- Oslo, Oslo County, Norway
John Erik Fossum
University of Oslo, ARENA Centre for European Studies, Faculty Member
- Professor of Political Science at ARENA Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo, Norwayedit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
... DEMOCRACY THROUGH STRONG PUBLICS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION? I. The Public Sphere Essential to Democratic Legitimacy ... There are no external bodies that guarantee the legitimacy of power neither divine law nor traditional authority.... more
... DEMOCRACY THROUGH STRONG PUBLICS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION? I. The Public Sphere Essential to Democratic Legitimacy ... There are no external bodies that guarantee the legitimacy of power neither divine law nor traditional authority. ...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Canadian Studies The series Canadian Studies examines the many facets of Canadian reality from a multidisciplinary perspective. Contributions from both the humanities and the social sciences are invited. The editor welcomes manuscripts... more
Canadian Studies The series Canadian Studies examines the many facets of Canadian reality from a multidisciplinary perspective. Contributions from both the humanities and the social sciences are invited. The editor welcomes manuscripts whose primary object is" Canada" in the ...
Research Interests:
1. Introduction: Reconfiguring European Democracy Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum 2. Europe's Challenge: Reconstituting Europe or Reconfiguring Democracy? Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum 3. A Democratic Audit... more
1. Introduction: Reconfiguring European Democracy Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum 2. Europe's Challenge: Reconstituting Europe or Reconfiguring Democracy? Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum 3. A Democratic Audit Framework Christopher Lord 4. Democracy and Constitution making in the European Union John Erik Fossum and Agustin Jose Menendez 5. The European Union's Multilevel Parliamentary Field John Erik Fossum and Ben Crum 6. Gender, Justice and Democracy in the European Union Yvonne Galligan 7. Civil Society, Public Sphere and Democracy in the European Union Hans Jurg Trenz and Ulrike Liebert 8. From what is the patient suffering? Alternative Diagnoses and Democratic Remedies in the Foreign and Security Dimension Helene Sjursen 9. Democracy Reconstituting Democracy in Europe and Constituting the European Demos? Magdalena Gora, Zdzislaw Mach and Hans-Jorg Trenz 10. Cosmopolitanism in the European Union and Canada Compared John Erik Fossum 11. Conclusion Erik Oddvar Eriksen and John Erik Fossum
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Europeanization and globalization are frequently held to undermine national democracy; hence raising the democracy in the multi-level constellation that makes up the European Union? We present three models for how democracy can be... more
Europeanization and globalization are frequently held to undermine national democracy; hence raising the democracy in the multi-level constellation that makes up the European Union? We present three models for how democracy can be reconstituted: (a) it can be reconstituted at the national level, as delegated democracy with a concomitant reframing of the EU as a functional regulatory regime; (b) through establishing the EU as a multi-national state based on a common identity(ies) and solidaristic allegiance strong enough to undertake collective action; or (c) through the development of a post-national Union with an explicit cosmopolitan imprint. These are the only viable models of European democracy, as they are the only ones that can ensure equal membership in a self-governing polity. They differ however with regard to both applicability and robustness. ∗This is a shortened version of RECON Working Paper 2007/01
Much has been written on the theories and practices of federalism and democracy. Some scholars have been interested moreover in the contingent relationship between the two terms, an approach taken in particular by Arthur Benz, who has... more
Much has been written on the theories and practices of federalism and democracy. Some scholars have been interested moreover in the contingent relationship between the two terms, an approach taken in particular by Arthur Benz, who has placed emphasis on the manner in which federalism and democracy are coupled. There may be no coupling; they may be loosely coupled; or they might be tightly coupled. Benz sees loose couplings as the mode of coupling that is most suitable to democracy. This chapter addresses the following question: Under what conditions (if any) may parliamentary fields ensure favourable couplings of federalism and democracy? The author first briefly outlines how Benz understands these three forms of coupling before discussing three ways of further extending the debate on the important and fruitful notion of coupling federalism and democracy that Benz has introduced. The first discusses coupling in relation to the notion of slack; the second discusses the role of coupling agents and introduces the notion of ambiguous coupling; and the third discusses the relationship between coupling and field.
