmerja razvoj Evropske unije. Demokratični deficit je zato stalnica evropske demokracije in ne more nikoli biti povsem odpravljen, saj se ob razvoju Evropske unije vedno znova pojavlja v drugačnih oblikah, ki terjajo nove reforme in kritične analize akademikov, intelektualcev, državljanov, politikov in vseh drugih zainteresiranih strani. ; The democratic deficit has been a constant of all academic research on the European Union for the past few decades. While the scope of the research has changed considerably, the basic idea remains the same – democracy in the European Union is in serious trouble. Europeans' trust in the EU is low and the same goes for their connection with European institutions, therefore it is clear that changes are required. Every major reform alters the balance of power between European institutions and their relationship with European citizens. The most visible changes of the past decades are: the empowerment of the European parliament that has been transformed into an influential institution, the introduction of instruments of direct democracy and other reforms brought upon by the Treaty of Lisbon. Unfortunately, progress is balanced out by the emergence of various mechanisms and instruments that surpass all democratic checks and balances. For example, the measures that were adopted as a response to the European debt crisis were mostly not based on formal competencies of the EU. In my Master's thesis I analysed and critically evaluated the processes that crucially influenced the most significant European institutions, their ever-changing relationships and the anticipated effects of the current reforms. I examined a substantial body of literature from past decades and presented diverse theoretical starting points that the authors use to define and analyse the democratic deficit and related topics. The most significant finding of my Master's thesis is not only that the current reforms lack ambition and cannot eliminate the democratic deficit, but also that the democratic deficit is more than just a category of academic research and can often act as a strong political tool that decisively influences the development of the European Union. Therefore, the democratic deficit is a permanent element of European democracy and can never be fully eliminated as it always reappears in new forms that require constant reforms and critical analysis by academia, intellectuals, citizens, politicians and other stakeholders.
This deliverable analyses the impact of the European Ombudsman in the European Union's democratic life through his power to investigate cases of maladministration committed by European institutions. Accordingly, this deliverable is structured as follows. The first part is devoted to explore the creation of the European Ombudsman, the rationale behind his establishment, and the development of this 'personalised' body. The report then moves to an assessment of the European Ombudsman's investigative powers, coupled with a specific focus on the relations with his national peers. This section then proceeds by highlighting quantitative data on the complaints lodged to the European Ombudsman since his creation. The second part verifies whether the European Ombudsman constitutes a case of democratic empowerment. Indeed, an assessment of the European Ombudsman's body of decisions shows that he is more and more acting not only as a 'watchdog' of European institutions but even of European agencies. The third part provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the personal, geographical origin and subject matter of complaints complemented by the targets of inquiries. In particular, citizens of some States are more active than other in submitting a complaint, the Commission is still the most targeted institution, while the major allegation of maladministration pertains to access to documents and lack of transparency. The fourth part investigates possible barriers that European citizens might encounter in lodging a complaint to the European Ombudsman. In this respect, considering the lack of locus standi before the European Ombudsman and the fact that the proceedings is free of charge and can be conducted in the language chosen by the applicant, we argue that there are no barriers to be overcome. The fifth part, through an assessment of the few cases decided by the European Court of Justice and considering the specific relationship the European Ombudsman has with the Parliament, seeks to position him with the so-called ...
This article attempts to provide a critical understanding of the dual signification of "precarity". It explores what "precarity" as a concept may potentially offer to studies of the changing contemporary political economy of migration. It discusses shifting trends in global migration and point to tendencies for a possible convergence between "South" and "North", "East" and "West". Based on a review of current advances in research, it discusses, with reference to the classical work of Karl Polanyi, the potential for a contemporary "countermovement" which would challenge the precarity of migrants. Bringing forward the issue of the "space for civil society" the article addresses a still lingering democratic deficit in the global governance of migration. ; Policy Implications The article is relevant to policymakers, trade unions and civil society organizations. It contributes to the understanding of policy making processes in emerging multilevel global governance and focuses on issues of precarization, migration, and the implementation and accountability of human, migrant and labour rights.
