New Modes of Governance in the European Union: A Critical Survey and Analysis

126

The initiatives for regulatory reform known as 'better regulation' have become a priority in the recently reformulated 'growth and jobs' Lisbon agenda of the European Union. But what is better regulation and what can it deliver? In this article, better regulation is identified as a new type of meta-regulation, with its structural and discursive properties. Better regulation discourse has enabled policy-makers to address different objectives in their shifting regulatory reform agendas. The better regulation pendulum has swung between regulatory quantity (or deregulation) and quality across time and space. In terms of structural properties, there is diversity across Europe in terms of actors, contents, and processes, although an embryonic open method of co-ordination is emerging at the EU level. The Barroso Commission and a number of member states have redefined discourse and structure of better regulation to adapt it to the 'growth and jobs' priorities of Lisbon. This redefinition, however, has narrowed the scope, the range of stakeholders, and the ambitions in terms of governance. Diversity, task expansion and better regulation rhetoric make the relationship between this type of meta-regulation, the Lisbon agenda, and, looking at the long-term impact, the dynamics of the regulatory state problematic.

Section: Better Regulation As Meta-regulationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda?

Radaelli¹

2007

126

“…Dehousse 2004;Gornitzka 2006), especially when no alternative modes were available, many other studies have drawn much more critical conclusions (e.g. Citi and Rhodes 2007). Judging by the wide variety of different effectiveness assessments that have been conducted, it would be premature to make definitive statements at this stage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The criticism made by Kohler-Koch and Jachtenfuchs (2004) that the literature on EU governance is fragmented and non-cumulative has been addressed by a stream of reviews (e.g. Citi and Rhodes 2007;Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006;Treib et al 2007). These reviews have tried both to take stock and give future work more focus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Union's governance ambitions and its administrative capacities

Schout¹,

Jordan²

2008

The existing literature has started to analyse why the policy co-ordination ambitions that permeated the 2001 White Paper on governance have not been realized. However, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to exploring the administrative demands that these ambitions impose on different policy actors. This article opens up this research area by focusing on more ambitious policy objectives and their associated network-based modes of governance. The empirical part examines three public administration systems in the EU to assess how well they have responded to these demands. Although often downplayed by those advocating network-based modes of governance, this paper reveals that the administrative demands they pose are much greater than is commonly supposed. Some actors (e.g. the Commission and the UK) have upgraded their administrative co-ordinating capacities, whereas others (e.g. the Netherlands) have moved in a perverse direction. It is concluded that the EU needs to take administrative capacity building much more seriously in order to govern in a less hierarchical manner

“…Citi and Rhodes 2007;Lodge 2007;Scharpf, 2001 have labelled the learning-based OMC turn in the EU as 'mere talk'). Others see more significant dynamics, as the above examples have shown.…”

Section: Diffusion Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst the debates about the endurance and precise effects of the reforms continue, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the EU, its organization and its instruments, have not halted (Heidenreich and Zeitlin 2009;Peterson 2008;Schout and Van Den Berge 2009). Different forms of learning have occurred, although academia finds it hard to recognize and conceptualize these developments (particularly the OMC; see Scharpf 2001;Lodge 2007;Citi and Rhodes 2007). Exploring the relevance of learning concepts may illuminate the integration process and offer insights into learning in the (EU's) multi-level context.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning theory reconsidered: EU integration theories and learning

Zito¹,

Schout²

2009

147

This article introduces this special issue by contextualizing learning theory within European integration studies. There are important empirical and theoretical gaps in the study of European integration which necessitate a greater attention to learning theory. This article deploys a number of conceptual distinctions about learning and non-learning processes, drawing from political science, international relations, public administration and sociological/organizational studies. It traces 'learning' in its political science context and how learning has been inserted into EU integration studies. In relating this evolution, the article examines the conditions that define the type and likelihood of learning and surveys the special issue. The article argues that studying learning in the EU is difficult, but integration requires an understanding of the micro policy processes that learning seeks to address.