Research Interests:
version. Please do not quote without permission from the author. 1
Research Interests:
Europeanization and globalization are frequently held to undermine national democracy; hence raising the democracy in the multi-level constellation that makes up the European Union? We present three models for how democracy can be... more
Europeanization and globalization are frequently held to undermine national democracy; hence raising the democracy in the multi-level constellation that makes up the European Union? We present three models for how democracy can be reconstituted: (a) it can be reconstituted at the national level, as delegated democracy with a concomitant reframing of the EU as a functional regulatory regime; (b) through establishing the EU as a multi-national state based on a common identity(ies) and solidaristic allegiance strong enough to undertake collective action; or (c) through the development of a post-national Union with an explicit cosmopolitan imprint. These are the only viable models of European democracy, as they are the only ones that can ensure equal membership in a self-governing polity. They differ however with regard to both applicability and robustness. ∗This is a shortened version of RECON Working Paper 2007/01
This paper focuses on two contested federal-type entities, Canada and the EU. There is a curious paradox in that both have been depicted as failed (Canada) and as virtually impossible (EU) nation-building projects, but also as vanguards... more
This paper focuses on two contested federal-type entities, Canada and the EU. There is a curious paradox in that both have been depicted as failed (Canada) and as virtually impossible (EU) nation-building projects, but also as vanguards in terms of handling national and other forms of difference and diversity. The first purpose is to substantiate the claim that the two form a distinct sub-category of federation, poly-cephalous federation. Poly-cephalous federation is a more apt term for depicting the EU and Canada (pre- patriation, i.e. pre-1982) than such terms as multilevel governance and multinational federation. The distinguishing features of poly-cephalous federations are a) that they are about an on-going working out of the terms of federal balancing as part of doing the balancing; and b) that those in charge of the balancing are executive officials who set the terms of balancing in systems of summitry with clear parallels to international diplomacy. The executives are heads of states and governments. They represent and control their respective governments and have privileged access to the many tools that modern states have for shaping and sustaining community and identity. It follows that poly-cephalous federations are very prone to executive dominance. The second purpose of the paper is to consider what form of democratic federalism (if any) such a structure may give rise to. The Canadian experience suggests that the main democratic potential in poly-cephalous federations inheres in a viable transition to reflexive federalism (which will be discussed in relation to the post-1982 period). What it is and under what conditions it can be developed is important to establish, not the least because we should consider if there might be a similar potential for the EU, even if its path would obviously be very different from that of Canada.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the last decade or so political scientists have found the pluralist and marxist theoretical perspectives wanting for their inadequate attention to the causal role of states. In response, a burgeoning international literature has... more
In the last decade or so political scientists have found the pluralist and marxist theoretical perspectives wanting for their inadequate attention to the causal role of states. In response, a burgeoning international literature has emerged which sets out to develop a state-centred theoretical perspective. This study is deeply informed by the emerging statist theoretical perspective. This thesis explores the relative capacity of the federal state to increase its autonomy in relation to the powerful oil MNCs in the period 1973-84 through an expanded federal presence in the energy sector. Whereas many scholars have assumed that a positive relationship existed between state capacity and the effectiveness of state intervention, Evans and Ikenberry for instance argue that an almost inverse relationship exists between the magnitude of intervention and its effectiveness. In Canada the literature on federalism has long been cognizant of the important role of states. This thesis therefore attempts to fuse the two bodies of literature, namely statism and federalism, in order to shed added light on the development of federal oil policy during 1973-84. The fact that the Canadian state is federal accounts for the recurring tendency for the energy issue to be redefined from its "obvious" focus on state-oil industry relations to intrastate issues (federal-provincial relations). A major contribution of this thesis is to explore the circumstances in which jurisdictional concerns deflect attention from policy substance - and also to those in which the reverse occurs. The thesis finds that when one level of government sought to become more independent of dominant societal actors, such as the oil industry, the intervention, whether so intended or not, was redefined to follow intergovernmental lines of conflict, rather than state-society lines of conflict. The nature of the issues also changed as distributional problems became subsumed under and were driven by the jurisdictional concerns of governments. This increased the policy i [...]
