Technocracy,Politicization, and Noninvolvement: Politics of Expertise in the European Regulation of Chemicals

This article addresses the relationship between scientific expertise and policy in European chemicals regulation. We argue that the role of scientific expertise in the European regulation of chemicals varies across decision‐making levels, countries, and stages of the policy process. Our case study of the role of scientific expertise in the regulation of brominated flame retardants illustrates considerably different manifestations of this interconnected process across regulatory arenas, even though this case concerns a single group of substances. On the European Union level, we find a mix of technocracy and politicization; in Sweden, a clear‐cut politicization; and in Poland, noninvolvement. Such differences can be explained by a combination of factors, in particular frame dominance, and mobilization of advocacy coalitions.     

Regulation,the Regulatory State and European Politics

For the past 15 years or so, the claim of a rise of the regulatory state in Europe has been a dominant theme in public policy research. This paper critically reflects on this claim and the associated scholarship by considering four key questions. First, what is the significance of the supposed rise of the regulatory state for the state in Europe and how can this trend be explained? Second, what insights have been gained from the study of phenomena associated with the regulatory state, both in terms of EU and national levels of government as well as in terms of process and organisational understandings of policy analysis? Third, does the regulatory state represent a stable arrangement or does it suffer from its own peculiar dilemmas that fundamentally affect the nature of European states? Fourth, and finally, this article develops three scenarios – those of withering away, plodding along, and rejuvenation – for the future of the (study of the) regulatory state in Europe.     

Managing Risk and Regulation in European Food Safety Governance

This article focuses on the state of European food safety governance and offers a view on possible future courses of regulatory policymaking. We begin by examining the deficiencies of the current multilevel governance system in European Union (EU) food safety policy, with an empirical focus on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. We then submit that a regulatory agency model (centralization) might perform better than multilevel governance or renationalization in terms of reducing business uncertainty, promoting food safety enhancing innovation, and improving consumer trust in the food supply. Hence it would make European food markets more resilient to recurrent food safety crises. We also argue that the EU's precautionary approach as applied to some areas of food safety risks is tied to legitimacy enhancing objectives of EU institutional actors. Assuming that supply‐side rents will change over time, we submit that emphasis of regulatory impact analysis (i.e., cost benefit considerations) is likely to increase.     

Managing for Legitimacy: Agency Governance in Its “Deep” Constitutional Context

Recent literature on bureaucratic structure has gone further than studying discretions given to bureaucrats in policy making, and much attention is now paid to understanding how bureaucratic agencies are managed. This article proposes that the way in which executive governments manage their agencies varies according to their constitutional setting and that this relationship is driven by considerations of the executive's governing legitimacy. Inspired by Charles Tilly (1984), the authors compare patterns of agency governance in Hong Kong and Ireland, in particular, configurations of assigned decision‐making autonomies and control mechanisms. This comparison shows that in governing their agencies, the elected government of Ireland's parliamentary democracy pays more attention to input (i.e., democratic) legitimacy, while the executive government of Hong Kong's administrative state favors output (i.e., performance) legitimacy. These different forms of autonomy and control mechanism reflect different constitutional models of how political executives acquire and sustain their governing legitimacy.     

The Puzzle of Private Rulemaking: Expertise, Flexibility, and Blame Avoidance in U.S. Regulation

The standard federal regulatory process in the United States involves notice and comment by government bureaus. This traditional agency model of public rulemaking faces difficulties in taking full advantage of the expertise of stakeholders, and it has been criticized as being slow and inflexible; therefore, it is not surprising that alternative institutional forms involving the delegation of rulemaking to stakeholders have appeared. Yet it is surprising that private rulemaking has been used to allocate valuable goods such as transplant organs. Why is private rulemaking used as an allocative institution of governance? The answer recognizes the advantages it offers in certain rapidly changing circumstances in which essential expertise inheres in the stakeholders, as well as the asymmetric political rewards involved in the allocation of highly valued goods, which create incentives for politicians to avoid blame by delegating substantive rulemaking authority to nongovernmental organizations.     

