Representation through Deliberation – The European Case

Eriksen, Erik Oddvar; Fossum, John Erik

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2012.00677.x

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The process has clear experimentalist traits because it unfolds in a setting marked by diversity, pluralism, and weakly developed hierarchy. It also means that the integration process is giving rise to the emergence of a distinct representation–deliberation interface, whose democratic quality requires specific attention, because this configuration raises new and demanding questions of both authorization and accountability (Fossum & Crum ; Eriksen & Fossum ). We depict this as a Multilevel Parliamentary Field, a heuristic device for thinking about representative democracy in the multilevel EU.…”

Section: Normative Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on experimentalist governance

Fossum

2012

Regulation & Governance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically engages with Sabel and Zeitlin's important notion of experimentalist governance (EG). It is cast as a "recursive process of provisional goal-setting and revision based on learning from the comparison of alternative approaches to advancing them in different contexts." This is a useful heuristic device to capture policymaking and implementation in complex, dynamic, and highly diverse political entities. This article discusses the micro-foundations underpinning EG, how it relates to hierarchical modes of governing, and how well it captures the distinctive traits of the EU. It also discusses EG from a democratic perspective. In democratic terms EG is understood as a form of direct deliberative polyarchy. This article notes that the question of EG's contribution to democratization cannot, however, be adequately addressed unless we pay more systematic attention to representation and representative democracy.

show abstract

Section: Normative Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on experimentalist governance

Fossum

2012

Regulation & Governance

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Checkel, 2001;Eriksen & Fossum, 2000;Risse, 2000;Rittberger, 2012). When facing new developments that have not previously been discussed nor regulated at the EU-level, such as defence or environmental issues, there is less certainty about which norms and roles should apply.…”

Section: How Can the Commission Influence Through Its Expertise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hypothesis builds on communicative action theory's basic assumption that decision-makers are communicatively rational, meaning that they have the ability to offer reasons for their positions and actions, and to assess reasons others give (Deitelhoff, 2009;Eriksen & Fossum, 2000;Riddervold, 2011;Risse, 2000;Sjursen, 2004). When applying a communicative approach in descriptive or explanatory studies, there is thus an underlying assumption that actors are able to learn on the basis of arguments others present.…”

Section: How Can the Commission Influence Through Its Expertise?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unexpected Negotiator at the Table: How the European Commission’s Expertise Informs Intergovernmental EU Policies

Chou

Riddervold

2015

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How, if at all, does the Commission's expertise inform intergovernmental decision-making within the EU? In this article, we aim to capture the relationship between the Commission's expertise and its influence within intergovernmental policy-areas through a study of Commission influence in two least likely sectors: security and defence policies (military mission Atalanta and EU Maritime Security Strategy) and external migration (EU mobility partnerships with third countries). In these cases we observe that the Commission strongly informs policy developments even though it has only limited formal competences. To explore whether and, if so, how this influence is linked to its expertise, we develop and consider two hypotheses: The expert authority hypothesis and the expert arguments hypothesis. To identify possible additional channels of influence, we also consider the relevance of two alternative hypotheses: The strategic coalition hypothesis and the institutional circumvention hypothesis. We find that the Commission's use of its expertise is indeed key to understanding its de facto influence within policy-areas where its formal competences remain limited. Our findings add to the existing literature by revealing how expertise matters. Specifically, our cases show that the Commission informs intergovernmental decision-making by successfully linking discussions to policy-areas where it holds expert authority. However, the Commission also informs EU policies by circumventing the formal lines of intergovernmental decision-making, and by cooperating with member states that share its preference for further integration.

show abstract

“…Bellamy 2010;Lord 2004;Scharpf 1999); while others studied deliberation (e.g. Eriksen & Fossum 2011), identity and public sphere (e.g. Eriksen 2005), the contestation for political leadership (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation in the EU and beyond: one of a kind or not so unique after all?

Vileyn

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In federal polities citizens have multiple public identities: they are addressed as members of the federal polity and as members of a sub-federal polity. Consequently, citizens are represented at the federal level through two channels of democratic representation: federal representation and sub-federal representation. Although this is a crucial element in the set-up of a federal system, the existing literature on representation hardly touches upon this and hence we introduce an approach to systematically compare these channels of representation. In this paper we conceptualize and operationalize the new concepts and apply our approach to democratic representation in 13 federal polities, including the EU, EU member states and non-EU member states. Our analysis shows that the EU has the highest degree of sub-federal representation (i.e. representation of the member states), but also shows that the EU stands not alone among federal polities. Belgium, Canada and Switzerland are clearly characterized by a high level of sub-federal representation as well, while countries such as the US and Australia are much more based upon federal representation. We also show that the variance between the countries can be understood by looking at the systemic features of the states.

show abstract

Representation through Deliberation – The European Case

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

Reflections on experimentalist governance

Reflections on experimentalist governance

The Unexpected Negotiator at the Table: How the European Commission’s Expertise Informs Intergovernmental EU Policies

Representation in the EU and beyond: one of a kind or not so unique after all?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About