Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union

The question of transparency is widely regarded as a thermometer of the relation between the Council of the EU and the public at large. Relatively little attention however has been devoted to the implications of transparency (i.e., access for the general public) for inter-institutional information politics, even when the limited evidence suggests that the connection is considerable. This article asks how EU actors use Council transparency as a platform and for what reason. It approaches transparency as a policy that is developed in three arenas: the internal, the external political, and the external judicial arena. The article finds strong evidence in support of the view that the Council's transparency policy played a central role in EU institutions' attempt to advance their information ambitions. By strongly engaging with the issue of transparency particularly the European Parliament and its members succeeded at expanding their institutional information basis in an area where their political grip was traditionally at its weakest: the Foreign Affairs Council. Acting in turn as a bargaining chip, a political lever, or an alternative to institutional information, the Foreign Affairs Council's transparency policy was thus clearly used to advance information agendas of oversight and legislative prerogatives

The Communicative Model of Disinformation : A Literature Note

In recent years, academic research and policy circles alike frequently identify disinformation and fake news as a growing problem in western democracies. This has prompted calls for regulatory intervention. In the name of protecting the circulation of factually correct information and truth, and to protect and facilitate public debate, many public authorities are proposing steps for the regulation of information flows or their platforms. Before the appropriateness of regulatory measures however can be properly assessed, a more fine-grained understanding of the phenomenon of disinformation is required. In this light, this note discusses some recent academic literature, in search of answers to three topical questions from the perspective of policy makers: (1) Does the online mode of communication alter the nature and functioning of disinformation? (2) How do the institutions for creating (and maintaining trust in) public information relate to disinformation? and (3) How do motives other than malignant intentions cause or exacerbate the disinformation phenomenon? The note relies on the concepts of ‘information ecologies’ (Nardi and O’Day, 1999) and ‘flat ontologies’ (Latour, 2005) as heuristic devices to structure recent academic insights regarding disinformation. Accordingly, disinformation is approached as a communicative phenomenon consisting of an ‘assemblage’ of people, practices, values, and technologies. The note describes the basic features of the late modern disinformation phenomenon, discussing in turn the actors, technological features, and drivers that are implicated in it

Access to Environmental Information in the EU : A Great Policy No-One Needs?

It is commonly argued that public institutions resist the advance of transparency, while civil society organisations (CSOs) are expected to advocate for more generous transparency laws that allow them to better participate in decision-making. Remarkably, the way in which transparency developed in the Environment Council at least partially contradicts both claims. Here, the Council oversaw a steady expansion in the formal transparency policy framework, without notable resistance from the Council or its members. Yet from the outset, CSOs hardly made use of their transparency rights to obtain access. This article seeks an explanation for this apparently anomalous development in informal norms. Applying a qualitative case-study analysis of multiple data sources, it demonstrates how informal norms develop alongside the formal access regime, implicating external actors, serving diverse and at times contradictory objectives, and showing a dynamic character over time. The findings highlight the indispensability of informality for understanding formal transparency policies.Peer reviewe

Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union

Hillebrandt M. Transparency as a Platform for Institutional Politics: The Case of the Council of the European Union. Politics and Governance. 2017;5(3):62-74.The question of transparency is widely regarded as a thermometer of the relation between the Council of the EU and the public at large. Relatively little attention however has been devoted to the implications of transparency (i.e., access for the general public) for inter-institutional information politics, even when the limited evidence suggests that the connection is considerable. This article asks how EU actors use Council transparency as a platform and for what reason. It approaches transparency as a policy that is developed in three arenas: the internal, the external political, and the external judicial arena. The article finds strong evidence in support of the view that the Council’s transparency policy played a central role in EU institutions’ attempt to advance their information ambitions. By strongly engaging with the issue of transparency particularly the European Parliament and its members succeeded at expanding their institutional information basis in an area where their political grip was traditionally at its weakest: the Foreign Affairs Council. Acting in turn as a bargaining chip, a political lever, or an alternative to institutional information, the Foreign Affairs Council’s transparency policy was thus clearly used to advance information agendas of oversight and legislative prerogatives

Administrative and judicial oversight of trilogues

The system of informal legislative negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission now exist for about two decades. While so-called 'trilogues' aim to enhance the efficiency of the legislative process, their relative lack of transparency has led them to be criticized for undermining the possibilities of member state parliaments and citizens to meaningfully oversee, debate and participate in EU legislative decision making. We explore to which extent efforts to address these shortcomings have been successful, focussing on the oversight role of administrative and judicial actors, in particular the European Ombudsman and the Court of Justice. We argue that both the institutional structures and agendas of these actors influence the way they confront the question of trilogue transparency. Whereas the Court's focus is on safeguarding EU constitutional principles relating to democracy, the Ombudsman increasingly takes an expansive view of the concept of maladministration.Peer reviewe

Two Conceptions of Democracy in the Council of the EU: Narrow and Broad

Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Council is explicitly understood as a democratic actor in a decision-making system that is legitimated on the basis of a democratic rationale. While this formalisation in the Lisbon Treaty of the Council as a democratic actor is to be welcomed as an important step in a longer-standing process, it remains unclear which normative requirements result from it. This point is illustrated in this paper with reference to the principle of transparency. It discerns the role of transparency in two competing conceptions at the Council level, representing a narrow, and a broad perspective on democracy. It is argued that below a minimal threshold of transparency, Council democracy cannot function. Above this threshold, in turn, transparency is likely to make Council democracy function better

EU Transparency as ‘Documents’ : Still Fit for Purpose?

In this thematic issue, the question whether EU decision making might be characterised by an excess of transparency stands central. This contribution addresses an issue that precedes such questions of quantity: that of transparency’s qualities, i.e., its specific shape. From an early point in time, transparency in the EU has been equated with the narrow and legalistic notion of ‘access to documents.’ Although since then, transparency has become associated with a wider range of practices, the Union has not managed to shake off the concept’s association with bureaucracy, opacity, and complexity. This remains the case, in spite of the fact that administrations and decision-makers across the world increasingly utilise the possibilities of technological innovation to communicate more directly with their electorates. In this changing communicative context, this commentary considers whether EU transparency as access to documents is still fit for purpose. It does so by exploring access policy from the vantage point of legal developments, administrative practices, political dynamics, and technological innovations. The commentary concludes that while improvements are needed, the access to documents concept endures. However, access to documents needs to be complemented by constructive (rather than predatory) public justification and contestation, to remain viable.Non peer reviewe

Keeping One’s Shiny Mercedes in the Garage : Why Higher Education Quantification Never Really Took Off in Germany

The cybernetic dream of regulatory 'dashboard control' has taken off in the German higher education system. Both government regulators and university managers are engaged in the creation of waves of increasingly fine-grained quantitative data. Yet a wide range of recent case studies of the German higher education sector attest that in spite of this 'datafication' frenzy, the impact of the collected data mass on regulatory and managerial decision-making capacities seems to have remained relatively limited. This article explores why, in spite of the considerable investment in quantitative data infrastructures in the German higher education sector, this did not result in significant overt analytical capacity building. It explores three hypotheses: 1) a legal hypothesis according to which quantification is curbed by legal protections under the Rechtsstaat; 2) a dysfunctionality hypothesis which holds that decision makers reject quantification as a flawed and impracticable pursuit; and 3) an egalitarian federalism hypothesis which argues that Germany's federal states seek to prevent commensurability to avoid comparison and competition. The article finds that, in spite of its inconspicuousness, quantification indeed does inform various central decision-making processes. However, different legal, political, and relational factors prompt decision makers to engage in a hybrid, tempered and, overall, untransparent application of numerical data.Peer reviewe

Editorial: Quantifying Higher Education : Governing Universities and Academics by Numbers

Over the past decades, ‘governing by numbers’ has taken a flight in the higher education sector. Performance-based budgeting and quality assurance schemes orient universities to new objectives, while rankings have globalised the metrified observation of higher education at large. Where previously no indicators existed, they are being introduced; where indicators already existed, they are being standardised for purposes of comparison. This thematic issue aims to work towards a more comprehensive understanding of the growing diversity of quantification-based instruments in higher education sectors in three European countries. The effects of quantification are noticed at all levels of the higher education system, from policy makers at the top of the regulatory pyramid down to students and academic staff. Yet even quantifiers outside of the regulatory system, such as ranking and metrics organisations, may have an important bearing on the operation of the university organisation and the sector at large. Thus, an entire governance landscape emerges in which actors at various levels turn to numbers for guidance. The articles in this thematic issue analyse the life cycle of such numbers, from their origins, through to their production and finally, their consequences. This editorial outlines the central questions and overarching issues addressed by the thematic issue and introduces its various contributions.Non peer reviewe

Twenty-five years of access to documents in the Council of the EU: Ever-greater transparency?

Hillebrandt M. Twenty-five years of access to documents in the Council of the EU: Ever-greater transparency? Politique européenne. 2018;61(3):142-173.Before 1992, the EU's most 'intergovernmental' institution was known for its pervasive diplomatic secrecy. Twenty-five years on, continuous external pressure is said to have made the Council considerably more transparent. This characterisation of a transparency-hostile Council overrun by external 'transparency forces' may however be too schematic. Following Meijer (2013), this article analyses the Council transparency policy as a reflexive arena consisting of different levels: strategic, cognitive, and institutional. Viewing transparency policy developments in this manner allows for a deeper understanding of the complex, fragmented and interlocking patterns by which the Council sometimes enabled, sometimes constrained attempts to advance transparency