Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T09:42:27.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Multilevel Parliamentary Field: a framework for theorizing representative democracy in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Ben Crum  and
John E. Fossum
Ben Crum*
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
John E. Fossum*
Affiliation:
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
*
E-mails: BJJ.Crum@fsw.vu.nl, j.e.fossum@arena.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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 decision-making. 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.

Keywords

political representationinter-parliamentary relationsEuropean integrationdemocratic theorydemocratic deficit
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 249 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2009

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

Benz, A. (2003), ‘Compound representation in EU multi-level governance’, in B. Kohler-Koch (ed.), Linking EU and National Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blichner, L. (2000), ‘The anonymous hand of public reason: interparliamentary discourse and the quest for legitimacy’, in E.O. Eriksen and J.E. Fossum (eds), Democracy in the European Union – Integration Through Deliberation?, London: Routledge, pp. 141–163.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (2007), Democracy Across Borders: from Dêmos to Dêmoi, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1980), Questions de Sociologie, Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1989), ‘Social space and symbolic power’, Sociological Theory 7(1): 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.Sabel, C.F. (1997), ‘Directly-deliberative polyarchy’, European Law Journal 3(4): 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R. (1989), Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dann, P. (2003), ‘European Parliament and executive federalism: approaching a parliament in a semi-parliamentary democracy’, European Law Journal 9(5): 549–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P.Powell, W.W. (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M.Johnson, V. (2008), ‘Bourdieu and organizational analysis’, Theory and Society 37(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, E.O.Fossum, J.E. (2007), ‘Europe in transformation. How to reconstitute democracy?’ RECON Online Working Paper 2007/01. Retrieved 11 May 2009 from http://www.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_0701.pdf?fileitem=5456091Google Scholar
European Parliament (2007), ‘Opinion on CARS 21: a competitive automotive regulatory framework. (2007/2120(INI))’. Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, September 13, Draftsman: Malcolm Harbour.Google Scholar
Featherstone, K.Radaelli, C. (eds) (2003), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follesdal, A.Hix, S. (2006), ‘Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: a response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3): 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (ed.) (2001), ‘The postnational constellation and the future of democracy’, in The Postnational Constellation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 58–112.Google Scholar
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D.Perraton, J. (2000), Global Transformations, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hix, S., Roland, G.Noury, A.G. (2007), Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L.Marks, G. (2003), ‘Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance’, American Political Science Review 97: 233–243.Google Scholar
Jeffery, C.Savigear, P. (eds) (1991), German Federalism Today, New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. (2002), Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiiver, P. (2006), National and Regional Parliaments in the European Constitutional Order, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, B.Rittberger, B. (2006), ‘The “governance turn” in EU studies’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44: 27–49.Google Scholar
Lord, C. (1997), Democracy in the European Union, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1974), Power, A Radical View, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majone, G. (1998), ‘Europe’s “democratic deficit”: the question of standards’, European Law Journal 4(1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2003), ‘Rethinking representation’, American Political Science Review 97(4): 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, M. (1998), ‘Testing the second-order election model after four European elections’, British Journal of Political Science 28: 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, A.Wessels, W. (eds) (2001), National Parliaments on Their Ways to Europe. Losers or Latecomers?, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Maurer, A. (2002), Parlamentarische Demokratie in Europa. Der Beitrag des EP und der nationalen Parlamente, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2002), ‘In defence of the “democratic deficit” ’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neunreither, K. (1994), ‘The democratic deficit of the European Union: towards closer cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments’, Government and Opposition 29(3): 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neunreither, K. (2006), ‘The European Parliament and national parliaments: conflict or cooperation?’, in K. Auel and A. Benz (eds), The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy, London: Routledge, pp. 164–187.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G.Pierre, J. (2004), ‘Multilevel governance and democracy: a Faustian bargain?’, in I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds), Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W.W.DiMaggio, P. (eds) (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radaelli, C. (2004), ‘Europeanisation: solution or problem?’, European Integration online Papers (EioP) 8(16) available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016a.htmGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. (2000), ‘Losing independence or finally gaining recognition? contacts between MEPs and national parties’, Party Politics 6(2): 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. (2005), ‘Holding governments accountable in European affairs: explaining cross-national variation’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 11(3–4): 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T.Hix, S. (2000), ‘Backbenchers learn to fight back: European integration and parliamentary government’, West European Politics 23: 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reif, K-H.Schmitt, H. (1980), ‘Nine second-order national elections. A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results’, European Journal of Political Research 8: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittberger, B. (2005), Building Europe’s Parliament – Democratic Representation Beyond the Nation-State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F. (1988), ‘The joint-decision trap: lessons from German federalism and European integration’, Public Administration 66: 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V. (2006), Democracy in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitter, P.Kim, S. (2005), ‘Prospects for Northeast Asian integration: lessons from Europe’. Paper presented at conference The European Union and the World: Asia, Enlargement and Constitutional Change, May 5–6, 2005, Beijing.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004), A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van Hulten, M.Clegg, N. (2003), ‘Reforming the European Parliament’, Network Europe Policy Brief, London.Google Scholar
Weiler, J., Haltern, U.R.Mayer, F. (1995), ‘European democracy and its critique’, West European Politics 18(3): 4–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessels, W.Diedrichs, U. (1997), ‘A new kind of legitimacy for a new kind of parliament – the evolution of the European Parliament’, European Integration Online Papers 1(6): 1–15.Google Scholar