Research Interests:
Present-day EU is facing strong internal and external centrifugal pulls, clearly exacerbated by Brexit. A key question is what ties the EU together and whether EU member states will continue on the same integrationist track. A change from... more
Present-day EU is facing strong internal and external centrifugal pulls, clearly exacerbated by Brexit. A key question is what ties the EU together and whether EU member states will continue on the same integrationist track. A change from different speeds of integration to a more open-ended situation with forces driving disintegration (in a uniform or a differentiated manner) raises questions not only of cohesion and governing ability, but of social support, not the least since some forms of post-crises differentiation are associated with dominance. At the same time, there is no doubt that differentiation (in policy, legal and institutional terms) has been an important means for managing conflict and for containing (and localising) disagreement. In this circumstance, it is not clear if differentiation is part of the problem or part of the solution. EU3D’s main purpose is to clarify the conditions under which differentiation is supportive of democracy and the conditions under which differentiation is associated with dominance. To address that, EU3D undertakes conceptual clarification, causal analysis and normative evaluation. Conceptual clarification specifies the three core terms – differentiation, dominance and democracy – and how they are related, and spells out criteria and mechanisms for guiding the empirical analysis. EU3D provides an overview assessment of EU polity differentiation and discusses the implications for dominance and democracy. That is complemented with a causal analysis of the specific mechanisms that we may associate with post-crises differentiation-engendered dominance and the mechanisms that we may associate with forms of democratic push-back. In the last section, the focus is on normative evaluation. We outline and assess a range of constitutional models that we consider in relation to our assessment of the EU and proposals for EU reform and assess their empirical veracity and normative viability. These assessments are summed up in a theory of democratic differentiation.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The European Union has developed a significant range of democracy promotion initiatives in Latin America since the 1990s. The E.U.'s approach to democracy building has been seen to possess a number of strengths relative to U.S.... more
The European Union has developed a significant range of democracy promotion initiatives in Latin America since the 1990s. The E.U.'s approach to democracy building has been seen to possess a number of strengths relative to U.S. policy, especially in connection with grassroots developmental imperatives. European policy itself, however, has a number of limitations. It has inadequately conceptualized the linkages between economic and political dimensions; it has insufficiently recognized the potential benefits of balancing bottom-up and top-down approaches. The E.U.'s influence over Latin American governments has remained more nebulous than that of the United States. European and U.S. policies in Latin America have both rivaled and complemented each other. Understanding this might inform both actors' democracy promotion efforts in the region. atin America offers an illuminating case study of the international dimensions of democratic change. Its reception and acceptance of democracy promotion policies from other regions is colored by the variety of its political trends: from incremental transition in Mexico to a lack of any tangible political liberalization in Cuba; democratic regression followed by apparently abrupt change in Peru; the dismantling of countervailing institutions in Venezuela after 1998; and the challenge of deepening democracy in a context of conflict, as in Colombia, or fragile peace processes, as in Central America. Across the region, analysts suggest, the quality of democratic procedures has been undermined by rising corruption; weakening parliaments, parties, and judiciaries; and the tendency toward "soft authoritarianism." While U.S. democracy promotion policies have inevitably attracted the overwhelming share of attention in Latin America, the European Union has also sought to establish itself as a leading player in this field. An assessment of the E.U.'s democracy promotion policies (meaning those of the European Commission plus member states, acting individually and collectively) in Latin America is instructive for several reasons.1 From a European perspective, the scope and effectiveness of E.U. policy in Latin America provides a good test of the organization's aim of estab
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
PART I - Introduction 1: Simona Piattoni: The European Union: Legitimating Values, Democratic Principles and Institutional Architectures PART II - Democratic Principles 2: John Erik Fossum and Johannes Pollak: Which Democratic Principles... more
