The Embedded Acquis Communautaire: Transmission Belt and Prism of New Governance

The European Union offers crucial insights into the gradual shift from a Weberian form of modern 'government' towards the institutionalisation of post-Weberian 'governance'. The article argues that the emerging 'polity of polities' context, not only threatens the constitutional basis of democratic rule but also raises the questions of what exactly the new institutions of governance beyond the nation-state are, and what they imply for the functioning (rules of the game) and legitimacy (democratic processes) of the political order. In an effort to elaborate on these questions, the article develops two themes. First, it raises critical questions about the conceptual boundedness of 'governance' in the discussion of constitutional and policy studies within the field of European integration. Secondly, it advances a methodological access point for the study of the institutionalisation of governance in the Euro-polity. It suggests situating the legal concept of acquis communautaire at the boundary of legal studies and politics. The concept is then applied to a case study of citizenship policy in the EU to demonstrate how the acquis communautaire–more precisely, the 'embedded acquis communautaire'–facilitates methodological access to the study of the institutionalisation of governance beyond the state and despite states.     

Accountable Multilevel Governance by the Open Method of Coordination?

Abstract:  In multilevel governance arrangements policies are coordinated across levels, usually in negotiations or networks of executives and representatives of special interests. Actors committed in such arrangements can hardly be held accountable by parliaments or citizens, and this is one of the main reasons for the democratic deficit of the EU. With the open method of coordination (OMC) the EU introduced a new mode of multilevel governance. The article focuses on the question whether problems of accountability can be solved by this mode. It is argued that the OMC framework includes two types of coordination. Whereas the dominating 'deliberative' mode does not improve accountability, the 'competitive' mode seems to be more promising. It supports transparency, reduces the costs of control for parliaments and stimulates public discussion on policies. However, multilevel coordination by policy competition at the lower levels of government does not work effectively under all conditions, and this therefore has to be carefully investigated.     

Competition Law in the International Domain: Networks as a New Form of Governance

Central to the internationalization of competition law has been the emergence of transnational networks of competition officials and experts. These networks have operated in three main areas: co-ordination on enforcement; technical assistance; and moves to develop overarching competition principles at the level of the WTO. The debate over the nature of internationalization of competition norms has fallen into three phases: early failures mainly due to the lack of any network; politicization of competition policy within a UN context followed by the emergence of a network primarily focused on the OECD. The current phase concerns coordination and the attempt to develop a competition law regime at the WTO level. This process is spearheaded by the European Union, with the United States of America favouring bilateral agreements on enforcement and technical assistance only. The way the debate has changed over the past ten years and how the two main protagonists have modified their positions, is indicative of the influence and importance of networks which, while they may give rise to formal agreements, can operate through soft power and persuasion. What emerges from the analysis is the centrality of these networks to this important aspect of contemporary international governance. They supplement rather than replace more traditional forms of internationalism and, while they may fundamentally regard themselves as technocratic, deriving legitimacy from outputs, current pressures on international policy making require them to attend to the process aspects associated with legitimacy of democratic regimes.     

‘European Governance’ or Governmentality? The European Commission and the Future of Democratic Government

The word ‘governance’ has become an increasingly central policy motif in the European Union and elsewhere yet its meanings are ambiguous and often poorly understood. This article examines the genealogy of that concept focusing in particular on the European Commission's claim to have developed a new, more open and progressive model of ‘European governance’. The paper is set out in four steps. The first analyses the European Commission's claims for ‘governance’ as a concept integral to its new vision for Europe. The second interrogates some of the conflicting definitions and meanings inherent in the term and examines the highly selective paradigm of governance that has been developed in official Commission discourse. The third addresses two specific areas where the Commission's governance model has been applied: the Green paper on The Future of Parliamentary Democracy and the Open Method of Coordination. The fourth turns to analyse these findings using critical social theory. I conclude that far from laying the grounds for a more inclusive, participatory and democratic political order, the Commission's model to governance represents a form of neoliberal governmentality that is actually undermining democratic government and promoting a politics of exclusion.     

