Introduction

DeBardeleben, Joan; Hurrelmann, Achim

doi:10.1057/9780230591783_1

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As many have argued, the EU as a government by and of the people is very difficult to achieve, for at least two reasons. The lack of a European demos , the multitude of diverse populations speaking different languages, and more generally ‘the absence of a unified public sphere’ (DeBardeleben and Hurrelmann, , p. 6) all undermine the social preconditions for democracy at the EU level . Further, despite recent gains in the powers of the European Parliament, compared to national‐level democracies, the EU has fewer channels for political participation and democratic input in policy‐making (e.g.…”

Section: The Eo In the Context Of Democratic Governance Of The Europementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter issue is intensified in part by the complex MLG structures, which make it difficult to identify who is to ‘blame’ for such policies (e.g. DeBardeleben and Hurrelmann, ; Papadopoulos, ). Peters and Pierre () call such trade‐offs a ‘Faustian bargain’, ‘in which core values of democratic government are traded for accommodation, consensus, and the purported increased efficiency in governance’ (p. 85).…”

Section: The Eo In the Context Of Democratic Governance Of The Europementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman

Kostadinova

2015

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research focuses on the inquiries into alleged maladministration by EU institutions completed by the Office of the European Ombudsman (EO) during the period 1996-2012, seeking to highlight the ways in which the Ombudsman advances democracy in the European Union (EU). The article analyses the content of an original dataset consisting of 515 critical remarks and 113 follow-up inquiries issued by the EO. The study shows that concerns about transparency and accountability dominate citizens' complaints to the Ombudsman. Further, the analysis concludes that, when EU institutions were subject to critical remarks, in the majority of instances they adopted the EO's recommendation to increase the transparency and/or accountability of their practices. The EO's impact is observable both during the inquiry process and after it issues critical remarks. The article links these conclusions to a broader discussion of the democratic dilemmas in the EU.

show abstract

Section: The Eo In the Context Of Democratic Governance Of The Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Eo In the Context Of Democratic Governance Of The Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman

Kostadinova

2015

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Type I systems are based on territorial, ethnic or cultural communities with a shared identity. Type I systems share characteristics such as ‘general purpose jurisdictions’, ‘a limited number of jurisdictional levels', ‘non intersecting memberships'between levels of governance, and ‘a system-wide durable architecture’ that promotes regionalisation and interaction (Hooghe and Marks 2003; see also DeBardeleben and Hurrelmann 2007). Type II systems are developed around particular problems amongst people who share a geographical or functional space that requires making of collective decisions.…”

Section: Transferability Of Institutional Devices In the Ukmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Type II systems are developed around particular problems amongst people who share a geographical or functional space that requires making of collective decisions. Here the relationships between levels of governance are more ‘flexible, task-specific, intersecting and variable in number’ (DeBardeleben and Hurrelmann 2007, 4). These two types then relate to Hirst's (1994) distinction between communities of fate and choice.…”

Section: Transferability Of Institutional Devices In the Ukmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review: A Framework for Comparing Institutional Devices and Their Enactment of Deliberative Democracy in the UK

Elstub

2013

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article:• Presents a framework for comparing institutions and their ability to enact various norms of deliberative democracy across various stages of the policy process and different levels of governance. • Specifically contextualises this framework for application in the UK.A range of institutional mechanisms have been advocated to ensure the practical application of deliberative democracy, and these are now being employed in practice throughout the UK. However, different institutional mechanisms will be suited to the enactment of variant democratic principles and will be able to adapt to some features of complexity and not others. This means certain institutional devices will be able to operate effectively at different levels of governance, but not at others, and contribute to some, but not all, stages of a decision-making sequence, within different political systems. A comprehensive and systematic comparison of the relationship these institutions have to deliberative democracy is therefore required so that these institutions can be effectively sequenced to ensure all the key elements of deliberative democracy are enacted in the UK political system, at each level of governance and stage of decision-making. This article therefore develops the 'Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review' (DePER) framework to enable such a comparison of institutional mechanisms, with respect to how they enact key principles of deliberative democracy, by combining normative and empirical analysis through the employment of Fung's 'pragmatic equilibrium' approach. The framework is applicable to all political systems, but is here tailored specifically for institutional comparison in the UK, although it is not applied to concrete cases in this article.

show abstract

Multi-Level-Governance und lokale Demokratie: Theoretische und konzeptionelle Zugänge

Wiesner

2017

Multi-Level-Governance Und Lokale Demokratie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman

Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman

Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review: A Framework for Comparing Institutional Devices and Their Enactment of Deliberative Democracy in the UK

Multi-Level-Governance und lokale Demokratie: Theoretische und konzeptionelle Zugänge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About