scholarly journals European Union and Challenges of Cultural Policies: Critical Perspectives. An Introduction

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (82) ◽  
pp. 6-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaka Primorac ◽  
Aleksandra Uzelac ◽  
Paško Bilić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Cultural Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Cultural Policies ◽  
Eu Governance ◽  
Introductory Article ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This introductory article contextually frames the contributions to the special issue gathering articles critically addressing the key questions and challenges that the European Union (EU) and national cultural policies are facing in the 21st century. Interdisciplinary contributions in this special issue point to the diverse understandings of culture, the complexity of the EU governance system, and the discrepancy and mismatch of the national and EU levels that regulate the field of culture. The authors detect the inconsistent development strategies on different policy levels, and point to the democratic deficits of the EU governance system and EU policies. Selected contributions address a further focal shift of EU culture policies toward an economistic orientation to culture, while others address the need for a more critical approach that moves beyond predominantly positivistic and normative approaches to cultural policy research in Europe.

scholarly journals Conclusions: What future for the Treaty of Lisbon?

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. e72661
Author(s):  
Ariadna Ripoll
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political System ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Political Union ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Institutional Structures ◽  
Normative Issues ◽  
The Eu

This conclusion to the special issue reflects on the evolution of European integration since the early 1990s in order to better understand the contested origins of the Treaty of Lisbon and the consequences the latter have had for the EU’s political system. It considers the various contributions of the special issue and shows how the Treaty emerged in an era of shifting cleavages, disputed steps towards a more political Union and rising populism. This legacy has led to more polarisation and politicisation – a phenomenon that the Treaty of Lisbon struggles to encapsulate and conciliate with the culture of consensus and compromise inherent to its institutional structures. As a result, we observe a bias towards policy stability – and even failure – that affects the legitimacy and democratic standards of the European Union. In a context of polycrisis, the difficulty to find compromises – especially in highly normative issues – leads to the de-politicisation of the EU and reinforces the gap between EU institutions and its citizens. The COVID-19 pandemic is a window of opportunity for the EU, in which to choose between integration and disintegration; between values and inaction.

scholarly journals SOLIDARITY CHECK IN TIMES OF COVID-19. ANALYSIS OF THE EU APPROACH TOWARDS ITS CLOSEST NEIGHBOURS WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON MONTENEGRO

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Đurić ◽  
Bojana Lalatović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Member States ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
The Eu

Solidarity as one of the cornerstone values of the European Union has been once again seated on the red chair and intensively discussed within the European Union and broader. After the economic recession and migrant crisis that marked the last two decades, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has once again harshly tested the fundamental objectives and values of the European Union and the responsiveness and effectiveness of its governance system on many fronts. In April, 2020 several EU Member States were among the worst affected countries worldwide and this situation soon became similar in their closest neighbourhood. It put a huge pressure on the EU to act faster, while at the same time placing this sui generis community to the test that led to revealing its strengths and weaknesses. As it happened in the previous crises, the Union launched policies and various programmes that were meant to lessen the burden of the Member States and aspiring countries caused by the crises. The objectives of the mentioned soft law instruments that the EU adopted during the COVID-19 crisis has been not only to show that EU law is equipped to react to health and economic crises rapidly but to deliver its support in terms of solidarity to its Member States and its closest neighbours facing the unprecedented health and economic crisis. This article will explore the value and implication of the solidarity principle in times of Covid-19 in its various manifestations. A special focus will be on the financial and material aspects of the EU instruments created to combat the negative consequences of the pandemic and their further impact on shaping the solidarity principle within the EU system. While examining the character and types of these mechanisms a special focus will be placed on those available to Western Balkan countries, whereas Montenegro as the “fast runner” in the EU integration process will be taken as a case study for the purpose of more detailed analyses. One of the major conclusions of the paper will be that although the speed of the EU reactions due to highly complex structure of decision making was not always satisfying for all the actors concerned, the EU once again has shown that it is reliable and that it treats the Western Balkan countries as privileged partners all for the sake of ending pandemic and launching the socio-economic recovery of the Western Balkans. Analytical and comparative methods will be dominantly relied upon throughout the paper. This will allow the authors to draw the main conclusions of the paper and assess the degree of solidarity as well as the effectiveness of the existing EU instruments that are available to Montenegro and aimed at diminishing negative consequences of the crisis.