PART I - Introduction 1: Simona Piattoni: The European Union: Legitimating Values, Democratic Principles and Institutional Architectures PART II - Democratic Principles 2: John Erik Fossum and Johannes Pollak: Which Democratic Principles for the European Union? What Deficit? 3: Hans Agne: Popular Power in the European Union: Delegated or Alienated? 4: Ben Crum and Deirdre Curtin: The Challenge of Making European Union Executive Power Accountable 5: Stijn Smismans: Democratic Participation and the Search for a European Union Institutional Architecture that Accommodates Interests and Expertise 6: Sandra Kroger: Democratic Representation as the Normative and Organizing Principle of the European Union PART III - Institutional Architectures 7: Kalypso Nicolaidis: Demoicratic Theory and Europe's Institutional Architecture in Times of Crisis 8: Michael Burgess: Federal Imperatives in the Institutional Evolution of the European Union 9: Sergio Fabbrini: Alternative Views: Which Institutional Architecture for a Political Union? 10: Arthur Benz: Multilevel Governance in the European Union: Loosely-Coupled Arenas of Representation, Participation and Accountability 11: Jurgen Neyer: Empowering the Sovereign: National Parliaments in European Union Monetary and Financial Policy PART IV - Conclusion 12: Simona Piattoni: European Union Institutional Architectures: Structural Tensions, Dynamic Forces and the Advantages of Hapticity
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
As part of their conflict handling repertoire, political systems possess a range of mechanisms to suppress or avoid conflicts. A closer look across Europe would yield a broad tapestry of mechanisms for handling the thorny issue of... more
As part of their conflict handling repertoire, political systems possess a range of mechanisms to suppress or avoid conflicts. A closer look across Europe would yield a broad tapestry of mechanisms for handling the thorny issue of European integration, with most governments and political systems relying on some version of conflict avoidance. In this picture, one should expect that a country such as Norway, which has rejected EU membership twice, has an active and vocal anti-membership organization, and where polls consistently show a ‘no’ majority, would stand out as the exception, in the sense that there would be no need for the Norwegian political system to take any measures to suppress the issue. But reality is more complex. Since the early 1990s, when Norway entered into the EEA agreement with the EU, Norway’s relationship to the EU has changed dramatically. Norway’s current arrangement with the EU is perhaps best labelled as ‘tight incorporation without formal membership’. This...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The EU is often considered to be a unique entity. This assertion rests on assessments of its institutional character more than on assessments of its social constituency, i.e., the structure of demands and expectations that citizens and... more
The EU is often considered to be a unique entity. This assertion rests on assessments of its institutional character more than on assessments of its social constituency, i.e., the structure of demands and expectations that citizens and groups place on the EU. Establishing the character of the latter is important both to understand the EU as polity and to understand its democratic deficit. It is also of theoretical interest given the increased focus on recognition politics, not only within nation-states but also within the transnational realm. This article develops a conceptual-methodological framework with a set of structured tests so as to permit us to establish the character of the EU’s social constituency. This framework combines a philosophical approach to recognition with a sociological approach to contentious politics. A central element is the notion of ‘recognition order’, and the article briefly examines whether the EU might be said to make up a unique recognition order. Key...
Research Interests:
AbstractStudents of regional integration in Europe have found it difficult to identify the nature of the European Union (EU). For some, it is the product of states rationally deciding to belong to an inter-governmental organisation to... more
AbstractStudents of regional integration in Europe have found it difficult to identify the nature of the European Union (EU). For some, it is the product of states rationally deciding to belong to an inter-governmental organisation to promote their utilitarian goals. For others, it is a putative supranational polity whose development requires the progressive diminution of state sovereignty. The authors argue that it is more fruitful to see the EU as a unique kind of regional ‘institution’. Its endurance depends upon its ability to reflect and instantiate established social ‘practices’ rather than convergent ‘interests’ among member states.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
By John Erik Fossum; Charters and constitution-making: Comparing the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Charter of. ...
Research Interests:
There is very little theoretically and normatively informed empirical research that seeks to juxtapose studies of national contestation with other, non-national, perspectives. This collection does so by juxtaposing analyses of Canada and... more
There is very little theoretically and normatively informed empirical research that seeks to juxtapose studies of national contestation with other, non-national, perspectives. This collection does so by juxtaposing analyses of Canada and Europe (the EU, member and closely affiliated non-member states). It focuses on contestations over nationalism, with transnational nationalism and new nationalism reflecting contestations within the ambit of nationalism, and cosmopolitanism as contestation about nationalism. Together, they make up the book’s themes on contestations over nationalism. Clarifying the terms of contestation—is it still about nationalism, or is it about factors and phenomena that should be more suitably labelled under other categories of social identification and co-existence—is important in order to understand the nature of our contemporary societies and, not least, how they deal with diversity.