The Post-2000 Round of Redistricting: An Entangled Thicket within the Federal System

A new round of revisions in the geographical districts usedto elect federal, state, and local legislators in the UnitedStates has followed the 2000 census of population. While legislatorsthemselves typically have the initial responsibility to performthis frequently contentious task, courts play an active supervisoryrole as well. This article reviews how United States SupremeCourt decisions concerning the post-1990 round of redistrictinghave resulted in the rules concerning the design of districtsbeing more ambiguous in this post-2000 round. This, it is argued,enhances the opportunity to gerrymander for partisan or otherpolitical reasons, a practice that is virtually immune to judicialinvalidation. The article also notes the more active role ofstate courts in this process. The districting process now involvesnot only competing districting plans, but more often than inprevious rounds, competing courts as well.     

Recruitment and Expertise in the European Commission

The article examines the changes in the European Commission’s recruitment practices from its creation in the 1950s until today. Based on the insight that recruitment shapes the role of professional experts in public bureaucracies, the article traces the emphasis on specialist skills and qualifications in the Commission’s recruitment competitions (the concours) over time. It finds that the selection of policy staff to the Commission has become more generalist since the 1960s, a surprising finding given that the organisation is often regarded as a ‘technocracy’ dominated by experts. The article attributes this development to the multinational character of the administration, as the need to integrate citizens from new member states has prompted the Commission to rely on one-size-fits-all recruitment tests. It also discusses whether the declining emphasis on specialist knowledge in staff selection can be seen as part of a broader trend towards a more generalist Commission, where officials are required to change jobs frequently and where expert functions are outsourced to other bodies.     

Everyday Legitimacy in Post-Conflict Spaces: The Creation of Social Legitimacy in Bosnia-Herzegovina's Cultural Arenas

Abstract

The international community has long been criticized for its lack of social legitimacy in Bosnia-Herzegovina and its creation of a dysfunctional public space in the light of people's everyday experiences of peace. This article contends that, as a result, legitimacy has been moved from such public spaces to semi-public spaces, wherein the public and the private are interrelated. One example is local cultural arenas, where hopes emerging in people's everyday lives are projected onto alternative visions of peace and a corresponding social contract. In that sense, cultural agencies have served as alternative social locations of legitimacy due to their closer connection to people's lives and needs.     

The Political Economy of State Environmental Regulation: The Distribution of Regulatory Burdens

This article examines interstate variance in the distribution of costs for hazardous waste regulation in the American states. The analysis identifies the distribution of regulatory costs for technical externalities and answers specific questions about the regulatory strategies of competing states in a federal system.     

Agency Autonomy Actually: Managerial Strategies,Legitimacy, and the Early Development of the European Union's Agencies for Drug and Food Safety Regulation

ABSTRACT

In recent decades, a series of regulatory agencies has been created at the European Union (EU) level. The existing literature on EU agencies focuses either on autonomy as a reason for the creation of such agencies or on the autonomy that they are granted by design. As a result, we do not know much about how EU agencies' actual autonomy comes about. This article therefore probes into the early development of two specific agencies. On the basis of document analysis and interviews with agency staff members, national experts, EU officials, external stakeholders, and clients, it explores why, in practice, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) seems to have developed a higher level of autonomy than the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), even though on paper EMA appears to be as autonomous as, or if anything, less autonomous than EFSA. The article demonstrates the importance of investigating the managerial strategies of EU regulatory agencies to understand the actual practice of their autonomy and points to legitimacy as a key condition affecting the early development of such agencies.     

Legitimacy and Coercion in Peacebuilding: A Balancing Act

ABSTRACT

Despite the tendency of the power literature to analyse legitimacy and coercion in isolation, both theoretical and empirical evidence suggest that coercion and legitimacy are not parallel lines but can interact in different ways, supporting or undermining each other. A methodical exploration of the relationship between legitimacy and coercion is important not only for improving the theoretical literatures on power and legitimacy but also in the light of the increasing interest in the power of legitimacy in statebuilding and peacebuilding. This article first analyses the overall interaction between coercion and legitimacy, and then explores the question that emerges from the interaction analysis; what level of coercion is permitted or required in order for a mission’s local legitimacy to be sustained? Finally, for the practice of peacebuilding, the article shows that an operation needs to understand its initial legitimacy standing with the local population, as this determines how much coercive force it can employ without undermining its overall legitimacy.     