One of the contributions of sociological approaches to the academic debates about the European Union (EU) democratic deficit has been to focus on the social acceptance of the EU. Nowadays, fostering a sense of belonging to the EU becomes one of the strategies to fix the EU democratic deficit. Therefore, sociological approaches have now to evaluate the adequacy of these EU policies. Our paper aims at furthering sociological approaches by taking into account citizens' perceptions and European institutions' policies engaging with these representations. The vision of citizenship promoted by EU institutions through different policies is very often reduced to its instrumental dimension. The topic of 'freedom of movement' proves to be a good case study. On the one side, EU institutions often use it to enhance the feeling of belonging. On the other side, the study of citizens' representations of the EU show that freedom of movement alone, even when citizens exercise this right, is not enough to support a feeling of belonging. This (partial) disconnection between EU institutions' policies on citizenship and citizenship's perceptions falls short in fixing the democratic deficit. The empirical basis for this research is twofold. It is based on the analysis of Commission's discourses of the 'European Year of Citizen' (2013-2014) and its apparitions on social networks. These analyses are then confronted with citizens' representations collected through collective interviews organised in Brussels. This move to the micro-level deepens the understanding of EU citizenship by juxtaposing the EU institutions' strategies with the analysis of citizens' perceptions.
One of the contributions of sociological approaches to the academic debates about the European Union (EU) democratic deficit has been to focus on the social acceptance of the EU. Nowadays, fostering a sense of belonging to the EU becomes one of the strategies to fix the EU democratic deficit. Therefore, sociological approaches have now to evaluate the adequacy of these EU policies. Our paper aims at furthering sociological approaches by taking into account citizens' perceptions and European institutions' policies engaging with these representations. The vision of citizenship promoted by EU institutions through different policies is very often reduced to its instrumental dimension. The topic of 'freedom of movement' proves to be a good case study. On the one side, EU institutions often use it to enhance the feeling of belonging. On the other side, the study of citizens' representations of the EU show that freedom of movement alone, even when citizens exercise this right, is not enough to support a feeling of belonging. This (partial) disconnection between EU institutions' policies on citizenship and citizenship's perceptions falls short in fixing the democratic deficit. The empirical basis for this research is twofold. It is based on the analysis of Commission's discourses of the 'European Year of Citizen' (2013-2014) and its apparitions on social networks. These analyses are then confronted with citizens' representations collected through collective interviews organised in Brussels. This move to the micro-level deepens the understanding of EU citizenship by juxtaposing the EU institutions' strategies with the analysis of citizens' perceptions.
One of the contributions of sociological approaches to the academic debates about the European Union (EU) democratic deficit has been to focus on the social acceptance of the EU. Nowadays, fostering a sense of belonging to the EU becomes one of the strategies to fix the EU democratic deficit. Therefore, sociological approaches have now to evaluate the adequacy of these EU policies. Our paper aims at furthering sociological approaches by taking into account citizens' perceptions and European institutions' policies engaging with these representations. The vision of citizenship promoted by EU institutions through different policies is very often reduced to its instrumental dimension. The topic of 'freedom of movement' proves to be a good case study. On the one side, EU institutions often use it to enhance the feeling of belonging. On the other side, the study of citizens' representations of the EU show that freedom of movement alone, even when citizens exercise this right, is not enough to support a feeling of belonging. This (partial) disconnection between EU institutions' policies on citizenship and citizenship's perceptions falls short in fixing the democratic deficit. The empirical basis for this research is twofold. It is based on the analysis of Commission's discourses of the 'European Year of Citizen' (2013-2014) and its apparitions on social networks. These analyses are then confronted with citizens' representations collected through collective interviews organised in Brussels. This move to the micro-level deepens the understanding of EU citizenship by juxtaposing the EU institutions' strategies with the analysis of citizens' perceptions.
Although Berle and Means's work was intended to redirect the governance of corporate affairs away from furthering private cupidity and toward advancing public policy, their insights have done more harm than good; they have tended to reinforce the primacy of private cupidity or, perhaps more accurately, allowed subsequent theorists to prefer the pursuit of private cupidity by equating it with the development of public policy. This is not only unfortunate, but also unnecessary. Although Berle and Means's The Modern Corporation forms the bedrock of the prevailing paradigm in corporate law and governance, it also contains some very suggestive materials from which to construct an alternative and more democratic way of proceeding that actually subverts and transforms the established model. This Article seeks both to celebrate The Modern Corporation, but also to lament the enduring influence of its received understanding on corporate law scholarship and practice. If The Modern Corporation is to avoid becoming "defunct" and remain relevant to contemporary ideas and practice, it must be more as a conceptual corrective and less as a traditional prop for the prevailing paradigm of corporate governance. After offering a different and more democratic inspired reading of The Modern Corporation the Article examines how it might be feasible to move from the present situation of corpocracy to a future milieu of democracy. Finally, the Article lays out the main features of a democratic agenda for reforming corporate governance.
