|
Glossary of shared terminology (M)
| The success of the strategy relies on the use of quantified measurements, targets and benchmarks, to allow for a proper monitoring and evaluation of progress. These objectives are based on shared values among the Member States and cover issues which are felt to be of common concern. Progress towards these objectives are defined either in terms of quantitative or qualitative indicators. Through the use of targets and indicators, the results of policies are made transparent and therefore open to public scrutiny.
|
| (In contrast) is not a democratic principle. It refers to a system of supervisory control, peer reviews and reporting requirements, the agents being accountable to principals.
|
Modes of governance are different types of a specific conception of governance. If governance is conceived as political steering (policy), modes of governance denote different styles or instruments of political steering. On the basis of the two dimensions “flexible or rigid implementation” and “binding or non-binding legal instruments” four modes of governance can be distinguished: “coercion”, “framework regulation”, “targeting”, and “voluntarism”.
[Treib, Oliver/Bähr, Holger/Falkner, Gerda (2005) Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification, EUROGOV Working Papers N-05-02].
|
The “targeting” mode of governance is one of the new modes of governance. It uses non-binding recommendations, but these recommendations are very detailed and thus leave little room for manoeuvre for specification at the implementation stage. Some of the non-binding recommendations contained in recent social policy Directives represent this mode of governance. For example, the Part-time Work Directive recommends that employers should, as far as possible, accept requests from employees to transfer from full-time to part-time work and vice versa. To that end, employers are called upon to provide timely information on vacant full-time or part-time jobs in their enterprises
[Treib, Oliver/Bähr, Holger/Falkner, Gerda (2005) Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification, EUROGOV Working Papers N-05-02]. |
The “coercion” mode of governance is characterised by binding legal instruments prescribing detailed and fixed standards that leave little leeway in implementation. This is what is usually dubbed the ideal-typical “old” mode of governance by fully binding and highly prescriptive pieces of EU legislation.
[Treib, Oliver/Bähr, Holger/Falkner, Gerda (2005) Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification, EUROGOV Working Papers N-05-02]. |
| Coordination describes a non-hierarchical mode of governance where actors try to accommodate their behaviour in a process of communicative exchange, without being subject to binding legal obligations. Coordination may take place in networks, where ties and interactions are formally or informally defined.
|
The “framework regulation” mode of governance belongs to the group of new modes of governance. It remains within the realm of binding law. However, it offers member states leeway in implementation, e.g. by defining only broad goals to be specified by member states or by presenting a range of policy options to choose from. In the field of EU labour law, many recent Directives are characterised by considerable amounts of flexibility. The European Works Councils Directive is one particularly good example of this mode of governance.
[Treib, Oliver/Bähr, Holger/Falkner, Gerda (2005) Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification, EUROGOV Working Papers N-05-02]. |
| Bargaining is a particular mode of governance in negotiation systems, where actors come together in order to trade gives and takes, guided by a rational understanding of their interests, benefits and options, and subject to constraints and incentives which are conceived as external to their preference formation. Self-interest is a methodological assumption as much as the underlying model of a homo oeconomicus.
|
| Competition as a mode of governance where actors' behaviour is guided by the will to improve their comparative advantage in relation to other actors, which are conceived as striving for the same limited benefits. In a market situation, actors must constantly adjust to the volatilities of the shifting patterns of demand and offers.
|
| Hierarchy describes a mode of governance that is marked by a ranking of actors and/or levels of decision-making, endowed with asymmetric formal and/or informal capacities for taking decisions. Certain actors/levels are thus subordinated to others.
|
The “voluntarism” mode of governance belongs to the group of new modes of governance. It is based on non-binding instruments and only defines broad goals that member states may specify in implementation. The broad and legally non-compulsory guidelines that have characterised much of the processes in the framework of the open method of co-ordination are the best example for this type of governance. They are not only legally non-binding, but they typically also define policy goals rather than concrete reforms, leaving it up to the member states to define how to achieve these goals.
[Treib, Oliver/Bähr, Holger/Falkner, Gerda (2005) Modes of Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clarification, EUROGOV Working Papers N-05-02]. |
European integration is a polity-creating process in which authority and policy-making influence are shared across multiple levels of government – subnational, national, and supranational. While national governments are formidable participants in EU policy making, control has slipped away from them to supranational institutions. Individual state sovereignty is diluted in the EU by collective decision making among national governments and by the autonomous role of the European Parliament, the Commission, the ECJ and the ECB.
This model does not reject the view that national arenas are important, however, a very different polity comes into focus. First, decision making competencies are shared by actors at different levels rather than monopolized by national governments. Supranational institutions have independent influence in policy making that cannot be derived from their role as agents of national executives.
Second, collective decision making among states involves a significant loss of control for individual national governments.
Third, political arenas are interconnected rather than nested. Subnational actors operate in both national and supranational arenas.
[Hooghe/Marks (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, p. 2-3]. |
|
 |
