Reflections on Multilevel Legitimacy

The function of legitimacy is to ensure voluntary compliance with unwelcome exercises of governing authority. Since practically all European law needs to be implemented and enforced by the governments and courts of the member states, the EU does not have to face its citizens directly. It follows that the legitimacy of European governance ought to be conceptualized at two levels. At one level, the legitimacy of member states is decisive for the compliance of individuals and firms, regardless of the ultimate origin – international, European or national – of the rules that demand this compliance. At the other level, the legitimacy of the European “government of governments” is decisive for the voluntary compliance of member states with the obligations imposed on them by the EU. What should be worrying however is the impact which EU governance – especially the rules of negative integration defi ned by politically non-accountable actors – may have on the legitimacy of member states, and ultimately on their capacity to comply.Legitimität hat die Funktion, die freiwillige Befolgung unwillkommener Autoritätsakte zu sichern. Da das Europarecht fast vollständig von den Mitgliedstaaten und ihren Gerichten umgesetzt und durchgesetzt werden muss, kommt es nicht zu einer unmittelbaren Konfrontation der EU mit ihren Bürgern. Deshalb sollte auch die Legitimität des Regierens in Europa als Zweistufen-Konzept diskutiert werden. Auf der einen Ebene bestimmt die Legitimität der Mitgliedstaaten die Reaktion der Bürger auf unwillkommene Regeln oder Entscheidungen, ohne dass es dafür auf deren internationale, europäische oder nationale Herkunft ankäme. Dagegen entscheidet die Legitimität der EU als „government of governments“ darüber, ob die Mitgliedstaaten ihrerseits ihre europäischen Verpflichtungen freiwillig erfüllen. Anlass zu Besorgnis gibt allenfalls die Rückwirkung des europäischen Regierens – insbesondere der von politisch nicht verantwortlichen Instanzen definierten negativen Integration – auf die Legitimität der Mitgliedstaaten und letztlich auf deren Fähigkeit zur loyalen Umsetzung europäischer Regeln.1 Democracy and multilevel polities 2 Legitimacy – functional, normative and empirical 3 Two normative implications 4 European constraints on the political legitimacy of member states 5 Negative integration and empirical legitimacy? 6 So what could be done? Reference

European Governance: Common Concerns vs. the Challenge of Diversity

The text is a comment on the White Paper on "European Governance" presented by the European Commission (COM[2001] 428, 25.7.2001). It begins by confronting the Commission's emphases with the governance problems that it fails to address, including the unresolved difficulties of economic-policy coordination among EMU member states, the adjustments of governance practices required by Eastern enlargement and, above all, the challenges implied by the fundamental shift of the European agenda - from the problems of achieving economic integration to the problems of coping with the consequences of economic integration. The primary proposals of the White Paper - reducing the involvement of the Council and the European Parliament in "details" of legislation and strengthening the role of the Commission at the expense of member states - would exceed the legitimacy of European institutions and they would also reduce the problem-solving capacity of European governance. European policy must be consensual if it is to be effective and legitimate. Hence it cannot short-circuit the efforts to achieve agreement among member states, even though it is increasingly confronted with problems for which uniform, Europe-wide solutions are not acceptable. Regrettably, the White Paper does not seem to be sufficiently interested in two modes of governance - "closer cooperation" and "open coordination" - that seem to have the potential for improving both the effectiveness and legitimacy of European policy in the face of continuing diversity.Der Text kommentiert das Weißbuch der Europäischen Kommission zu Fragen der "European Governance" (KOM[2001] 428, 25.7.2001). Eingangs werden die Vorschläge der Kommission den Problemen des europäischen Regierens gegenübergestellt, die das Weißbuch nicht behandelt. Dazu gehören u.a. die ungelösten Probleme der Koordination der nationalen Wirtschaftspolitik unter den Bedingungen der Währungsunion und die Probleme einer im Zuge der Osterweiterung erforderliche Differenzierung des europäischen Acquis. Vor allem aber fehlt jede Auseinandersetzung mit der grundlegenden Änderung der Anforderungen an die europäische Politik - von der Vollendung der wirtschaftlichen Integration zur Bewältigung ihrer Folgeprobleme. Die Vorschläge des Weißbuchs laufen darauf hinaus, die Rolle des Ministerrats und des Europäischen Parlaments auf die Festlegung von Grundsätzen zu beschränken und die Rolle der Kommission auf Kosten der Mitgliedstaaten wesentlich zu stärken. Eine Umsetzung dieser Vorschläge müßte jedoch die Grenzen der Legitimation der europäischen Institutionen überschreiten und zugleich die Problemlösungsfähigkeit der europäischen Politik vermindern. Die Union könnte die Suche nach einvernehmlichen Lösungen nicht aufgeben, ohne die Effektivität und Legitimität der europäischen Politik zu untergraben. Sie ist jedoch zunehmend mit Problemen konfrontiert, die nicht mehr durch einheitliche Regeln gelöst werden können. Aussichtsreich wären hier vielleicht zwei neuere Modalitäten der europäischen Politik - "flexible Kooperation" und "offene Kooperation". Sie könnten die Erreichung gemeinsamer Ziele trotz heterogener Bedingungen in den Mitgliedstaaten erleichtern. Leider wird deren Potential im Weißbuch nicht ausreichend gewürdigt

Globalization: The Limitations on State Capacity

Part of the Debate "Globalization

The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration

Compared to early expectations, the process of European integration has resulted in a paradox: frustration without disintegration and resilience without progress. The article attempts to develop an institutional explanation for this paradox by exploring the similarities between joint decision making (‘Politikverflechtung’) in German federalism and decision making in the European Community. In both cases, it is argued, the fact that member governments are directly participating in central decisions, and that there is a de facto requirement of unanimous decisions, will systematically generate sub‐optimal policy outcomes unless a ‘problem‐solving’ (as opposed to a ‘bargaining’) style of decision making can be maintained. In fact, the ‘bargaining’ style has prevailed in both cases. The resulting pathologies of public policy have, however, not resulted either in successful strategies for the further Europeanization of policy responsibilities or in the disintegration of unsatisfactory joint‐decision systems. This ‘joint‐decision trap’ is explained by reference to the utility functions of member governments for whom present institutional arrangements, in spite of their sub‐optimal policy output, seem to represent ‘local optima’ when compared to either greater centralization or disintegration

Democratic Legitimacy Under Conditions of Regulatory Competition: Why Europe Differs from the United States

Addresses concern over the so‐called ‘democratic deficit’ in the EU in comparison with the USA. The author deduces that there are two reasons for the political salience of this alleged deficit: the pragmatic reason that the EU's institutions are inadequate for a union with fifteen members and an expanded range of competencies (and will become unworkable when it is enlarged by the joining of the Eastern European countries); and the trilemma of the democratic welfare state. This is that EU member states cannot want to shed their welfare‐state obligations without jeopardizing the bases of their democratic legitimacy, they cannot want to reverse the process of economic integration, which exposes national welfare states to regulatory competition, and they cannot want to avoid regulatory competition by shifting welfare‐state responsibilities upward to the European level. The chapter focuses primarily on the third part of this European trilemma. It begins with a brief theoretical discussion of the preconditions of democratic legitimacy, then it explores how these are affected by European integration; it concludes with an examination of European policies that could strengthen national efforts to cope with the constraints of regulatory competition