« Home

Home » Politics » Cini: European Union Politics 2e » Student resources » Case studies » Chapter 22

Cini: European Union Politics 2e

Chapter 22

Multi-level governance and the democratic deficit

It is widely believed that the EU has been gradually adopting a special mode of policy-making—multi-level governance—in the post-SEA (Single European Act) era. Multi-level governance as a theoretical account draws attention to two important characteristics of EU policy-making (Hooghe and Marks 2001). In terms of 'multi-level', decision-making has dispersed across different territorial levels in the EU. Supranational institutions, national governments and sub-national actors all play a noticeable part. As far as 'governance' is concerned, EU policy-making is considered as a 'problem-solving' process which prioritises policy coordination over political controls.

While multi-level governance is regarded as an innovative mode of political governance in the EU, some scholars have recently questioned its democratic implications (Benz 2003; Peters and Pierre 2004; Crum 2005). Firstly, the multiple levels of political governance have complicated the democratic linkages between voters and policy-makers. It is often unclear who or which institution is responsible for EU policy-making. As a result, the democratic accountability of EU policies is not easily discernible. Secondly, the 'problem-solving' approach of governance often relies on policy networks to make and implement EU policies. Based on so-called 'stake-holders', such networks are sometimes rather exclusive in defining their membership. 'Outsiders' tend to have very little influence on the policy-making process. Precisely because the policy network approach bypasses the formal political decision-making procedures, it is at odds with the democratic ideal of equal and inclusive participation.

At the heart of this debate is the relationship between efficiency and equality in EU decision-making. Multi-level governance may achieve better policy results (i.e., output legitimacy), but this is at the expense of democratic participation (i.e., input legitimacy). Unless institutional reforms deliver more transparency and openness, the democratic implications of multi-level governance will be under further scrutiny.

Web Links

Enhancing Democracy: A White Paper on Governance in the European Union
europa.eu.int/comm/governance/index_en.htm

Democracy and European Governance, papers presented at an ARENA conference
www.arena.uio.no/events/Conference2002/Papers.html

European Public Space Observatory, a research project monitoring European democracy in the context of the EU and the process of European integration.
www.iccr-international.org/europub/

Further Learning Resources

Benz, Arthur (2003), 'Compounded Representation in EU Multi-Level Governance', in Liking EU and National Governance, Kohler-Koch (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82-110.

Crum, Ben (2005), 'Tailoring Representative Democracy to the European Union: Does the European Constitution Reduce the Democratic Deficit?', European Law Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 452-67.

Hooghe, Liesbet and Marks, Gary (2003), 'Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance', American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 233-43.

Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, Jon (2004), 'Multi-Level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain?' in Multi-Level Governance, Bache and Flinders (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 75-89.