Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T23:09:23.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How could Expert Involvement Compensate for an Incomplete Capability of Legitimization through Democratic Representation? Debating the Grounds for Political Legitimacy in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2019

Lena Caspers  and
Urban Strandberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to the scholarly as well as societal decades-long debate on the state of democracy in the EU. The objective is to problematize, discuss, and come up with constructive ideas on the role of expert groups in the processes of legitimization of decision-making within the EU. The analysis is guided by a general research question: how could expert involvement compensate for an incomplete capability of legitimization through democratic representation? The empirical analysis of expert influence in decision-making is guided by a new modelling of the so-called Epistemic Community approach. The case chosen to illustrate the model is the authorization process of the emergency contraceptive ellaOne, within the institutional setting of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at the European Medicines Agency. The empirical material consists of interviews with eight members of the CHMP. To guide the empirical analysis the paper introduces a two-dimensional model of the epistemic community approach, which distinguishes between the institutional preconditions and the ideational motivations of expert groups. The results indicate that the experts within the CHMP had an influence on the policy-making process thanks to favourable institutional preconditions as well as ideational motivations of the experts themselves. Our conclusion is that there is a need for ‘institutional engineering’ as regards the involvement of experts in decision-making, to sustain the legitimacy of expert involvement, and level out the institutional conditions for experts’ influence on policy-making within the EU.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 275 - 299
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Guérot, U. (2017) The Open Europe and its Enemies (Berlin: Ullstein Verlag).Google Scholar
2. Habermas, J. (2012) The Crisis of the European Union: A Response (Cambridge: Polity).Google Scholar
3. Follesdal, A. and Hix, S. (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A reponse to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), pp. 533–562.10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00650.xGoogle Scholar
4. Cheneval, F. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2012) The case for demoicracy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), pp. 334–350.10.1111/j.1468-5965.2012.02262.xGoogle Scholar
5. Kalypso, N. (2003) Our European Demoi-cracy: Is this Constitution a Third Way for Europe? In N. Kalypso and S. Weatherill (Eds), Whose Europe? National Models and the Constitution of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 137–152.Google Scholar
6. Kalypso, N. (2004) The new constitution as european ’demoi-cracy’? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 7(1), pp. 76–93.Google Scholar
7. Kalypso, N. (2012) European demoi(sic???)cracy and its crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), pp. 351–369.Google Scholar
8. Van Parijs, P. (1997) Should the European Union become more Democratic? In A. Follesdal and P. Koslowski (Eds), Democracy and the European Union (Berlin & New York: Springer), pp. 287–301.Google Scholar
9. Besson, S. (2006) Sovereignty, international law and democracy. The European Journal of International Law, 22(2), pp. 373–387.10.1093/ejil/chr029Google Scholar
10. Besson, S. (2007) Europe as a demoi-cratic polity. Retfaerd – Nordisk Juridisk Tidsskrift, 30(1), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
11. Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980) Nine second-order national elections – a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research, 8(1), pp. 3–44.10.1111/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00737.xGoogle Scholar
12. Majone, G. (1994) The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77–101.10.1080/01402389408425031Google Scholar
13. Majone, G. (1996) Regulation and its modes: The European experience. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(9), pp. 1597–1637.10.1080/01900699608525158Google Scholar
14. Majone, G. (1998) Europe’s ’democracy deficit’: The question of standards. European Law Journal, 4(1), pp. 5–28.10.1111/1468-0386.00040Google Scholar
15. Majone, G. (2000) The credibility crisis of community regulation. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), pp. 273–302.10.1111/1468-5965.00220Google Scholar
16. Moravcsik, A. (2004) Is there a ’democratic deficit’ in world politics? A framework for analysis. Government and Opposition, 39(2), pp. 336–363.10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00126.xGoogle Scholar
17. Rothstein, B (2014) Politik som organisation (Lund: Studentlitteratur)Google Scholar
18. Haas, P. (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), pp. 1–35.10.1017/S0020818300001442Google Scholar
19. Cross, M. (2011) Security Integration in Europe: How Knowledge-based Networks are Transforming the European Union (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).10.3998/mpub.3250714Google Scholar
20. Cross, M. (2013) Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39(1), pp. 137–160.10.1017/S0260210512000034Google Scholar
21. Cross, M. (2013) The military dimension of European security: An epistemic community approach. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 42(1), pp. 45–64.10.1177/0305829813497821Google Scholar
22. Cross, M. (2014) The Practice of Diplomacy and EU Security Policy . In M. Wilga and I.P. Karolewski (Eds), New Approaches to EU Foreign Policy (Oxford: Routledge).Google Scholar
23. Cross, M. (2015) The limits of epistemic communities: EU security agencies. Politics and Governance, 3(1), pp. 90–100.10.17645/pag.v3i1.78Google Scholar
24. Verdun, A. (1999) The role of the Delors Committee in the creation of EMU: An epistemic community? Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), pp. 308–328.10.1080/135017699343739Google Scholar
25. Mitchell, N., Herron, K., Jenkins-Smith, H. and Whitten, G. (2007) Elite beliefs, epistemic communities and the Atlantic divide: Scientists’ nuclear policy preferences in the United States and European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 37(4), pp. 753–764.10.1017/S0007123407000403Google Scholar
26. Groenleer, M. (2009) The Autonomy of European Union Agencies: A Comparative Study of Institutional Development (Delft: Eburon).Google Scholar
27. Busuioc, M. (2013) European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability (Oxford: Oxford University Press).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199699292.001.0001Google Scholar
28. European Medicines Agency (2014) Assessment Report ellaOne. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/001027/WC500181904.pdf.Google Scholar
29. Howorth, J. (2004) Discourse, ideas, and epistemic communities in European security and defence policy. West European Politics, 27(2), pp. 211–234.10.1080/0140238042000214883Google Scholar
30. Zito, A. (2001) Epistemic communities, collective entrepreneurship and European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 585–603.10.1080/13501760110064401Google Scholar
31. Dunlop, C. (2010) Epistemic communities and two goals of delegation: hormone growth promoters in the European Union. Science and Public Policy, 37(3), pp. 205–217.10.3152/030234210X497681Google Scholar
32. Faleg, G. (2012) Between knowledge and power: Epistemic communities and the emergence of security sector reform in the EU security architecture. European Security, 21(2), pp. 161–184.10.1080/09662839.2012.665882Google Scholar
33. Dunlop, C. (2009) Policy transfer as learning: Capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies, 30(3), pp. 289–311.10.1080/01442870902863869Google Scholar
34. Galbreath, D. and McEvoy, J. (2013) How epistemic communities drive international regimes: The case of minority rights in Europe. Journal of European Integration, 35(2), pp. 169–186.10.1080/07036337.2012.692117Google Scholar
35. The Guardian (2018) Polish MPs back even tougher restrictions on abortion. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/11/polish-mps-reject-liberalised-abortion-laws-but-back-new-restrictions.Google Scholar
36. The Guardian (2018) German parties to vote on ’out of date’ Nazi-era abortion law. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/11/german-parties-to-vote-on-out-of-date-nazi-era-abortion-law.Google Scholar
37. BBC (2017) Swedish anti-abortion midwife loses court case. Available at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39587154.Google Scholar
38. Journal of European Public Policy (2016) Special issue: Ideas, political power, and public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3).Google Scholar