Europeanization and globalization are frequently held to undermine national democracy. What are then the prospects for democracy in the multi-level constellation that makes up the contemporary European political order? The European debate... more
Europeanization and globalization are frequently held to undermine national democracy. What are then the prospects for democracy in the multi-level constellation that makes up the contemporary European political order? The European debate has taken the question of democracy beyond the nation state. But can there be democracy without nation and state? The authors present three different models for how democracy can be reconstituted within the multileveled European context. It can be reconstituted at the national level, as delegated democracy with a concomitant reframing of the EU as a functional regulatory regime. Democracy can be reconstituted through establishing the EU as a multi-national state based on a common identity(ies) and solidaristic allegiance strong enough to undertake collective action. Democracy can also be reconstituted through the development of a post-national Union with an explicit cosmopolitan imprint. This entails an EU with some governmental functions, and whic...
Research Interests:
Carol Harlow provides us with a nuanced and sophisticated assessment of the development of the EU’s formal lawmaking processes and their legitimacy implications. She places particular emphasis on the important notion of executive... more
Carol Harlow provides us with a nuanced and sophisticated assessment of the development of the EU’s formal lawmaking processes and their legitimacy implications. She places particular emphasis on the important notion of executive legislation. That naturally puts the focus on delegation and principal/agent theory, which is discussed in relation to the EU in general. With regard to legitimacy, Harlow discusses both the input and output dimensions. The article brings in some of the crises-driven changes or mutations that the EU is presently experiencing. In this contribution I focus on some of the core notions in the analytical framework that Harlow constructs, with particular emphasis on legitimacy, representation and democracy.
Research Interests:
This article introduces the concept of the ‘Multilevel Parliamentary Field’ as a means for analysing the structure of democratic representation in the European Union (EU). This concept is warranted for several reasons. First, the... more
This article introduces the concept of the ‘Multilevel Parliamentary Field’ as a means for
analysing the structure of democratic representation in the European Union (EU). This
concept is warranted for several reasons. First, the multilevel configuration that makes
up the EU contains two channels of democratic representation: one directly through
the European Parliament, the other indirectly through the national parliaments and
governments. These two channels are likely to persist side by side; hence, both the
European and the national parliaments can claim to represent ‘the people’ in EU decisionmaking.
Second, this structure of representation is in many respects without precedent;
it does not fit established concepts of democratic representation derived from the
nation-state or from international relations, such as a federal two-channel system or a
parliamentary network. Third, the representative bodies in the EU are interlinked, also
across levels. Up until now, no proper conceptual apparatus has been devised that can
capture the distinctive traits of this EU multilevel representative system, and help to
assess its democratic quality. The concept of the Multilevel Parliamentary Field fills both
these tasks. It serves as a heuristic device to integrate the empirical analysis of the
different forms of democratic representation in the EU’s multilevel system, and it
provides new angles for analysing the democratic challenges that this system faces.
analysing the structure of democratic representation in the European Union (EU). This
concept is warranted for several reasons. First, the multilevel configuration that makes
up the EU contains two channels of democratic representation: one directly through
the European Parliament, the other indirectly through the national parliaments and
governments. These two channels are likely to persist side by side; hence, both the
European and the national parliaments can claim to represent ‘the people’ in EU decisionmaking.
Second, this structure of representation is in many respects without precedent;
it does not fit established concepts of democratic representation derived from the
nation-state or from international relations, such as a federal two-channel system or a
parliamentary network. Third, the representative bodies in the EU are interlinked, also
across levels. Up until now, no proper conceptual apparatus has been devised that can
capture the distinctive traits of this EU multilevel representative system, and help to
assess its democratic quality. The concept of the Multilevel Parliamentary Field fills both
these tasks. It serves as a heuristic device to integrate the empirical analysis of the
different forms of democratic representation in the EU’s multilevel system, and it
provides new angles for analysing the democratic challenges that this system faces.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The EU has over decades gradually developed a material constitutional arrangement, with very limited public input. Since 2001, the Laeken constitutional process which produced the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe has become... more
The EU has over decades gradually developed a material constitutional arrangement, with very limited public input. Since 2001, the Laeken constitutional process which produced the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe has become greatly politicized. This automatically directs our attention to the public sphere as a core requirement of any modern constitutional system. More specifically, this paper will analyse the structural determinants of mediation and public communication between European constitution-makers and their diversified constituencies. The aim is to relate the negative referendum results or what we refer to as ratification failure to the European public sphere deficit. Three possible explanations for ratification failure will be discerned and discussed: The first posits that constitution-making, in order to be successful, must rely on pre-existing resources of common trust, solidarity and understanding, which are constitutive of a shared public sphere. The secon...