Confidence in the Judiciary: Comparing the Independence and Legitimacy of Judicial Systems

This contribution investigates the determinants of judicial confidence. It argues that this is the decisive source of legitimacy for the third branch. Fairness and impartiality, i.e. the independence of the judiciary, are paramount in fostering citizens' confidence in the justice system. Through several multilevel analyses, the study tests whether judicial independence promotes the development of an individual's confidence in the justice system. The results show that judicial independence has a positive impact on the development of individual trust. However, public beliefs about the trustworthiness of judicial institutions do not seem to originate from constitutional rules (de jure independence) but from actual events and real life experiences (de facto independence).     

Legitimacy beyond the state: institutional purposes and contextual constraints

ABSTRACT

The essays collected in this special issue explore what legitimacy means for actors and institutions that do not function like traditional states but nevertheless wield significant power in the global realm. They are connected by the idea that the specific purposes of non-state actors and the contexts in which they operate shape what it means for them to be legitimate and so shape the standards of justification that they have to meet. In this introduction, we develop this guiding methodology further and show how the special issue’s individual contributions apply it to their cases. In the first section, we provide a sketch of our purpose-dependent theory of legitimacy beyond the state. We then highlight two features of the institutional context beyond the state that set it apart from the domestic case: problems of feasibility and the structure of international law.     

American Think Tanks: Policy Elites and the Politicization of Expertise

This article examines policy expertise and the role of think tanks in the context of shifting political alignments in American government. The article first considers the radical and neoconservative critiques of the liberal use of an elite group — or "new class"— of policy experts to formulate and legitimate political reform agendas, a strategy said to represent a technocratic threat to the future of representative government. The discussion then focuses in particular on the neoconservative critique and its promotion of a counter strategy designed to politicize policy expertise through the development of a conservative "counterintelligensia" and the funding of partisan think tanks. The political outcome is seen to be a significant variation in the relationships linking expertise, think tanks, and the setting of national policy agendas. Elite think tanks, conceptualized as policy "discourse coalitions," are analyzed as institutional mechanisms for coordinating the advice of leading policy experts with the interests of economic and political elites. Although the experts' role in these policy-planning organizations falls short of the threat envisioned by the technocratic critique, the political implications of the emergent elite relationship between expertise and policy formation is nonetheless seen to pose troubling questions for both the theory and parctice of representative governance.     

Legitimacy and the Rise of NGOs: the Global and Local in South Asia

We extend sociological institutionalist theory and draw on evidence from South Asia to develop a research agenda for studying how nongovernmental organization (NGO) legitimacy plays out in national and local arenas. After first presenting a sociological institutionalist approach to nongovernmental organizing, we extend it into three areas: national laws governing international and domestic NGOs, growth in domestic NGOs, and the situated interactions among international organizations, nation-states, local organizations, and other actors. (1) International and domestic NGOs are governed by national laws, and we sketch the history of such laws in South Asia to hypothesize a pattern of legal change leading to the present social concern about accountability. (2) Sociological institutionalism suggests that domestic NGO growth is related to the presence of international NGOs and can be interpreted as the diffusion of formal organization. (3) We conceptualize the situated interactions of the plethora of actors as a meso realm at the interface of the global and local. The interrelations of these actors are marked by tensions and conflict. There are many permutations of how they coalesce, not always along a global—local cleavage, and there is a need to examine the full range of interactions. We explore some of these and it seems that actors use accountability strategically in their conflicts with others. The ‘uses of accountability’ in contesting legitimacy within such situations is proposed as a fruitful research direction.     

Pitfalls in Strategic Planning: Lessons for Legitimacy

The paper considers how planning as a political activity is underpinned by concepts of justice and how professional practitioners are consistently faced with making ethical choices in the public interest. The key objective is therefore to identify the centrality of ethics in praxis. In this context, political liberal theory is empirically useful in exploring both the role of participants and the processes employed in strategic planning. A case study analysis generates key issues which are relevant to planning in the wider arena and an extensive series of interviews provides interesting insights into the dynamic between those involved and the effectiveness of procedures followed.