Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state

Scharpf, Fritz W.

doi:10.1080/135017697344217

Cited by 356 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

183

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These policy outcomes include a neo-liberal regulatory framework for the single market, a monetarist framework for EMU and massive subsidies to farmers through the common agricultural policy. Because the policy outcomes of the EU decisionmaking process are usually to the right of domestic policy status quos, this 'policy drift' critique is usually developed by social democratic scholars (Scharpf, 1997(Scharpf, , 1999.…”

Section: The 'Standard Version' Of the Democratic Deficit Circa 2005mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik

Føllesdal

Hix

2006

J of Common Market Studies

1,027

540

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The 'Standard Version' Of the Democratic Deficit Circa 2005mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik

Føllesdal

Hix

2006

J of Common Market Studies

1,027

540

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the contemporary literature on sources of legitimacy focuses more specifically on legitimacy within rational-legal systems that require a high degree of monopolization of force. For instance, Scharpf (1997) describes input and output legitimacy as two dimensions of a democratic system, where output goes beyond simple service delivery and is linked to the input of the people through representative institutions that ensure accountability. And the psychology literature, looking particularly at democratic policing, suggests considering the procedures of how police officers interact with the public (e.g.…”

Section: Authority and Legitimacy In Conflict-torn Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Afghanistan’s Taliban – Legitimate Jihadists or Coercive Extremists?

Weigand

2017

Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The military intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 was portrayed as a fight to oust the extremist Taliban. But the Taliban have long been regaining influence, with the military victory of the Afghan government and its foreign allies now seeming less likely than ever. In light of these developments, this article investigates what the affected people -rather than the foreign interveners -think about the Taliban, and whether they perceive them as coercive or legitimate. Building on a conceptual understanding of legitimacy that has been adjusted to the dynamics of conflict-torn spaces, the article suggests that people judge the Taliban on the basis of how their day-to-day behaviour is perceived. While the Taliban are a coercive threat in urban centres and other areas where they launch attacks, they nonetheless manage to construct legitimacy in some of the places which they control or can access easily. A major source of their legitimacy in these areas is the way in which they provide services -such as conflict resolution -which some people consider to be faster and fairer than the state's practices.

show abstract

“…This consent can be achieved in a normative sense such as through the command of a democratically elected leader or it can be achieved in a sociological sense, for instance when an NGO gains the trust of a community through local participation and evidence that decisions made by them are effective (Buchanan and Keohane 2006). The differentiation between input and output legitimacy (Scharpf 1997) helps to assess how different actors gain and maintain legitimacy in a governance regime.…”

Section: Input and Output Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

Glover

Schroeder

2017

Int Environ Agreements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the question of legitimacy in REDD? governance in Indonesia. It develops a legitimacy framework that builds on elements of Scharpf (J Eur Pub Policy 4(1):18-36, 1997) input and output legitimacy concept and the political economy lens described by Brockhaus and Angelsen (Analysing REDD?: Challenges and choices, CIFOR, Bogor, 2012). Using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups, we identify and explore stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy. The analysis reveals a complex interplay between input and output legitimacy, finding that state, nonstate and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Nonstate actors perceive proxies for input legitimacy, such as participation and inclusion of local people, as goals in themselves. In the main, they perceive inclusion to be integral to the empowerment of local people. They perceive output legitimacy as less important because of the intangibility of REDD? outcomes at this stage in the process. The findings also highlight the challenges associated with measuring the legitimacy of REDD? governance in Indonesia.

show abstract

Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state

Cited by 356 publications

References 9 publications

Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik

Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik

Afghanistan’s Taliban – Legitimate Jihadists or Coercive Extremists?

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About