当前位置: X-MOL 学术JCMS J. Common Mark. Stud. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Europe's New Technocracy: Boundaries of Public Participation in EU Institutions
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies ( IF 2.500 ) Pub Date : 2021-03-25 , DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13169
Matthew Wood 1
Affiliation  

Introduction

Regional organizations in the Global North have sought to create avenues for legitimating integrationist activities. Participatory initiatives are one such route. Referring to mechanisms whereby ‘independently created forms of collective action’, encompassing trade unions, special interest groups and pressure groups, political parties, business organizations, and mass social movements can influence regional decision making, participatory initiatives are proliferating among regionalist bodies (Gerard and Mickler, this issue). This article argues that the proliferation of participatory mechanisms can be conceptualized as the development of a ‘new technocracy’ in regionalist organizations. To make this case, the article examines the case of regionalist participatory initiatives in the European Union's (EU) directorates and agencies.

Recently, an evolving literature on the EU as a ‘responsive technocracy’ has analysed how the growing politicization of EU‐level initiatives and institutions had led to those institutions responding by, for example, adopting new legislation (Rauh, 2016, 2019). Scholars also suggest the need to analyse the ‘responsiveness’ of EU organizations at an administrative level (De Wilde and Rauh, 2019). This article adds to this literature by analysing the boundaries of participatory initiatives by analysing their technocratic logic, and thus showing how they operate as methods for furthering ‘technocratic responsiveness’, rather than democratic innovation.

This argument about the limits of participatory initiatives is not new. Existing literature also notes serious shortcomings given participatory initiatives tend to be colonised by more powerful, often corporate, actors, and an economistic logic (Parker and Pye, 2017). This article adds to the debate by unearthing the technocratic logic behind them, using a framework developed in public administration scholarship on the ‘new technocracy’ (Esmark, 2017). This ‘new technocracy’ is comprised of three aspects:
  • Connectivity: EU institutions aim to circulate information online to inform relevant ‘multipliers’ at national level and relay detail of regulatory procedures.
  • Risk management: EU institutions seek to craft an image of technical competence through engagement with stakeholders, rather than relying on their independence to ensure that image is created.
  • Performance: EU institutions engaging with a variety of stakeholders as a core aspect of monitoring and evaluating the EU's regulatory performance.

This framework draws upon a theory recently posited by Anders Esmark (2017, 2020) that the concept of technocracy has been widely misunderstood in governance studies. Contemporary forms of technocratic governance, Esmark argues, are intended to engage broadly with civil society to enhance their functional utility, both at national and transnational levels. They are characterized by the need to connect with relevant actors by ensuring they receive relevant information, manage risk in terms of foreseeing and displacing the possibility of political contestation, and monitor the performance of EU regulations. The article argues that processes of public involvement are viewed by those engaged in them as functional to EU institutions, and therefore can be seen principally as mechanisms for extending technocratic legitimacy. To show this, the article analyses semi‐structured interviews with 24 European Union Commission Directorates‐General (DGs), civil society organizations and independent agencies, as well as stakeholder engagement strategies and engagement requirements provided in governing regulations.

This article proceeds in four sections. First, it charts the evolution of the EU's technocracy and suggests that since the early 2000s EU institutions have responded to criticisms they are insular and disconnected from the public. Second, it introduces Esmark's theory and suggests this can be applied as a way of framing this development as the emergence of a new technocracy rather than a renewal of democratic legitimacy. Third, the article presents interview and documentary evidence demonstrating how stakeholder engagement processes in EU institutions are viewed by those who enact and receive them as forms of technocratic governance enabling: (1) connectivity, (2) risk management and (3) performance. Fourth, the article reflects upon the implications of this analysis for our understanding of the potential of EU stakeholder engagement strategies as normatively desirable forms of democratic participation. It suggests the development of new technocracy might have potential, if its logic of seeking external legitimacy through responsiveness can be developed to coincide with logics of participatory or deliberative democracy.



中文翻译:

欧洲的新技术统治:公众参与欧盟机构的界限

介绍

全球北部的区域组织一直在寻求为合法化融合主义活动创造途径。参与式倡议就是这样一种途径。提到包括工会,特殊利益集团和压力团体,政党,商业组织和群众社会运动在内的“独立创建的集体行动形式”可以影响区域决策的机制,参与性倡议在区域主义机构中激增(杰拉德和米克勒,这个问题)。本文认为,参与机制的扩散可以被概念化为区域主义组织中“新技术官僚主义”的发展。为了证明这一点,本文研究了欧盟(EU)理事会和机构中区域主义参与性倡议的情况。

最近,关于欧盟作为一种``反应灵敏的技术专家制''的不断发展的文献分析了欧盟级倡议和机构日益政治化如何导致这些机构通过采取新立法等方式做出回应(Rauh,  2016年2019年)。学者们还建议有必要在行政层面分析欧盟组织的``响应能力''(De Wilde和Rauh,  2019年)。本文通过分析参与式主动行动的技术官僚主义逻辑的边界,为这些文献增色不少,从而展示了它们如何作为促进“技术式官僚主义反应力”而不是民主创新的方法来运作。

关于参与性倡议的局限性的争论并不新鲜。现有文献还指出,由于参与性倡议往往被更强大,通常是公司,行为者和经济逻辑所殖民,因此存在严重缺陷(Parker和Pye,  2017年)。本文利用公共行政学领域针对``新技术官僚主义''(Esmark,2017年)开发的框架,发掘了背后的技术官僚主义逻辑,加深了这场辩论 。这种“新技术专家制”包括三个方面:
  • 连通性:欧盟机构旨在在线传播信息,以在国家一级为相关的“乘数”提供信息,并传达监管程序的详细信息。
  • 风险管理:欧盟机构寻求通过与利益相关者的参与来塑造技术能力的形象,而不是依靠其独立性来确保形象的塑造。
  • 绩效:欧盟机构与各种利益相关方合作,将其作为监测和评估欧盟监管绩效的核心方面。

该框架借鉴了最近由Anders埃斯马克(假定理论2017年2020)技术治理的概念在治理研究中被广泛误解。艾斯马克认为,当代形式的技术官僚治理旨在与公民社会广泛接触,以增强其在国家和跨国层面的职能效用。它们的特点是需要与相关行为者保持联系,以确保他们获得相关信息,在预见和取代政治竞赛的可能性方面管理风险,并监督欧盟法规的执行情况。该文章认为,公众参与的过程被参与其中的人们视为对欧盟机构具有功能,因此可以被视为扩大技术官僚合法性的机制。为了证明这一点,

本文分为四个部分。首先,它描绘了欧盟技术专长的演变,并暗示自2000年代初以来,欧盟机构已经对批评进行了回应,这些批评是孤立的,与公众隔绝。其次,它介绍了Esmark的理论,并建议将其作为一种框架将这种发展框架化为新技术专家的出现。而不是恢复民主合法性。第三,本文介绍了采访和书面证据,证明了制定和接受欧盟机构的利益相关者参与过程如何看做是技术官僚治理的形式,这些形式可以实现:(1)连通性,(2)风险管理和(3)绩效。第四,本文反思了这种分析对于我们理解欧盟利益相关者参与策略作为规范性的民主参与形式的潜力的意义。它表明,如果可以发展新的技术官僚主义通过回应来寻求外部合法性的逻辑,使其与参与性或协商性民主的逻辑相吻合,则其发展潜力可能很大。

更新日期:2021-04-22
down
wechat
bug