Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:51:33.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legitimacy Challenges for New Modes of Governance: Trustworthy Responsiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Andreas Føllesdal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two typical features of new modes of governance (NMG) are of particular concern: (1) the delegation of regulatory activities to independent regulatory authorities at the national and the European level; and (2) regulatory networks outside the legislative arenas, with both private and public actors. These features tend to make the NMG less democratically accountable. Yet some hold that NMG can confer legitimacy on the European Union, especially because they secure ‘output’ more effectively than democratic arrangements, even though they lack any ‘input’ from voters. This article challenges these normative claims: the alleged benefits of NMG may be less than often claimed, while democratic accountability measures are less of a challenge to effectiveness and credibility, properly conceived.

Type
Symposium on Democracy and New Modes of Governance
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , 2011 , pp. 81 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2011.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Scott, Joanne and Trubek, David, ‘Mind the Gap: Law and New Approaches to Governance in the European Union’, European Law Journal, 8: 1 (2002), pp. 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Majone, Giandomenico, ‘A European Regulatory State?’, in Richardson, Jeremy J. (ed.), European Union: Power and Policy-Making, London, Routledge, 1996, pp. 263–77Google Scholar.

3 Manuele Citi and Martin Rhodes, ‘New Modes of Governance in the EU: Common Objectives versus National Preferences’, European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), N-07-01, Vienna, 2007, available at: http://www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-newgov-N-07-01.pdf.

4 Sabel, Charles and Cohen, Joshua, ‘Sovereignty and Solidarity in the EU’, in Zeitlin, J. and Trubek, D. (eds), Governing Work and Welfare in a New Economy: European and American Experiments, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 345–75Google Scholar.

5 Héritier, Adrienne, ‘Elements of Democratic Legitimation in Europe: An Alternative Perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6: 2 (1999), pp. 269–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 273.

6 Smismans, Stijn, ‘New Modes of Governance and the Participatory Myth’, West European Politics, 31: 5 (2008), pp. 874–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Taylor, Michael, The Possibility of Cooperation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987 Google Scholar; Levi, Margaret, Consent, Dissent and Patriotism, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1998 Google Scholar; Kydd, Andrew H., Trust and Mistrust in International Relations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005 Google Scholar.

8 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 336 Google Scholar; and cf. Scanlon, Thomas M., What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 339 Google Scholar.

9 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract, New York, St Martin's Press, 1978, 2.4.5; James Madison, ‘Vices of the Political System of the United States’, in William T. Hutchinson (ed.), The Papers of James Madison, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1987, pp. 348–57; Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991; Fritz W. Scharpf, Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder, CO, Westview, 1997; Glen Loury, ‘A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences’, in Phyllis A. Wallance and Annette Le Mund (eds), Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination, Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1977; Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993.

10 I here modify Margaret Levi's model of contingent consent found in Margaret Levi, ‘A State of Trust’, in Margaret Levi and Valerie Braithwaite (eds), Trust and Governance, New York, Russell Sage, 1998. Cf. Robert E. Goodin, Green Political Theory, Cambridge, Polity, 1992.

11 Tore Vincents Olsen, ‘United Under God? Or Not?’, in Lynn Dobson and Andreas Føllesdal (eds), Political Theory and the European Constitution, London, Routledge, 2004.

12 Fritz W. Scharpf, ‘Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy’, MPlfG Working Paper 07/3, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne, 2007 available at http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/pu/workpap/wp07-3.pdf.

13 Renaud Dehousse, ‘Towards a Regulation of Transitional Governance? Citizens' Rights and the Reform of Comitology Procedures’, in Christian Joerges and Ellen Vos (eds), EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics, Oxford, Hart, 1999, pp. 109–27; Héritier, ‘Elements of Democratic Legitimation in Europe’.

14 Levi, ‘A State of Trust’.

15 Héritier, ‘Elements of Democratic Legitimation in Europe’.

16 Føllesdal, Andreas and Hix, Simon, ‘Why There Is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44: 3 (2006), pp. 533–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Cf. Charles R. Beitz, Political Equality, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1989; Ian Shapiro, Democracy's Place, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1996; Albert Weale, Democracy, New York, St Martin's Press, 1999.

18 Simon Hix, What's Wrong with the EU and How to Fix It, Cambridge, Polity, 2008.

19 Hooge, Liesbeth and Marks, Gary, ‘Unravelling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance’, American Political Science Review, 97: 2 (2001), pp. 233–43Google Scholar.

20 Smismans, ‘New Modes of Governance and the Participatory Myth’.

21 Schmitter, Philippe C., ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, Review of Political Studies, 36 (1974), pp. 85–131 Google Scholar; David Held, Models of Democracy, Cambridge, Polity, 1987, p. 219; Thomas Christiansen, Andreas Føllesdal and Simona Piattoni, ‘Informal Governance in the European Union: An Introduction’, in Thomas Christiansen and Simona Piattoni (eds), Informal Governance in the European Union, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 1–21.

22 Kydland, Finn E. and Prescott, Edward C., ‘Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans’, Journal of Political Economy, 85 (1977), pp. 473–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 For related arguments, cf. Majone, Giandomenico, ‘Europe's “Democratic Deficit”: The Question of Standards’, European Law Journal, 4: 1 (1998), pp. 5–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.; and see Dehousse, Renaud, ‘Constitutional Reforms in the European Community: Are There Alternatives to the Majoritarian Avenue?’, West European Politics, 18: 3 (1995), pp. 118–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Bellamy, R., ‘Still in Deficit: Rights, Regulation and Democracy in the EU’, European Law Journal, 12: 3 (2006), pp. 737–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 For an additional argument to this effect, see see Bellamy, R., ‘Democracy without Democracy?: Can the EU's Democratic “Outputs” Be Separated from the Democratic “Inputs” Provided by Competitive Parties and Majority Rule?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17: 1 (2010), pp. 2–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.