Prospects and Limits of Democratic Governance in the EU

The EU Treaty contains for the first time a title on democratic principles. These provisions emphasise the importance of national parliaments and the EU parliament for the democratic legitimacy of the EU. The new chapter on democratic principles does not address the central challenge of the EU polity to the traditional understanding of democratic legitimacy, the disjunction of political and economic governance as expressed by the important role of independent institutions like the Commission, the European Central Bank and agencies in EU governance . This is a consequence of the fact that the status of independent regulatory institutions in a democratic polity has not been clarified—neither in the EU nor in the Member States. However, such independent institutions exist in diverse forms in several Member States and could hence be understood as a principle of democratic governance common to the Member States. Such an understanding has not yet evolved. The central theoretical problem is that regulatory theories which explain the legitimacy of independent institutions as an alternative to traditional representation remain outside the methodology of traditional democratic theory. Economic constitutional theory, based on social contract theory and widely neglected in the legal constitutional debate, offers a methodological approach to understanding independent regulatory institutions as part of representative democratic governance.     

The Jury as a Translation of Democratic Participation and Political Conflict

In this response to Valerie Hans's Presidential address, I use her “legal translating” term to argue that the implementation of liberal democratic structures in new democracies opens new opportunities to translate the jury system into and onto new democratic societies. While policy makers have concerns about the strength and vibrancy of lay participation in the legal system, policy makers' decisions to adopt trial by jury are not always democratic. Nonetheless, the consequence of the translation of trial by jury furthers democratic development. Using Nicaragua, Mexico, and Russia as case studies, I suggest that one goal of policy makers who attempt to adopt trial by jury is to reduce the discretionary power of judges who remain from the prior government. Comparative trial‐by‐jury research can contribute more to our understanding of democratic development than prior research has indicated.     

论第三部门兴起下的公共政策

第三部门的兴起带来了公共政策过程的变革。它使公共政策成为社会治理体系中新的调节工具,并使公 共政策具有了新地位和新作用。第三部门的兴起展示了社会治理环境对公共政策的创新要求。     

New Regulatory Approaches in 'Greening' EU Policies

European environmental policy has been long characterised by traditional regulatory policy approaches. In recent years, however, the EU has begun experimenting with new forms of governance. In particular, the task of environmental policy integration (EPI) into sectoral policies has invited more flexible and participatory regulatory forms, emphasising at the same time the role of procedural guidance. This article traces the history of the EPI principle and links its effectiveness to specific governance characteristics. It argues that effective EPI is dependent on a combination of political leadership and public participation. While both terms appear in the EU's vocabulary on sustainable development and new governance, the EU is only slowly finding the appropriate forms to put them into practice. Coming from a tradition of governance by political élites, EU policy-makers are still relying too naïvely on the mobilisation capabilities of societal groups and on the power of 'good ideas'.     

Crafting public security: demilitarisation,penal state reform and security policy-making in post-authoritarian Chile

ABSTRACT

Here I dissect the institutionalisation of ‘citizen security’ as a category and sector of public policy in post-authoritarian Chile. Deploying a Bourdieusian field theory approach and questioning narratives of security policies as responses to criminality or adaptations to democratic values, I argue that the construction of a new security policy sector – with a new consensus (distinct from that of National Security), with reformed police and courts in its core, leaving aside the military and extending beyond traditional agencies – derives from (i) struggles over policing and criminal justice reforms, (ii) tensions between the military and democratic authorities in democracy and (iii) performative integrations of the new policy components. These mechanisms explain the evolution of the security problem and the progressive aggregation of bureaucratic agencies and methods to the ‘public security policy’ – policing, judiciary, urban design, prisons and prevention plans. I close discussing alternative accounts of institutional variations in security governance in the region.     

Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance

Abstract:  Most studies converge on the growth of processes of 'multilevel governance' (MLG) in policy making, related to the often combined trends towards supranationalism and regionalism. Such processes are usually analysed under the angle of their efficiency, while their impact on the quality of democracy is neglected. This article first defines the concepts of multilevel governance and accountability, and then identifies the various dimensions of the latter. It further argues that MLG generates novel forms of accountability, but undermines its democratic dimension mainly for the following reasons: the weak visibility of MLG networks, their selective composition and the prevalence of peer over public forms of accountability.     