Research Interests:
To what extent has Brexit affected Norwegians’ perceptions of their current relationship with the EU? What are the considerations that central political and societal actors bring up to explain their stances? What are the broader lessons... more
To what extent has Brexit affected Norwegians’ perceptions of their current relationship with the EU? What are the considerations that central political and societal actors bring up to explain their stances? What are the broader lessons for the EU’s relations with non-members? We argue that Norway’s EU affiliation is so close that we can draw on Catherine De Vries’ benchmark theory to assess whether Brexit affects Norwegians’ assessments of Norway’s relationship with the EU. We focus on the Norwegian government’s stance. Further, we consider opinion polls to understand the strength of domestic support for the EEA Agreement, and whether that support has changed as a consequence of Brexit. We thereafter look for political entrepreneurs or political change agents, in political parties, in interest groups, and among civil society activists. We find that Brexit has not served as a benchmark. It has not set in motion efforts to change Norway’s EU affiliation. Opponents diverge on alternat...
Research Interests:
The negative referendum results in France and the Netherlands have been construed as signs of a deep gap between the European Union’s leaders and its people(s). Treaty-making/change in the European Union has historically been conducted... more
The negative referendum results in France and the Netherlands have been construed as signs of a deep gap between the European Union’s leaders and its people(s). Treaty-making/change in the European Union has historically been conducted through an intergovernmental, executive-style approach, with limited popular input, at least until the referendum stage. The latest instance, the so-called Laeken process (from the Laeken Declaration to the popular referenda, 2001-2005), cast the undertaking in explicit constitutional terms and opened and democratized aspects of the process. The negative referendum results however raise questions as to whether the Union can and should continue down the constitutional route. This article examines political and democratic challenges and opportunities associated with transition from an executive-style to a more open and democratic approach to constitution-making/change. The purpose is to derive theoretical and practical lessons from other comparable poli...
Research Interests:
The question of how to reconcile diversity and integration has occupied public debates, political agendas and social sciences for decades. This WP provides a brief outline of how the project Negotiating Diversity in Expanded European... more
The question of how to reconcile diversity and integration has occupied public debates, political agendas and social sciences for decades. This WP provides a brief outline of how the project Negotiating Diversity in Expanded European Public Spaces addresses these matters. Our point of departure is that questions pertaining to the governing and recognition of diversity in Europe cannot be properly addressed without at the same time taking into account the multilevel character of European public space, the multiple characters of the groups (national/religion based etc), and the multiple modes of integration. Within such a complex European space, we identify four policy/theoretical approaches to diversity management and understanding of public space: multiculturalism, interculturalism, transnationalism and cosmopolitanism. Each ‘ism’ has its own conception of public space, diversity, equality and solidarity. Our main aim is to contribute to the normativities that inform the theory and practice of integration and diversity governance in Europe.
Research Interests:
EU Differentiation, Dominance and Democracy (EU3D) is a research project that specifies the conditions under which differentiation is politically acceptable, institutionally sustainable, and democratically legitimate; and singles out... more
EU Differentiation, Dominance and Democracy (EU3D) is a research project that specifies the conditions under which differentiation is politically acceptable, institutionally sustainable, and democratically legitimate; and singles out those forms of differentiation that engender dominance. The EU3D Research Papers are preprint scientific articles on the differentiated European political order. The series is multidisciplinary, with a particular emphasis on the fields of political science, political theory, sociology, economy and law.
