What is there to legitimize in the European Union... and how might this be accomplished?

'Dieses Papier widmet sich der Problematik des Aufbaus von Legitimität (eines der am häufigst verwendeten und 'mißbrauchten' Konzepte der Politikwissenschaft) im Rahmen von 'governance' (eines der 'modernsten' Konzepte im politischen Diskurs) in der Europäischen Union (eines der neuesten politischen Experimente). Ob absichtlich oder unabsichtlich, die EU hat sehr zur Herstellung dieser Arrangements beigetragen; eine 'Formel' zur ihrer Legitimation fehlt jedoch. In diesem Zusammenhang legt der Autor eine Reihe von Prinzipien vor, die zum Aufbau von Europäischen 'Regierungs-Arrangements' (European Governance Arrangements, EGAs) beitragen könnten. Er schließt mit kritischen Anmerkungen, wobei er u.a. betont, daß EGAs nicht dazu beitragen werden alle Probleme in allen Politikfeldern zu lösen und auch nicht funktionieren werden, wenn sie nicht auf politischen Prinzipien basieren (im Hinblick auf eine eigene Charta, die Zusammensetzung ihrer Mitglieder und in Zusammenhang mit Entscheidungsmechanismen). Rein technokratische oder administrative Überlegungen werden nicht genügen.' (Autorenreferat)'This paper focuses on the problematique of building the legitimacy (one of the most used and misused concepts in Political Science) of governance (one of the most fashionable concepts in contemporary political discourse) within the context of the European Union (one of the most novel of political experiments). Whether intentionally or not, the EU has become a formidable producer of such arrangements, but lacks a 'formula' for their legitimation. The author presents three sets of principles that might be used to guide the design of European Governance Arrangements (EGAs) in order to enhance their legitimacy. He concludes with some caveats, underlining inter alia that EGAs will not resolve all policy issues in the supra-national realm, and they will not work unless firmly based on explicitly political choices involving their charter, the composition of participants and the rules for decision-making. Purely technocratic or administrative considerations will not suffice.' (author's abstract)

Some propositions about civil society and the consolidation of democracy

"»Civil Society« is a concept that has been much discussed in relation to the processes of democratization in Southern Europe, Latin America and, especially, in Eastern Europe. Despite widespread recognition of its potential importance, scholars have not agreed on how to define it, nor are they sure what the specific nature of its contribution can be. This essay, is an attempt to pin down the meaning of civil society and the role that it can play in facilitating the consolidation of democracy. Emphasis is placed on four characteristics of intermediary organizations: their dual autonomy from both the state and primary social units of production and reproduction; their capacity collective action in defense of the interests and passions of their members; their limitation with regard to governing the polity as a whole; and, their willingness to act »civilly«, i.e. within preestablished rules of exchange and influence. After exploring its relationship with social movements and political parties, attention is focused primarily on the emergent properties of individual interest associations and of the systems of interest intermediation they form. Hypothetically, it is suggested that variables such as the number of associations, their density of membership, the breadth of their respective domains and of their coverage of interests/passions, the extent of associational monopoly and the pressure of higher-order coordination mechanisms combine (admitted in a variety of ways) to determine the structural context within which these organizations can serve to link citizens and public authorities. Strategic capacity, encompassingness, class governance and congruence are offered as the key conditions which determine the strength or weakness of civil society. A series of hypotheses are proposed which link (positively and negatively) the relative strength of civil society to success or failure in the effort to consolidate democracy. Furthermore, it is argued that civil society is not an automatic or unreflexive product of capitalism, urbanization, literacy, social mobilization, economic growth – i.e. of development – although it is encouraged by all of the above. Rather, its emergence requires explicit policies by public authorities and implicit practices by private (re)producers. After a brief discussion of what these policies may be, the article concludes with some reflections of the changing international context and on the relevance of civil society in places and cultures far removed from its historic heartland: Western Europe." [author's abstract

The changing patterns of group politics in Britain

Two interpretations of ways in which group politics in Britain have presented challenges to democracy are reviewed: neo-corporatism or pluralistic stagnation and the rise of single issue interest groups. The disappearance of the first paradigm created a political space for the second to emerge. A three-phase model of group activity is developed: a phase centred around production interests, followed by the development of broadly based 'other regarding' groups, succeeded by fragmented, inner directed groups focusing on particular interests. Explanations of the decay of corporatism are reviewed. Single issue group activity has increased as party membership has declined and is facilitated by changes in traditional media and the development of the internet. Such groups can overload the policy-making process and frustrate depoliticisation. Debates about the constitution and governance have largely ignored these issues and there is need for a debate

The uniting of Europe and the foundation of EU studies: revisiting the neofunctionalism of Ernst B. Haas

This article suggests that the neofunctionalist theoretical legacy left by Ernst B. Haas is somewhat richer and more prescient than many contemporary discussants allow. The article develops an argument for routine and detailed re-reading of the corpus of neofunctionalist work (and that of Haas in particular), not only to disabuse contemporary students and scholars of the normally static and stylized reading that discussion of the theory provokes, but also to suggest that the conceptual repertoire of neofunctionalism is able to speak directly to current EU studies and comparative regionalism. Neofunctionalism is situated in its social scientific context before the theory's supposed erroneous reliance on the concept of 'spillover' is discussed critically. A case is then made for viewing Haas's neofunctionalism as a dynamic theory that not only corresponded to established social scientific norms, but did so in ways that were consistent with disciplinary openness and pluralism