Although the European Economic and Social Committee exists since 1957, there is only scarce literature on this institution. While in the 80s and 90s a few articles and books were published, there has been hardly any literature since 2000. This mere fact may already provide an indication of the Committee’s role in today’s institutional structure of the European Union: Civil society has found other ways of representation. On the one hand, formal ways of participating in the decision making process increased, for instance through the various consultative bodies around the European Commission. On the other hand, informal participation through lobbying has grown and is often regarded as being more profitable and more efficient than the involvement of an assembly with 344 members which has to agree with a majority on its opinions.
Not only on this account is the work of the EESC facing critics. Under the heading “Four good reasons to abolish the Economic and Social Committee”, Helle Thorning-Schmidt (2003), member of the European Convention and European Parliament, challenges the Committee’s right to exist. Her accusations are profound: Unfocused, too expensive, inefficient and not sufficiently European was the EESC’s work.
Other authors are not so pessimistic. Vierlich-Jürcke (1998) refers to the Committee’s ability to “democratize” the decision making system in the European Union by fostering the dialogue between government and the public. Smismans (2000) agrees on these positive effects, but is in favour of some changes to the composition of the Committee. He wants to strengthen links between civil society, broaden the deliberative basis and bring more expertise. He states that an increased input-legitimacy contributes to output-legitimacy.
On a more abstract basis, the critics are not only about efficiency and legitimacy. The question whether the Committee has (still) a right to exist touches the concept of democracy we want to establish in the European Union. The EU has been a “participatory democracy” from the beginning, and the Constitution’s article 46 again strengthens possibilities to participate.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The input-side: The EESC and (participatory) democracy
The output-side: The EESC’s role in the decision making process
Conclusion: A sufficient body for representation?
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines whether the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) serves as a sufficient institution for participation within the European Union, specifically addressing its democratic legitimacy and practical influence on policy-making.
- Evaluation of the EESC's role in "participatory democracy."
- Analysis of the Committee’s input-legitimacy and its representation of civil society.
- Investigation of critics regarding the institution's efficiency and focus.
- Assessment of the EESC’s contribution to the EU's decision-making process.
- Comparison between formal consultative bodies and informal lobbying methods.
Excerpt from the Book
The input-side: The EESC and (participatory) democracy
In the last 50 years, the European Union has developed a concept of participatory democracy sui generis. In 1957, the establishment of the Economic and Social Committee was justified by the aim of uniting interest groups in the process of establishing the Common Market and creating an institution where their voices are heard. Until today, participation increased in quality and quantity.
The driving factor behind the extension of participation was the discussion on the democratic deficit in the European Union. In 1999, EC President Prodi decided to address this problem, and only a year later the reform of European governance was identified by the Commission as one of four strategic objectives. Two factors let to this decision: Firstly, the Irish “no” to the Nice-Treaty shocked politicians in the Union. And secondly, people were loosing confidence in the system and perceived it as remote and intrusive (COM 428final: 3). In its White Paper on “European Governance”, the Commission published its way to solve the dilemma:
“The White Paper proposes opening up the policy-making process to get more people and organisations involved in shaping and delivering EU policy. It promotes greater openness, accountability and responsibility for all those involved. This should help people to see how Member States, by acting together within the Union, are able to tackle their concerns more effectively.” (COM428final: 3)
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This section introduces the research gap regarding the EESC and presents the central debate between critics, who call for the Committee's abolition, and proponents, who highlight its role in democratizing the EU.
The input-side: The EESC and (participatory) democracy: This chapter analyzes the Committee's role in the context of participatory democracy and investigates its input-legitimacy, focusing on the representation of civil society and the challenges regarding the accountability of its members.
The output-side: The EESC’s role in the decision making process: This part examines the practical impact of the EESC on EU decision-making and addresses specific arguments regarding the Committee's lack of focus, inefficiency, and high operational costs.
Conclusion: A sufficient body for representation?: The final chapter summarizes the findings, concluding that while the EESC faces challenges regarding its structure and legitimacy, it provides essential expertise and a formal channel for civil society that remains valuable to the European Union.
Keywords
European Economic and Social Committee, EESC, Participatory Democracy, European Union, Civil Society, Democratic Deficit, Input-Legitimacy, Output-Legitimacy, Lobbying, Governance, Decision-making, Interest Groups, European Integration, Institutional Reform, Accountability
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this paper?
The paper evaluates whether the European Economic and Social Committee is a sufficient institution for fostering participation within the European Union, balancing its role as a consultative body against claims that it is inefficient or unnecessary.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the concept of participatory democracy, the democratic legitimacy of the EESC, the impact of the Committee on EU policy-making, and a rebuttal of common arguments proposed by critics for the Committee's abolition.
What is the main research question?
The research asks if the EESC is a "sufficient institution for participation," measured against two conditions: its ability to fulfill the criteria of participatory democracy and its capacity to add value to the decision-making process.
Which methodology is applied?
The author uses a qualitative analysis of existing academic literature and official EU documents to assess the institutional legitimacy and practical influence of the EESC.
What does the main body cover?
The main body is divided into two analytical parts: the "input-side," which examines legitimacy and representation, and the "output-side," which addresses the actual functional contribution of the Committee and counters specific criticisms like lack of focus or high costs.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include EESC, participatory democracy, civil society, democratic deficit, input-legitimacy, output-legitimacy, interest groups, and institutional reform.
How does the EESC differ from other forms of lobbying?
Unlike informal lobbying, the EESC provides a formal, transparent, and Treaty-based procedure for civil society representatives to influence EU decision-making, which the author argues offers greater legal certainty and a broader basis of representation.
What is the significance of the "participatory democracy" article in the EU Constitution?
The inclusion of article 46 in the Convention for the "constitution of the peoples of Europe" formally acknowledges the principle of participatory democracy, thereby embedding the EESC more deeply into the institutional framework of the Union.
- Citation du texte
- Daniel Neugebauer (Auteur), 2007, The European Economic and Social Committee - A sufficient institution for participation?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/70305
