The end of democracy as we know it? the legitimacy deficits of bureaucratic social policy governance

Journal of European Integration

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 565-582

  Kröger, Sandra ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

democratic deficit; European integration; Governance; legitimacy; social policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044910933     PISSN: 07036337     EISSN: 14772280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07036330701694881     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Armstrong, K., 2005. “ How open is the United Kingdom to the OMC process on social inclusion? ”. In The Open Method of Coordination in action: the European employment and social inclusion strategies, Edited by: Zeitlin, Jonathan, Pochet, Philippe, and Magnusson, Lars. 287–310. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.
2. Arnull, A., and Wincott, D., eds. 2002. Accountability and legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: University Press.
3. Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., and Nolan, B., 2002. Social indicators. The EU and social inclusion, Oxford: University Press.
4. Berger, P.L., and Luckmann, T., 1993. 1969. Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
5. Bernhard, S., 2006. The European paradigm of social exclusion. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2(1): 41–57.
6. Borràs, Susana, and Conzelmann, Thomas. 2007. Democracy, legitimacy and soft modes of governance in the EU: the empirical turn. Journal of European Integration, 29(5): 531–548.
7. Bovens, M., 2007. New forms of accountability and EU governance. Comparative European Politics, 5(1): 104–120.
8. Büchs, M., and Friedrich, D., 2005. “ Surface integration–the National Action Plans for employment and social inclusion in Germany ”. In The Open Method of Coordination in action: the European employment and social inclusion strategies, Edited by: Zeitlin, Jonathan, Pochet, Philippe, and Magnusson, Lars. 249–285. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.
9. Casey, B.H., and Gold, M., 2005. Peer review of labour market programmes in the European Union: what can countries really learn from one another?. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1): 23–43.
10. Citi, M., and Rhodes, M., 2007. New modes of governance in the EU: common objectives versus national preferences (Eurogov working paper No. 01/07). Available from http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/typo3/site/fileadmin/wp/workingpapers/allpublished.htm (accessed 20 January 2007)
11. Cohen, J., and Sabel, C., 1997. Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal, 3(4): 313–340.
12. Dahl, R.A., 1989. Democracy and its critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
13. Deckmyn, V., 2002. Increasing transparency in the European Union, Maastricht: European Institute for Public Administration.
14. de la Porte, C., and Nanz, P., 2004. OMC–a deliberative-democratic mode of governance? the cases of employment and pensions. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(2): 267–288.
15. Eriksen, E.O., 2001. Democratic or technocratic? A critical appraisal of the Commission White Paper on governance (Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 6/01). Available from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/erpjeanmo (accessed 7 June 2005)
16. Friedrich, D., 2002. The Open Method of Co-ordination: bringing the union closer to the people? Participation in the process of defining indicators for the OMC on social inclusion, UK: University of Bath. Thesis (MSc)
17. Habermas, J., 2003. “ Braucht Europa eine Verfassung? ”. In Zeitdiagnosen. Zwölf Essays, Edited by: Habermas, J., 224–248. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
18. Héritier, A., 2003. Composite democracy in Europe: the role of transparency and access to information. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(5): 814–833.
19. Idema, T., 2004. “ European coordination, local effects? Towards an effective implementation of the European social inclusion strategy in the Netherlands, Appendix 5 ”. In The Netherlands Council for Social Development, Europa als Sociale Ruimte: Open Coördinatie van Sociaal Beleid in de Europese Unie, 177–211. The Hague: SDU. recommendation No. 28
20. Joerges, C., and Neyer, J., 1997. From intergovernmental bargaining to deliberative political processes: the constitutionalization of comitology. European Law Journal, 3(3): 273–299.
21. Kohler-Koch, B., and Rittberger, B., 2007. “ Charting crowded territory. debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union ”. In Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, Edited by: Kohler-Koch, B., and Rittberger, B., 1–29. Lanham: Rowman.
22. Kröger, S., 2006a. When learning hits politics, or: social policy coordination left to the administrations and the NGOs?. European Integration online Papers, 10(3)
23. Kröger, S., The OMC inclusion and national social NGOs: from enthusiasm to reality. Fourth ESPAnet annual conference. September21–232006. Bremen
24. Kröger, S., 2007. “ Die Europäische Kommission im Spiegel ihrer Zeit ”. In Die Europäische Kommission und die Zukunft der EU: Ideenfabrik zwischen europäischem Auftrag und nationalen Interessen, Edited by: Fischer, R., Karrass, A., and Kröger, S., 327–342. Opladen: Budrich.
25. Legros, M., 2005. La MOC inclusion, une méthode questionnée, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Independent report for the European Commission
26. Majone, G., 2001. Two logics of delegation. Agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance. European Union Politics, 2(1): 103–122.
27. Marlier, E., Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Nolan, B., 2005. Taking forward the EU inclusion process. An independent report commissioned by the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union Available from: http://www.ceps.lu/eu2005_lu/report/final_report.pdf (accessed 10 August 2005)
28. Moravcsik, A., 1993. Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4): 473–524.
29. rd Annual ESPAnet Conference. September2005. Fribourg
30. Offe, C., 1998. “ Demokratie und Wohlfahrtsstaat: Eine europäische Regimeform unter dem Streß der europäischen Integration ”. In Internationale Wirtschaft, nationale Demokratie. Herausforderungen für die Demokratietheorie, Edited by: Streeck, Wolfgang. 99–136. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
31. Pollack, J., 2007. Contested meanings of representation. Comparative European Politics, 5(1): 87–103.
32. Radaelli, C.M., 2003. The Open Method of Coordination: a new governance architecture for the European Union?, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. (Rapport nr. 1). Available from http://www.sieps.se:16080/publ/rapporter/2003/2003_1_en.html
33. Risse, T., 2004. “ Social constructivism and European integration ”. In European integration theory, Edited by: Wiener, A., and Diez, T., 159–176. Oxford: University Press.
34. Sacchi, S., 2004. New modes of governance in the EU and Italy's institutional capability. A comparison of employment and social inclusion policies. Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche, 3: 5–35.
35. Saurugger, S., Representative versus participatory democracy? France, Europe and civil society. ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. April13–182004. Sweden: University of Uppsala.
36. Schäfer, A., 2002. Vier Perspektiven zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der ‘Europäischen Beschäftigungspolitik’ (MPIfG Discussion Paper 02/9). Available from: www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de (accessed 14 January 2005)
37. Scharpf, F., 1999. “ Demokratie in einer kapitalistischen Wirtschaft ”. In Regieren in Europa. Effektiv und demokratisch?, Edited by: Scharpf, F., 16–46. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
38. Smismans, Stijn. 2004. Law, legitimacy and European governance. Functional participation in social regulation, Oxford: University Press.
39. Zeitlin, J., Pochet, Philippe, and Lars, Magnusson, eds. 2005. The Open Method of Coordination in action: the European employment and social inclusion strategies, Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang.