This article argues that current widespread characterisations of EU governance as multi-level and networked overlook the emergent architecture of the EU's public rule making. In this architecture, framework goals (such as full employment, social inclusion, 'good water status', a unified energy grid) and measures for gauging their achievement are established by joint action of the Member States and EU institutions. Lower-level units (such as national ministries or regulatory authorities and the actors with whom they collaborate) are given the freedom to advance these ends as they see fit. But in return for this autonomy, they must report regularly on their performance and participate in a peer review in which their results are compared with those pursuing other means to the same general ends. Finally, the framework goals, performance measures, and decision-making procedures themselves are periodically revised by the actors, including new participants whose views come to be seen as indispensable to full and fair deliberation. Although this architecture cannot be read off from either Treaty provisions or textbook accounts of the formal competences of EU institutions, the article traces its emergence and diffusion across a wide range of policy domains, including telecommunications, energy, drug authorisation, occupational health and safety, employment promotion, social inclusion, pensions, health care, environmental protection, food safety, maritime safety, financial services, competition policy, state aid, anti-discrimination policy and fundamental rights.

The understandings of individuality and sociability characteristic of modern liberal and sociological social theory are fatalistic about the potential for the creation of trust in economic relations. These understandings are reconsidered in light of the recent evolution of state-level industrial policy in the United States, focusing on the experience of the state of Pennsylvania where the state's efforts have shown early success in breaking down barriers of mistrust that block economic adjustment in the state's traditional manufacturing industries. Arguing that the sort of cooperation-in-the-making that characterizes the Pennsylvania case is ill-captured by mainstream theory, the paper proffers a notion of studied or vigilant trust based on the core conclusions of 20th century analytic philosophy as a way of squaring theory and stylized facts. Government-instigated discussion among key economic actors has the potential to spur reformulations of collective identities and common histories, resulting in the creation of new avenues of potentially trusting economic relations.

In this Article, Professors Dorf and Sabel identif a new form of government, democratic experimentalism, in which power is decentralized to enable citizens and other actors to utilize their local knowledge to fit solutions to their individual circumstances, but in which regional and national coordinating bodies require actors to share their knowledge with others facing similar problems. This information pooling, informed by the example of novel kinds of coordination within and among private firms, both increases the efficiency of public administration by encouraging mutual learning among its parts and heightens its accountability through participation of citizens in the decisions that affect them. In democratic experimentalism, subnational units of government are broadly free to set goals and to choose the means to attain them. Regulatory agencies set and ensure compliance with national objectives by means of bestpractice performance standards based on information that regulated entities provide in return for the freedom to experiment with solutions they prefer. The authors argue that this type of self-government is currently emerging in settings as diverse as the regulation of nuclear power plants, community policing, procurement of sophisticated military hardware, environmental regulation, and child-protective services. The Article claims further that a shift towards democratic experimentalism holds out the promise of reducing the distance between, on the one hand, the Madisonian ideal of a limited government assured by a complex division of powers and, on the other hand, the governmental reality characteristic of the New Deal synthesis, in which an all-powerful Congress delegates much of its authority to expert agencies that are checked by the courts when they infringe individual rights, but are otherwise assumed to act in the public interest. Professors Dorf and Sabel argue that the combination of decentralization and mutual monitoring intrinsic to democratic experimentalism better protects the constitutional ideal than do doctrines offederalism and the separation of powers, so at odds with current circumstances, that courts recognize* Michael C. Doff is Professor of Law, Columbia University. Charles F. Sabel is Professor of Law and Social Science, Columbia University. For extraordinarily helpful discussions, the authors are indebted to Bruce Ackerman, Mark Barenberg, David Charny, Joshua Cohen, Sherry Colb, Archon Fung, Gary Herrigal, Brad Karkkainen, James Liebman, Debra Livingston, Peter Lindseth, John Manning, Jerry L. Mashaw, Frank Michelman, Steve Page, Peter Strauss, Laurence Tribe, Roberto Mangabaeira Unger, Jane Waldfogel, and Jonathan Zeitlin. For research assistance, they wish to thank Alex Cohen, Tricia Hoefling, Christopher Kirkham, Andrew Mainen, Gian Neffinger, Tara Newell, Abrielle Rosenthal, and especially Robert Liubicic. For insight, patience, and good humor, they thank Eric Bravin and Seda Yalcinkaya. COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW The courts then determine whether the agency has met its obligatio...

No abstract

This paper starts from the observation that firms are increasingly engaging in collaborations with their suppliers, even as they are reducing the extent to which they are vertically integrated with those suppliers. This fact seems incompatible with traditional theories of the firm, which argue that integration is necessary to avoid the potential for hold-ups created when non-contractible investments are made. Our view is that pragmatist mechanisms such as benchmarking, simultaneous engineering and 'root cause' error detection and correction make possible 'learning by monitoring'-a relationship in which firms and their collaborators continuously improve their joint products and processes without the need for a clear division of property rights. We argue that pragmatic collaborations based on 'learning by monitoring' both advance knowledge and control opportunism and thus align interests between the collaborators.