Although the process of globalisation is an old-dated phenomenon, which can be settled back to the first intercontinental commercial exchanges (cf. Streeck 2005), only recent events have modified the traditional relation among nation-states. The collapse of the Berlin wall and the downfall of the USSR, the growth of the Pacific Asian economies and the expansion of new communication systems have dissolved the conventional threefold partition of the globe in the idea of a “one world” structured on an axis organised in three principal regional blocks: North America, Western Europe, and Pacific Asia (cf. Taylor/ Flint 2000:4-5).
Globalisation has altered all core tasks of the nation-state concerning territoriality, taxation and citizenship. The formulation of policies has shifted from the national context to a complex environment, which embraces the regional and international dimension. These circumstances have affected the representative role of the state as decisional system and have led to a situation, in which sovereignty is shared among multiple actors, who have to deal with new sources of legitimisation beyond the domestic environment (cf. Luhmann 1994:15-20). Thus, traditional foundations for the political order are destabilized due to the fact that “vertically organised national cultures and national economies are gradually being replaced by new horizontal and global networks” (van Ham 2001:37-8).
From this angle, the European Union (hereafter also EU or Union) could be conceived as a regional answer to the process of globalisation, in which European integration is adapting European societies, economies and political organisations to a globalised competitive rule system (cf. van Ham 2001).
Nevertheless, if the understanding of the EU as a regional variant to globalisation explains the necessity of European integration, it leaves ground for questions regarding the changes in the relationship between governance and government. Moreover, assumed that European integration, owing its intergovernmental bias, is chiefly managed by national executives (cf. Moravcsik 1993), a multi-level system of governance undermines the core functions of governments as principal linkage between the institutional level of decision-making and the society (cf. Poguntke 2000).
In this dissertation I will evaluate, at the example of the European Union, the hypothesis that governance has eclipsed government. The intention is to analyse if the European decisional system has destabilized the role of national governments and eroded the classical link between national institutions and society. Furthermore, I will analyse to which degree these supposed changes are to be ascribed to the institutional configuration of the European Union.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1 Reasons and aim of the paper.
1.2 Structure of the paper.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.
2.1 Theorizing the EU: supranational, intergovernmental or none at all?
2.2 The paradox (?) of shared sovereignty in the European Union.
2.3 Denationalisation of statehood: from the Westphalian order to the ‘competition state’?
3. THE ‘GOVERNANCE’ APPROACH.
3.1 Governance in the European Union.
3.2 European governance and legitimation: a missing link?
4. THE “GOVERNMENT” APPROACH.
4.1 Government in the European Union.
4.2 Do political parties link society to European governments?
5. CONCLUSIONS: HAS ‘GOVERNANCE’ ECLIPSED ‘GOVERNMENT’?
Objectives & Research Topics
The paper aims to evaluate whether governance has eclipsed government within the European Union, specifically examining if the European decision-making system has destabilized the role of national governments and eroded the traditional link between national institutions and society.
- Impact of globalisation on the traditional nation-state and the evolution of sovereignty.
- Comparative analysis of the "governance" versus "government" approaches within the EU.
- The legitimacy deficit of European governance and the role of the Open Method of Co-ordination.
- The function of political parties as a linkage between citizens and European governing institutions.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 Reasons and aim of the paper.
Globalisation has produced substantial changes in the organisation of nation-states and domestic economies. It has transformed the political geography of the world, leading to a course, in which countries have became ever more interdependent and economies have exceeded the national borders (cf. Taylor/ Flint 2000).
From this perspective, globalisation has the quality of a “macro-phenomenon” (cf. Osterhammel/ Petersson 2006:9-10), which involves the affected actors differently according to the domain of reference. As the following table shows, the process of globalisation does not follow a single trajectory with a univocal development, but it shows a multifaceted progression with different implications.
Although the process of globalisation is an old-dated phenomenon, which can be settled back to the first intercontinental commercial exchanges (cf. Streeck 2005), only recent events have modified the traditional relation among nation-states. The collapse of the Berlin wall and the downfall of the USSR, the growth of the Pacific Asian economies and the expansion of new communication systems have dissolved the conventional threefold partition of the globe in the idea of a “one world” structured on an axis organised in three principal regional blocks: North America, Western Europe, and Pacific Asia (cf. Taylor/ Flint 2000:4-5).
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION.: Sets the context of globalisation's impact on nation-states and defines the core research hypothesis regarding the relationship between governance and government in the EU.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.: Reviews existing theories of European integration and discusses the transformation of sovereignty and statehood in a globalised context.
3. THE ‘GOVERNANCE’ APPROACH.: Explores the multi-level European governance system, its legitimacy challenges, and the specific role of the Open Method of Co-ordination.
4. THE “GOVERNMENT” APPROACH.: Investigates the government structure of the EU and analyzes why political parties are failing to serve as a meaningful link between European institutions and the public.
5. CONCLUSIONS: HAS ‘GOVERNANCE’ ECLIPSED ‘GOVERNMENT’?: Summarizes the findings, concluding that while governance dominates at the international level, national governments maintain relevance through the domestic depoliticisation of issues.
Keywords
Globalisation, European Union, Governance, Government, Sovereignty, Legitimacy, Nation-state, Political Parties, Multi-level system, Open Method of Co-ordination, European integration, Democratic deficit, Supranationalism, Intergovernmentalism, Political accountability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary objective of this paper?
The paper evaluates the hypothesis that governance has eclipsed government in the European Union, specifically exploring if this shift has eroded the democratic link between national institutions and society.
Which central topics does the paper address?
The work covers the impact of globalisation on statehood, the multi-level governance structure of the EU, the legitimacy deficit of European policies, and the changing role of political parties.
What is the main research question?
The core question is whether the European decisional system has destabilized national governments and altered the traditional connection between national institutions and citizens.
Which scientific approach does the author use?
The author adopts a dual-perspective analysis, contrasting the "governance" approach, which focuses on multi-level network structures, with the "government" approach, which emphasizes institutional roles and political parties.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section details the theoretical background of integration, the nature of "post-modern" governance in the EU, the functional legitimacy of regulatory policies, and the failure of political parties to bridge the EU-citizen gap.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Globalisation, European Union, Governance, Government, Sovereignty, Legitimacy, and Democratic deficit.
What does the author mean by the "missing link" in European governance?
This refers to the gap between European-level governance and citizens, which the author argues is exacerbated by the failure of political parties to communicate European issues to the domestic electorate.
How does the author characterize the European Union in terms of statehood?
The author describes the EU as a "post-modern competition state" or a "polycentric polity," where traditional hierarchical state functions are increasingly shared and contested in a multi-level environment.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the "eclipse" of government?
The conclusion suggests a paradox: while "governance" has eclipsed "government" at the international level, national "governments" simultaneously preserve their relevance by depoliticizing issues in the domestic context.
- Quote paper
- M.A. Fabrizio Capogrosso (Author), 2008, Shared sovereignty and denationalisation of statehood in the European Union, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/121625