Embedding Economic Relationships through Social Learning? The Limits of Patient and Public Involvement in Healthcare Governance in England

The strategy for NHS modernization in England is privileging individual choice over collective voice in the governance of healthcare. This paper explores the tension between economic and democratic strands in the current reform agenda, drawing on sociological conceptions of embeddedness and on theories of reflexive governance. Building on a Polanyian account of the disembedding effects of the increasing commercialization of health services, we consider the prospects for re-embedding economic relationships in this field. An analysis is provided of the limits of the present legal and regulatory framework of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in establishing the democratic and pragmatist conditions of social learning necessary for effective embedding. We show how the attainment of reflexive governance in the public interest is dependent on such conditions, and on the capacities of patients and the public to contribute to debate and deliberation in decision making, including on fundamental policy questions such as how services are provided and by whom.     

网络问政发展的现实困境与解决路径

近几年来,网络问政正以一种全新的方式解读公民的知情权和监督权,它使得政府与民众的信息交流更加透明顺畅,从而最大限度地保障公民的知情权和监督权。网络问政作为信息社会的一种新生事物,对我国行政管理改革具有重要的意义。虽然网络问政在我国政府管理工作中已经开始运用,但是其发展还存在一些现实困境,如网络法律缺失,问政缺乏保障;网络监督缺位,问政信息不安全;网络社会虚拟,问政者身份识别缺失;网络舆情泛滥,问政信息真假难辨等。为此,必须找出相应的解决路径,从而提升政府的管理能力。     

Agency,contract and governance: shifting shapes of accountability in the health care arena

Current ideas about the role of the state include an enthusiasm for mechanisms of "indirect" or "third-party" governance. The health care arena, in which models of indirect governance have a long history, is an important test bed for these ideas. Classically, the arena was marked by trust-based, principal-agent relationships established to overcome information gaps. Over time (and to different degrees across nations), emphasis shifted to contractual relationships assuming relatively well-informed actors and then to performance monitoring and information sharing within complex and loosely coupled networks. In this latest stage, there is a risk that some important features of democratic leadership, and of decision making in the health care arena, will be eclipsed. Accountability mechanisms must clearly locate responsibility for actions and must allow for the exercise of professional judgment.     

Differentiation or federalisation: Which democracy for the future of Europe?

Differentiation has become a central topic of debate in the EU. Generally, it is considered a positive device for advancing integration in crucial policies, letting the unwilling states opt out from the new regimes. However, the debate has not sufficiently acknowledged that policy differentiation has been made possible by governance differentiation. It was the 1992 Maastricht Treaty's decision to inaugurate an intergovernmental regime for core state power policies, distinct from the supranational regime regulating single market policies, that allowed differentiation to flourish. Differentiation and intergovernmentalism are thus inter-connected. During multiple crises of the last decade, intergovernmental governance has shown its undemocratic effects, thus soliciting a critical reappraisal of the differentiation logic. The federalisation of the EU appears a more promising alternative strategy for advancing integration and, at the same time, meeting the democratic expectations of the EU.     

The Two Faces of Law and Inequality: From Critique to the Promise of Situated,Pragmatic Policy

Over the course of my career, I have navigated a research agenda that moves between scholarly and policy‐oriented research. Building on this experience, I argue that it is time for law and society scholars to take seriously a commitment to engaged scholarship that speaks to a wider audience of stakeholders and policymakers. Three themes frame my proposal to get back in the game of advocacy and policy. First, I consider why we need to rekindle this commitment at this historical moment: inequalities in wealth, income, and social mobility and the rise of mass incarceration and its collateral consequences diminish the foundation required for effective democratic governance to thrive. Second, what our scholarship has to say is key to the framing of pragmatic policy: law and society's focus on law in action and the culture of law are key to understanding the ways in which most policies tend to deliver unintended consequences. Finally, we need to consider how to go about the next step to make our work visible to a wider audience of stakeholders?     