State-building and the European Union: Markets, War, and Europe's Uneven Political Development

2021 ◽  
pp. 001041402110473
Author(s):  
R. Daniel Kelemen ◽  
Kathleen R. McNamara
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Institutional Development ◽  
State Building ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Market Forces ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Governance ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Eu

The European Union’s institutional development is highly imbalanced. It has established robust legal authority and institutions, but it remains weak or impotent in terms of its centralization of fiscal, administrative, and coercive capacity. We argue that situating the EU in terms of the history of state-building allows us to better understand the outcomes of EU governance. Historically, political projects centralizing power have been most complete when both market and security pressures are present to generate state formation. With the EU, market forces have had a far greater influence than immediate military threats. We offer a preliminary demonstration of the promise of this approach by applying it to two empirical examples, the euro and the Schengen area. Our analysis suggests that the EU does not need to be a Weberian state, nor be destined to become one, for the state-building perspective to shed new light on its processes of political development.

scholarly journals Spatializing authoritarian neoliberalism by way of cultural politics: City, nation and the European Union in Gdańsk’s politics of cultural policy formation

2020 ◽  
pp. 239965442096523
Author(s):  
Thomas Borén ◽  
Patrycja Grzyś ◽  
Craig Young
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Cultural Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
National Level ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Mobilities ◽  
The Eu

This paper develops perspectives which seek to spatialize authoritarian neoliberalism through arguing for greater engagement with the politics of urban cultural policy formation in the neglected context of post-socialist East and Central Europe. Through analyzing the politics of urban cultural policy-making in Gdańsk, Poland, the paper spatializes authoritarian neoliberalism by exploring how relations between the urban and the national, and between the urban and the supranational, shape urban cultural policy, drawing upon literatures on political economy, policy mobilities, cultural policy research, and the concepts of authoritarian neoliberalism and the relational-territorial nexus. Gdańsk is a liberally run city, strongly aligned with the European Union (EU), opposed to the authoritarian neoliberal national level politics in Poland. The paper analyses urban-national tensions and relationships between Gdańsk and the EU to unpack the contested spatial nature of authoritarian neoliberalism.

From embedded to uncompromising neoliberalism: Competitiveness policies and European Union interscalar relations in the case of Greece

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicos Souliotis ◽  
Georgia Alexandri
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Debt Crisis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Supranational Level ◽  
Of Greece ◽  
The Eu

This article traces the transfer of competitiveness and cohesion policies from the European Union (EU) institutions to the national and subnational authorities in Greece, both before and after the sovereign debt crisis. We argue that prior to the crisis, the flexibilities of the EU governance system allowed the Greek central government to use the competitiveness and cohesion agenda, as well as the associated funds, to build a domestic socio-political consensus focused on the idea of ‘convergence’ with Europe. The crisis-induced bailout programme deepened neoliberal policies and reorganised vertical and horizontal power relations: policy-making powers have been upscaled towards the supranational level, while the national authorities have been socially disembedded.

Public Administration, Turbulence, and the European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarle Trondal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Multilevel Governance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Uncertain Environments ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Public ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Regulatory Challenges

In a multilevel governance system such as the European Union (EU) policy processes at one level may create challenges and dilemmas at lower levels. Multilevel governance involves a multiplicity of regulatory regimes and succeeding governance ambiguities for national actors. These regulatory challenges and ensuring governance dilemmas increasingly affect contemporary European public administration. These challenges and dilemmas are captured by the term turbulence. The inherent state prerogative to formulate and implement public policy is subject to an emergent and turbulent EU administration. Organized turbulence is captured by the supply of independent and integrated bureaucratic capacities at a “European level.” Throughout history (1952 onwards) the EU system has faced shifting hostile and uncertain environments, and responded by erecting turbulent organizational solutions of various kinds. Studying turbulence opens an opportunity to rethink governance in turbulent administrative systems such as the public administration of the EU.

