Resistant to change?: The European Commission and expert group reform
In: West European politics, Band 39, Heft 2, S. 229-256
ISSN: 0140-2382
12 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: West European politics, Band 39, Heft 2, S. 229-256
ISSN: 0140-2382
World Affairs Online
In: West European politics, Band 39, Heft 2, S. 229-256
ISSN: 1743-9655
In: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t8pc2vs9r
The "Narrative" is by Sir Henry Oakes; only the appendix is by Sheen. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; [Preface] signed: J.M.
BASE
In: Politics and governance, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 37-48
ISSN: 2183-2463
The European Commission has faced increasing criticism that its use of expertise in policy-making is undemocratic and politicized. In response to critics, the Commission has produced a number of publicly available documents where its expert policies and practices are outlined and discussed. Cynics view public communications of this nature with skepticism, as organizations tend to adopt "smooth talk" and cosmetic rhetoric designed to placate critics and create a façade of compliance aimed at decreasing external pressure. An alternative deliberative approach, would expect the Commission to engage in a relatively open, reflective and reason-based interchange. The article's main aim is to assess the relative merits of these two approaches in capturing the Commission's framing of its public communication. Cynical expectations, prevalent among Commission critics, are confirmed by the Commission's silence on unpleasant topics including the undemocratic nature of existing expertise arrangements and the strategic uses of knowledge in EU policy-making. However, firm regulatory initiatives and the Commission's critical engagement with democratization demands and possible goal conflicts within their critics' agenda give significant leverage to a deliberative approach.
The European Commission has faced increasing criticism that its use of expertise in policy-making is undemocratic and politicized. In response to critics, the Commission has produced a number of publicly available documents where its expert policies and practices are outlined and discussed. Cynics view public communications of this nature with skepticism, as organizations tend to adopt "smooth talk" and cosmetic rhetoric designed to placate critics and create a façade of compliance aimed at decreasing external pressure. An alternative deliberative approach, would expect the Commission to engage in a relatively open, reflective and reason-based interchange. The article's main aim is to assess the relative merits of these two approaches in capturing the Commission's framing of its public communication. Cynical expectations, prevalent among Commission critics, are confirmed by the Commission's silence on unpleasant topics including the undemocratic nature of existing expertise arrangements and the strategic uses of knowledge in EU policy-making. However, firm regulatory initiatives and the Commission's critical engagement with democratization demands and possible goal conflicts within their critics' agenda give significant leverage to a deliberative approach.
BASE
The European Commission has faced increasing criticism that its use of expertise in policy-making is undemocratic and politicized. In response to critics, the Commission has produced a number of publicly available documents where its expert policies and practices are outlined and discussed. Cynics view public communications of this nature with skepticism, as organizations tend to adopt "smooth talk" and cosmetic rhetoric designed to placate critics and create a façade of compliance aimed at decreasing external pressure. An alternative deliberative approach, would expect the Commission to engage in a relatively open, reflective and reason-based interchange. The article's main aim is to assess the relative merits of these two approaches in capturing the Commission's framing of its public communication. Cynical expectations, prevalent among Commission critics, are confirmed by the Commission's silence on unpleasant topics including the undemocratic nature of existing expertise arrangements and the strategic uses of knowledge in EU policy-making. However, firm regulatory initiatives and the Commission's critical engagement with democratization demands and possible goal conflicts within their critics' agenda give significant leverage to a deliberative approach.
BASE
Industrial symbiosis (IS) is vitally important in facilitating the move towards a circular economy by helping industries and businesses cooperate in the exchange of natural resources and production infrastructures. Strong public and private sector leadership and firm links between industry and research institutes are essential for the formulation of effective IS initiatives. This policy brief examines three good practice examples of IS from the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) and outlines practical guidelines for public authorities and business development organisations on how to develop and implement IS ecosystems. This research is based on the activities and experiences of a project, BSR Stars S3, which was financed by the EU Interreg Baltic Sea Region and focused on BSR cooperation within the bio- and circular economy.
BASE
In: Regional science policy and practice: RSPP, Band 14, Heft 5, S. 1113-1133
ISSN: 1757-7802
AbstractEuropean Union (EU) policymakers and academics regard impact assessments as the primary mechanism for communicating the added value of EU Cohesion Policy to citizens. There is a need to look beyond impact evaluations and towards active citizen engagement in policymaking to increase support for EU cohesion policies. This article examines the benefits and different types of legitimacy that citizen involvement confers upon policymaking, before outlining recommendations for proactively engaging citizens within existing EU cohesion policymaking structures. It is argued that citizen engagement fosters greater input and throughput legitimacy into the process, which supplements the output legitimacy bestowed by impact assessments.
In: Regional studies: official journal of the Regional Studies Association, Band 56, Heft 5, S. 866-878
ISSN: 1360-0591
In: Territory, politics, governance, Band 11, Heft 7, S. 1392-1412
ISSN: 2162-268X
The paper begins with a discussion of the concept of "shrinking", and its origins, outside the realm of rural development. Building on this, the paper shows the distribution of shrinking rural areas across Europe. Using both the project's literature review and findings from its eight case studies the socio-economic processes which drive demographic decline in rural areas are then described. A brief account of the evolution of EU interventions to alleviate the effects of shrinking, and some remarks about the current policy/governance landscape follow. We conclude by considering how a better understanding of the problem and process of shrinking may lead to more effective interventions, within the context of a refreshed long-term vision for Rural Europe. The latter needs to fully acknowledge the expanding repertoire of opportunities confronting rural areas as COVID-19 changes in working behaviour, and the geography of economic activity, accelerate, and fulfil, previously incremental shifts in technology and markets. ; published version ; peerReviewed
BASE
In: Regional studies: official journal of the Regional Studies Association, Band 58, Heft 8, S. 1543-1556
ISSN: 1360-0591