Location of Repository

How legitimate is the open method of coordination?

By Milena Büchs

Abstract

This article argues that the OMC's legitimacy can be improved only by strengthening parliamentary channels of input-legitimacy since output-legitimacy alone is inappropriate and cannot be achieved without input-legitimacy. In addition, concepts and practices of direct `stakeholder' participation currently applied within the OMC are insufficient in strengthening input-legitimacy

Topics: HM, JN101
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.soton.ac.uk:150777
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2001). [1998]) ‘The Post-National Constellation and the Future of Democracy’. In Habermas,
  2. (2007). Accountable Multi-Level Governance by the Open Method of doi
  3. (1998). AConstitution of Democratic Experimentalism’. doi
  4. (2007). AParliamentary Dimension for EU Soft Governance’. doi
  5. (2000). Building a Sustainable Welfare State’. doi
  6. (2005). Building Social Partnership? Strengths and doi
  7. (2006). Commission of the European Communities doi
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2005) ‘Working Together for Growth and Jobs. A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy. Communication to the Spring Council, from President Barroso in Agreement with Vice-President Verheugen’.
  9. (2003). Connecting Welfare Diversity within the European Social Model’.
  10. (2000). Democracy in the European Union. Integration through Deliberation? (London / doi
  11. (2007). Democracy, Legitimacy and Soft Modes of Governance in the EU: the Empirical Turn’. doi
  12. (2004). Democratic Experimentalism or Capitalist Synchronization? Critical Reflections on Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy’.
  13. (2006). Die demokratische Grenze output-orientierter Legitimation’. doi
  14. (2002). Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy: an Institutional Ideal for Europe?’In Joerges, doi
  15. (1997). Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy’. doi
  16. (1998). Europe’s “Democracy deficit”: The Question of Standards’. doi
  17. (2006). European Political Development, Regulatory Governance and the European Social Model: the Challenge of Substantive Legitimacy’. doi
  18. (2003). Governance and Government in the European Union: The Open Method of Co-ordination’. doi
  19. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? doi
  20. (2002). In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’. doi
  21. (2007). Learning from Difference: The New Architecture of Experimentalist Governance in the European Union’. doi
  22. (2001). Legitimizing the EU: Is there a “PostParliamentary Basis” for its Legitimation?’ doi
  23. (2007). New Governance in European Social Policy: the Open Method of Co-ordination (Basingstoke: doi
  24. (2004). New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective’. doi
  25. (2004). OMC – A Deliberative-Democratic Mode of Governance? The Cases of Employment and Pensions’. doi
  26. (2005). Participation in the Open Method of Co-ordination: The Cases of Employment and Social Inclusion’. In doi
  27. (2000). Presidency Conclusions’. doi
  28. (2007). Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance’. doi
  29. (2005). Reflexive Law in Support of Directly Deliberative Polyarchy: Reflexive-Deliberative Polyarchy as a Normative Frame for the OMC’. In doi
  30. (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1091/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
  31. (2002). Supple Co-ordination at EU Level and the Key Actors’ Involvement’.
  32. (2008). The Author(s) Journal compilation ©
  33. (2005). The Constitution that Never Was: Is There Anything Worth Salvaging from doi
  34. (2006). The Domestic Implications of European Soft Law: Framing and Transmitting Change in Employment Policy’. doi
  35. (2007). The End of Democracy as We Know It? The Legitimacy Deficits of Bureaucratic Social Policy Governance’. doi
  36. (2005). The European Employment Strategy. Labour Market Integration and New Governance (Oxford: doi
  37. (2002). The European Social Model: Coping with the Challenges of Diversity’.
  38. (2005). The Leverage Effect: the Open Method of Co-ordination in France’. In
  39. (2002). The Method of Open Co-ordination: Open Procedures or Closed Circuit? Social Policy-Making between Science and Politics’.
  40. (2007). The OMC: An Opaque Method of Consideration of Deliberative Governance in doi
  41. (2007). The Open Method of Co-ordination and National Parliaments: Further Marginalization or doi
  42. (2005). The Open Method of Co-ordination and the Debate Over “Hard” and “Soft” law’. In doi
  43. (2008). The Open Method of Co-ordination as a “Two-Level Game” ’. doi
  44. (2005). The Open Method of Co-ordination as Selective Amplifier for National Strategies of Reform. What the Netherlands Want to Learn from Europe’. In
  45. (2005). The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: The European Employment and Social Inclusion Strategies (Brussels: Peter Lang). doi
  46. (2005). The Open Method of Co-ordination in Action: Theoretical Promise, Empirical Realities, Reform Strategy’. In
  47. (2003). The Open Method of Co-ordination: A New Governance Architecture for the European Union?’ Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, available at:
  48. (2005). Trying to Reform the “Best Pupils in the Class”? The Open Method of Co-ordination in Sweden and Denmark’.
  49. (2007). Why the Open Method of Co-ordination is Bad for You: a Letter to the EU’. doi
  50. (2005). Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’. European Governance Papers No. C-05/02, available at: «http://www.connex/network.org/eurogov/».

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.