EU Differentiation, Dominance and Democracy (EU3D) is a research project that specifies the conditions under which differentiation is politically acceptable, institutionally sustainable, and democratically legitimate; and singles out... more
EU Differentiation, Dominance and Democracy (EU3D) is a research project that specifies the conditions under which differentiation is politically acceptable, institutionally sustainable, and democratically legitimate; and singles out those forms of differentiation that engender dominance. The EU3D Research Papers are preprint scientific articles on the differentiated European political order. The series is multidisciplinary, with a particular emphasis on the fields of political science, political theory, sociology, economy and law.
Research Interests:
Present-day EU is facing strong internal and external centrifugal pulls, clearly exacerbated by Brexit. A key question is what ties the EU together and whether EU member states will continue on the same integrationist track. A change from... more
Present-day EU is facing strong internal and external centrifugal pulls, clearly
exacerbated by Brexit. A key question is what ties the EU together and whether EU
member states will continue on the same integrationist track. A change from different
speeds of integration to a more open-ended situation with forces driving disintegration
(in a uniform or a differentiated manner) raises questions not only of
cohesion and governing ability, but of social support, not the least since some forms
of post-crises differentiation are associated with dominance. At the same time,
there is no doubt that differentiation (in policy, legal and institutional terms) has
been an important means for managing conflict and for containing (and localising)
disagreement. In this circumstance, it is not clear if differentiation is part of the
problem or part of the solution. EU3D’s main purpose is to clarify the conditions
under which differentiation is supportive of democracy and the conditions under
which differentiation is associated with dominance. To address that, EU3D undertakes
conceptual clarification, causal analysis and normative evaluation. Conceptual
clarification specifies the three core terms – differentiation, dominance and
democracy – and how they are related, and spells out criteria and mechanisms for
guiding the empirical analysis. EU3D provides an overview assessment of EU polity
differentiation and discusses the implications for dominance and democracy. That
is complemented with a causal analysis of the specific mechanisms that we may
associate with post-crises differentiation-engendered dominance and the
mechanisms that we may associate with forms of democratic push-back. In the last
section, the focus is on normative evaluation. We outline and assess a range of
constitutional models that we consider in relation to our assessment of the EU and
proposals for EU reform and assess their empirical veracity and normative viability.
These assessments are summed up in a theory of democratic differentiation.
exacerbated by Brexit. A key question is what ties the EU together and whether EU
member states will continue on the same integrationist track. A change from different
speeds of integration to a more open-ended situation with forces driving disintegration
(in a uniform or a differentiated manner) raises questions not only of
cohesion and governing ability, but of social support, not the least since some forms
of post-crises differentiation are associated with dominance. At the same time,
there is no doubt that differentiation (in policy, legal and institutional terms) has
been an important means for managing conflict and for containing (and localising)
disagreement. In this circumstance, it is not clear if differentiation is part of the
problem or part of the solution. EU3D’s main purpose is to clarify the conditions
under which differentiation is supportive of democracy and the conditions under
which differentiation is associated with dominance. To address that, EU3D undertakes
conceptual clarification, causal analysis and normative evaluation. Conceptual
clarification specifies the three core terms – differentiation, dominance and
democracy – and how they are related, and spells out criteria and mechanisms for
guiding the empirical analysis. EU3D provides an overview assessment of EU polity
differentiation and discusses the implications for dominance and democracy. That
is complemented with a causal analysis of the specific mechanisms that we may
associate with post-crises differentiation-engendered dominance and the
mechanisms that we may associate with forms of democratic push-back. In the last
section, the focus is on normative evaluation. We outline and assess a range of
constitutional models that we consider in relation to our assessment of the EU and
proposals for EU reform and assess their empirical veracity and normative viability.
These assessments are summed up in a theory of democratic differentiation.
Research Interests:
Dominance and Democracy (EU3D) is a research project that specifies the conditions under which differentiation is politically acceptable, institutionally sustainable, and democratically legitimate; and singles out those forms of... more
Dominance and Democracy (EU3D) is a research project that specifies the conditions under which differentiation is politically acceptable, institutionally sustainable, and democratically legitimate; and singles out those forms of differentiation that engender dominance. The EU3D Research Papers are preprint scientific articles on the differentiated European political order. The series is multidisciplinary, with a particular emphasis on the fields of political science, political theory, sociology, economy and law.