Rebuilding trust: sustainability and non-financial reporting and the European Union regulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 701-725
Author(s):  
Matteo La Torre ◽  
Svetlana Sabelfeld ◽  
Marita Blomkvist ◽  
John Dumay
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Accounting Systems ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

Purpose This paper introduces the special issue “Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting, and the European Union regulation”. Inspired by the studies published in the special issue, this study aims to examine the concept of accountability within the context of the European Union (EU) Directive on non-financial disclosure (hereafter the EU Directive) to offer a critique and a novel perspective for future research into mandatory non-financial reporting (NFR) and to advance future practice and policy. Design/methodology/approach The authors review the papers published in this special issue and other contemporary studies on the topic of NFR and the EU Directive. Findings Accountability is a fundamental concept for building trust in the corporate reporting context and emerges as a common topic linking contemporary studies on the EU Directive. While the EU Directive acknowledges the role of accountability in the reporting practice, this study argues that regulation and practice on NFR needs to move away from an accounting-based conception of accountability to promote accountability-based accounting practices (Dillard and Vinnari, 2019). By analysing the links between trust, accountability and accounting and reporting, the authors claim the need to examine and rethink the inscription of interests into non-financial information (NFI) and its materiality. Hence, this study encourages research and practice to broaden mandatory NFR practice over the traditional boundaries of accountability, reporting and formal accounting systems. Research limitations/implications Considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 crisis, this study calls for further research to investigate the dialogical accountability underpinning NFR in practice to avoid the trap of focusing on accounting changes regardless of accountability. The authors advocate that what is needed is more timely NFI that develops a dialogue between companies, investors, national regulators, the EU and civil society, not more untimely standalone reporting that has most likely lost its relevance and materiality by the time it is issued to users. Originality/value By highlighting accountability issues in the context of mandatory NFR and its linkages with trust, this study lays out a case for moving the focus of research and practice from accounting-based regulations towards accountability-driven accounting change.

European Integration Through Preliminary Rulings? The Case of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1591-1622
Author(s):  
Mihail Vatsov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Do So

The preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is instrumental for the so-called “judicial dialogue” within the European Union (EU). The goals of the preliminary reference procedure are to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law and to contribute to the harmonious development of the law throughout the EU. It was through the preliminary reference procedure to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the principles of direct effect and supremacy were developed. It took many years before the first request by a Constitutional Court was sent to the CJEU. So far, the Constitutional Courts of Belgium, Austria, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and most recently Slovenia, have sent requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU. By far the most active of these in sending requests has been the Belgian Court. The Portuguese Constitutional Court has indicated that it can request preliminary rulings from the CJEU but is yet to do so. In the other Member States (MS) with Constitutional Courts, references have not been sent yet, although worthy occasions in terms of EU-law-related cases have occurred, as also observed in various contributions in this special issue. These MSs include Bulgaria.

Providing for European-Level Diplomacy after Lisbon: The Case of the European External Action Service

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Duke
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
External Action ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
External Relations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Lisbon Treaty may well be on ice, may perhaps even be moribund, but there remain compelling reasons to think through the identified shortcomings of the European Union in external relations. Many of the innovations in the area of external relations that are contained in the treaty are dependent upon ratification by the EU's member states, but some are not; the European External Action Service (EEAS) falls into the latter category. Although the actual implementation of the EEAS will face formidable hurdles, as has been outlined in this contribution, the exercise of thinking through these challenges is essential if the EU and its members are to begin grappling with many of the issues examined in this special issue — ranging from the role of national diplomats in today's world to the successful pursuit of structural diplomacy and the effectiveness of the EU in multilateral organizations.

scholarly journals Lobbying of cities in the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Urszula Kurczewska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Multilevel Governance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European City ◽  
Governance System ◽  
National Governments ◽  
The Eu

Most European Union policies directly affect cities, but their role in formulating these policies is insufficient. Therefore, cities are undertaking para-diplomacy and lobbying at the EU level independently of national governments. They use the opportunities offered by the EU, namely multilevel governance system and the European Commission’s policy of openness and deliberation. The article presents an analysis of the patterns and strategies of representation of cities’ interests at the EU level, their adaptation to the requirements of the EU interests intermediation system, as well as the motivations for undertaking lobbying. It is argued that cities follow two main channels of interests representation: permanent representations with direct lobbying in Brussels and activity in European city networks. Two types of motivations behind lobbying can be distinguished: regulatory mobilization and financial mobilization. Their relations with EU institutions are subject to advanced institutionalization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document