No exit from the euro-rescuing trap?

This paper attempts a normative assessment of the input and output-oriented legitimacy of the present euro-rescuing regime on the basis of policy analyses examining the causes of present crises, the available policy options, and the impact of the policies actually chosen. Concluding that the regime lacks input-oriented legitimacy and that its claim to output-oriented legitimacy is ambivalent at best, the paper explores potential – majoritarian or unilateral – exits from the present institutional constellation that is characterized by the synthesis of a non-democratic expertocracy and an extremely asymmetric intergovernmental bargaining system.Die hier präsentierte normative Bewertung der input- und outputorientierten Legitimität des gegenwärtigen Euro-Rettungs-Regimes stützt sich auf empirisch fundierte Aussagen zu den Ursachen der Eurokrise, den prinzipiell verfügbaren Politik-Optionen und den Wirkungen der gewählten Politik. Im Ergebnis wird eine inputorientierte Legitimation verneint, während die outputorientierte Bewertung höchst ambivalent erscheint. Im Schlussteil untersucht der Text mögliche – majoritäre oder einseitige – Auswege aus einer institutionellen Konstellation, die ein nicht demokratisches Expertenregime mit inem extrem asymmetrischen intergouvernementalen Verhandlungsregime verbindet

Die Europäisierung der öffentlichen Aufgaben

Die zunehmende Europäisierung der öffentlichen Aufgaben ist einer der wichtigsten Trends im Wandel der Staatstätigkeit in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in anderen Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union. In diesem Essay werden die Stufen der Europäisierung der Staatstätigkeit nachgezeichnet, in Weiterführung von Lindberg/Scheingold (1970) und Schmitter (1996) quantifiziert und hinsichtlich ihrer Kosten und ihres Nutzen erörtert. Inhalt: Stufen der Europäisierung der öffentlichen Aufgaben Der Europäisierungsgrad der öffentlichen Aufgaben von 1950 bis zum Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts Vom Nutzen und von den Kosten der Europäisierung der öffentlichen Angelegenheiten Verzeichnis der zitierten Literatu

What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis

The concept of regulation is believed to suffer from a lack of shared understanding. Yet, the maturation of the field raises the question whether this conclusion is still valid. By taking a new methodological approach towards this question of conceptual consolidation, this study assesses how regulation is conceived in the most-cited articles in six social science disciplines. Four main conclusions are drawn. First, there is a remarkable absence of explicit definitions. Second, the scope of the concept is vast, which requires us to talk about regulation in rather abstract terms. Third, scholars largely agree that ‘prototype regulation’ is characterised by interventions which are intentional and direct – involving binding standard-setting, monitoring and sanctioning – and exercised by public-sector actors on the economic activities of private-sector actors. Fourth, while there is considerable variation in research concerns, this variation cannot be attributed to disciplinary differences. Instead, our findings support the portrayal of the field as interdisciplinary, including a shared conception of regulation

Climate change adaptation in European river basins

This paper contains an assessment and standardized comparative analysis of the current water management regimes in four case-studies in three European river basins: the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza, the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called Zacarpathian Tisza), Alentejo Region (including the Alqueva Reservoir) in the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, and Rivierenland in the Netherlands. The analysis comprises several regime elements considered to be important in adaptive and integrated water management: agency, awareness raising and education, type of governance and cooperation structures, information management and—exchange, policy development and—implementation, risk management, and finances and cost recovery. This comparative analysis has an explorative character intended to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management and to determine its role in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. The results show that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge is an important obstacle for cooperation, or vice versa. We argue that there is a two-way relationship between information management and collaboration. Moreover, this research suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straightforward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top–down governance. Finally, this research shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant—like droughts in the Alentejo (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands)—the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserv

The politicisation of evaluation: constructing and contesting EU policy performance

Although systematic policy evaluation has been conducted for decades and has been growing strongly within the European Union (EU) institutions and in the member states, it remains largely underexplored in political science literatures. Extant work in political science and public policy typically focuses on elements such as agenda setting, policy shaping, decision making, or implementation rather than evaluation. Although individual pieces of research on evaluation in the EU have started to emerge, most often regarding policy “effectiveness” (one criterion among many in evaluation), a more structured approach is currently missing. This special issue aims to address this gap in political science by focusing on four key focal points: evaluation institutions (including rules and cultures), evaluation actors and interests (including competencies, power, roles and tasks), evaluation design (including research methods and theories, and their impact on policy design and legislation), and finally, evaluation purpose and use (including the relationships between discourse and scientific evidence, political attitudes and strategic use). The special issue considers how each of these elements contributes to an evolving governance system in the EU, where evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in decision making

"A Theoretical Perspective on Multi-level Systems in Europe: Constitutional Power and Partisan Conflict"

types: ArticleThis article distinguishes three constitutionally defined categories of multi-level systems – confederations, federal arrangements and regionalized arrangements, which differ in whether their lower-level governments enjoy constitutional protection and whether we find a constitutional hierarchy between central and lower levels of government. We argue that the constitutional category a multi-level system belongs to systematically shapes first, the dominant mode of day-to-day intergovernmental coordination, second, the mode of formal competence (re)allocation; and third, the relative impact of party (in)congruence across central and lower-level governments on these coordination processes, respectively. The article then specifies the indicators used to test the hypotheses across the range of case studies. It finally shows how the multi-level systems covered in this special issue span the confederal – federal – regionalized spectrum and thus allow for an encompassing comparative assessment of multi-level dynamics and their long-term evolution.ESR

Legitimacy in REDD+ governance in Indonesia

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, non-state and hybrid actors perceive output legitimacy (i.e. project outcomes) as highly dependent on the level of input legitimacy achieved during the governance process. Non-state 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