Balancing Security and Democracy, and the Role of Expertise: Biometrics Politics in the European Union

What is the relationship between security policies and democratic debate, oversight and rights? Does coping with security threats require exceptions to the rule of law and reductions of liberties? The inquiry that follows tries to answer such questions in the context of the European Union and takes the case of biometric identification, an area were security considerations and the possible impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law are at stake. Some hypotheses are explored through the case study: “securitisation” and “democratisation” are in tension but some hybrid strategies can emerge; the plurality of “authoritative actors” influences policy frames and outcomes; and knowledge is a key asset in defining these authoritative actors. A counter-intuitive conclusion is presented, namely that biometrics, which seems prima facie an excellent candidate for technocratic decision-making, sheltered from democratic debate and accountability – is characterised by debate by a plurality of actors. Such pluralism is limited to those actors who have the resources – including knowledge – that allow for inclusion in policy making at EU level, but is nevertheless significant in shaping policy; it explains the central role of the metaphor of balancing security and democracy, as well as the “competitive cooperation” between new and more consolidated policy areas. The EU is facing another difficult challenge in the attempt at establishing itself as a new security actor and as a supranational democratic polity: important choices are at stake to assure that citizens’ security is pursued on the basis of the rule of law, respect of fundamental rights and democratic accountability.     

Governing Without Law or Governing Without Government? New‐ish Governance and the Legitimacy of the EU

The way the EU is governed and the way such governance is perceived contributes centrally to the legitimacy of the European enterprise. This legitimacy underpins both the acceptance and the effects of EU activity. Legitimacy is a product of the way in which decisions are taken, and the nature and quality of such decisions. Pressures created by concerns about both forms of legitimacy affecting EU decision making partially explain the turn in legal scholarship away from the more traditional preoccupation with the analysis of legislative instruments and case-law, towards a more broadly based conception of governance which involves the examination of a more diverse range of processes and instruments. This article offers an analysis of the parameters of newness in governance. The overall argument is that some of the more innovative governance modes are not so new, whilst more recent and celebrated modes, although displaying elements of newness, are, perhaps, not that innovative. The focus of the new governance in the EU is largely on governing without law, rather than the more radical governing without government; hence the suggestion that we are experiencing only 'new-ish governance'. The article asks whether a limited conception of new governance is inevitable given the legitimacy constraints within which the EU operates, or whether the potential for developing a broader conception of governance, through wider participation and involvement of non-governmental governing capacities, might bolster legitimacy through both better processes and better outcomes.     

The Self-Referential European Polity, its Legal Context and Systemic Differentiation: Theoretical Reflections on the Emergence of the EU's Political and Legal Autopoiesis

Abstract:  This article starts by summarising major theoretical debates regarding European polity and governance. It highlights the role of statehood in those debates and suggests moving beyond the constraints of institutionalist and constructivist perspectives by adopting specific notions from the theory of autopoietic social systems. The following part describes the EU political system as self-referential, functionally differentiated from the system of European law, and internally differentiated between European institutions and Member State governments. Although the Union transgresses its nation-state segmentation, the notions of statehood and democratic legitimacy continue to inform legal and political semantics of the EU and specific responses to the Union's systemic tensions, such as the policy of differentiated integration legislated by the flexibility clauses. The democratic deficit of instrumental legitimation justified by outcomes, the most recent example of which is the Lisbon Treaty, subsequently reveals the level of EU functional differentiation and the impossibility of fostering the ultimate construction of a normatively integrated and culturally united European polity. It shows a much more profound social dynamics of differentiation at the level of emerging European society—dynamics which do not adopt the concept of the European polity as an encompassing metaphor of this society, but makes it part of self-referential and self-limiting semantics of the functionally differentiated European political system.     

乡镇政府治理模式的历史演变及其现代取向——基于农民政治参与的视角

新中国成立60多年来,我国农民政治参与在不同时期以不同的参与方式影响着乡镇政府治理模式的形成。当下,浙江台州乡镇治理转型的现代探索——民主协商下善治式乡镇政府的本质特征在于,乡镇政府与农民对农村社会公共生活的共同管理,它既体现了政治国家与公民社会的一种新型关系,同时也使国家与农村社会在乡镇治理中达成全面、积极和有效的合作,进而实现了官治与民治的契合共治。