Community and autonomy: Multi‐level policy‐making in the European Union

Scharpf, Fritz W.

doi:10.1080/13501769408406956

Cited by 221 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This surge and the concomitant transformation of the legislative process have refuted both the concerns voiced and the expectations raised when codecision was introduced. Contrary to concerns about procedural complexity and potential gridlock (Scharpf 1994), codecision has proved to be highly efficient: more than 1200 legislative acts were adopted between 1993, p. 4, 2012b; the average duration of the codecision procedure has decreased (European Parliament 2012b, p. 6); and the EU has responded swiftly to urgent policy-challenges. Yet, contrary to hopes for more open and inclusive supranational law-making, the routine use of EAs has insulated de facto decision-making from the electorate and rank-and-file parliamentarians (Lord 2013).…”

Section: Early Agreement As Informal and Secluded Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Informal Politics of Codecision: Introducing a New Data Set on Early Agreements in the European Union

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS), created in 1992 and directed by Brigid Laffan since September 2013, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research and to promote work on the major issues facing the process of integration and European society.The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes and projects, and a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration and the expanding membership of the European Union. European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO) Working Paper SeriesThe European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO) was launched in the spring of 2006 as an independent and interdisciplinary academic organization. In 2008, EUDO became a fully-integrated part of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS). Its declared goals are: to produce a permanent and periodic assessment of democratic practices within the EU; to serve as a forum to exchange ideas and good practices; and to be a resource for policy-makers, academics and EU citizens.EUDO focuses its activities around the themes of the four EUDO Observatories, which form the backbone of EUDO and constitute its main organizing principle. They are responsible for data and documentation gathering and are directed by EUI internal professors in conjunction with external EUDO experts. Each Observatory coordinates specific research projects. The four Observatories are: the Observatory on Public Opinion, Political Elites and the Media, the Observatory on Political Parties and Representation, the Observatory on Institutional Reform and Change, and the Observatory on Citizenship.The EUDO working paper series started in December 2009 and aims at disseminating high-quality research on the above-mentioned issues. Not only the directors of the Observatories, but as well EUDO fellows and external experts as well as other scholars and practitioners are welcome to submit their work to the series. AbstractOne of the most important developments in the history of the EU's codecision procedure has been the steep rise in "early agreements" since 1999, and the shift of legislative decision-making from public inclusive to informal secluded arenas. As part of a wider research project on "The Informal Politics of Codecision", this working paper launches a new data set on all 797 legislative files concluded under codecision between 1999 and 2009. The paper discusses the process of data collection and coding; explains and justifies the operationalisation and measurement of key variables; and elaborates on the methodological challenges of capturing informal political processes. The paper offers rich descriptive statistics on the scale and scope of early agreements across time, and explores how key characteristics of the legislative file (legal nature, policy area, complexity, salience, policy type, duration) and of the main negotiators (priorities of the Cou...

show abstract

Section: Early Agreement As Informal and Secluded Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Informal Politics of Codecision: Introducing a New Data Set on Early Agreements in the European Union

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Widely studied in the context of European integration (e.g. Hooghe & Marks 2001, Scharpf 1994), the phenomenon is also familiar to political economists and critical geographers, sometimes under alternative labels such as 'multi-tiered governance', 'rescaling' or 'glocalization' (see Harmes 2006: 725-726, Marks & Hooghe 2003.…”

Section: How Multilevel Governance Affects the Clash Of Capitalismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond methodological nationalism: how multilevel governance affects the clash of capitalisms

Callaghan¹

2010

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article challenges the methodological nationalism of the convergence debate by arguing that multilevel governance destabilizes the coalitions thought to underpin liberal and coordinated varieties of capitalism. Many attempts to explain how coherent production regimes emerge and persist assume that some dominant social bloc ensures coherence by imposing its interests across all relevant regulatory subspheres. This assumption is not tenable in systems of multilevel governance. Three features of multilevel governance diminish the scope for a homogenous social bloc to ensure a tight coupling of complementary regulations. First, the incentives for interest groups to unite at the transnational level vary across regulatory subspheres, because the transnational scope of legislation adds a "constrain-thy-neighbour" dimension to actors' decision-making that may either strengthen or weaken interest group cohesion. Second, the strategic opportunities for playing multilevel games vary across subspheres. Third, the institutional set-up at the supranational level of Europe's multilevel polity reduces the capacity of state actors to impose coherence from above. To illustrate these claims, the article draws on case studies of EU company law initiatives concerning takeovers and worker participation.

show abstract

“…), et « par le bas » (participation citoyenne, « Europe des régions », etc.). En cela, questionner les relations transfrontalières, en Europe, permet de revenir sur la problématique de l'État, face à la montée en puissance de nouveaux acteurs, à travers des formes énoncées comme constitutives d'une « nouvelle » gouvernance 1 locale située dans un rapport singulier à la construction européenne (Scharpf, 1994 ;Balme, 1997). De la sorte, je m'intéresse à la dimension de l'Europe « par le bas », trop souvent négligée dans les travaux de sociologie politique -qui privilégient généralement une perspective top-down 2 .…”

Section: Nouveau Répertoire De L'action Publique Dans Les Espaces Frounclassified

La gouvernance transfrontalière. Nouveau répertoire de l’action publique dans les espaces frontaliers France-Allemagne

Hamman¹

2003

questionsdecommunication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community and autonomy: Multi‐level policy‐making in the European Union

Cited by 221 publications

References 12 publications

The Informal Politics of Codecision: Introducing a New Data Set on Early Agreements in the European Union

The Informal Politics of Codecision: Introducing a New Data Set on Early Agreements in the European Union

Beyond methodological nationalism: how multilevel governance affects the clash of capitalisms

La gouvernance transfrontalière. Nouveau répertoire de l’action publique dans les espaces frontaliers France-Allemagne

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About