A Living Roadmap for Policymaking 2.0

Author(s):  
Francesco Mureddu ◽  
David Osimo ◽  
Gianluca Misuraca ◽  
Riccardo Onori ◽  
Stefano Armenia

The chapter is based on current research conducted by the authors as part of the “CROSSOVER Project – Bridging Communities for Next Generation Policy Making,” an FP7-funded support action of the European Commission, whose main goal is to reach out to and raise the awareness of users, particularly public government practitioners and policymakers, while developing a research roadmap for establishing the scientific and political basis for long-lasting interest and commitment to next generation policymaking. In particular, the chapter identifies the opportunities and benefits resulting from applications of ICT tools for collaborative governance and policy modeling and provides an outline of what technologies are and will be available to meet the needs of policymakers. The project builds on the CROSSROAD model and roadmap with the aim to reach a stronger focus on policy modeling.

Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns

This chapter examines the European Commission’s functions and structure, along with its role in policy making. The Commission initiates legislation, may act as a mediator, manages some policy areas, is guardian of the Treaties, is a key actor in international relations, and the ‘conscience of the European Union’. The chapter proceeds by discussing the debate on the extent to which the Commission is an autonomous political actor or simply an agent of the member states. Finally, it analyses the increasing challenges faced by the Commission in securing effective implementation of EU policies and its response to concerns over its financial management of EU programmes.


Author(s):  
Fiona Hayes-Renshaw

This chapter examines the inhabitants of, and working visitors to, the Council of Ministers’s headquarters in Brussels. The Council of Ministers has always occupied an important position among the European institutions and in European policy-making. As a European Union institution, it is involved in all areas of EU activity, both by legislating in tandem with the European Parliament (EP) and by coordinating the member states’ policies in particular fields. The chapter first traces the origins of the present-day Council of Ministers before discussing its hierarchy and what the Council does. It then considers how the Council deals with the other EU institutions such as the European Council, the EP, and the European Commission. It shows that the Council embodies the enduring tension between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism as explanatory tools for understanding the construction of the EU.


Author(s):  
J. Shahin

The European Union (EU) has been one of the leading lights concerning Internet use in dealing with other public administrations and citizens. This article will argue that e-government has meant that the European Commission has been able to promote a virtual arena for pan-European activity, which has promoted action at the national and local levels in the EU. In the first instance, this article will deal with how the European Commission uses the Internet to attempt to improve its own relationship with both national public administrations and citizens in terms of the European policy-making process. Although the Internet is perceived as aiding public administrations in information and service provision, which helps to deliver better governance from an institutional governance perspective, a focus on this would only tell one half of the story. Increasing democratic participation and regaining trust in the political system at large is also an important issue for public bodies such as the European Commission to address, and this is not merely a technical process. These technical (efficiency, etc.) and democratic stages are two key parts in the process of developing an information and communication technology (ICT)-based governance agenda in the EU. In order to outline the process, this article deals with four different aspects of the European Commission’s e-policies. It makes reference to the following: 1. The Commission’s information provision, through the EU’s Europa (II) Web server; 2. The way in which the Commission has tried to interact with citizens, using interactive policy making (IPM); 3. The e Commission initiative; and 4. The way in which the Commission links member-state public administrations together, through the IDA(BC) programme. This article reveals the increasing coherence of the European Commission’s approach to using the Internet in institutional affairs. Although the Commission’s approach to using the Internet for governance was initially unstable and ad hoc, by the turn of the century, all efforts had converged around the political issues of institutional reform and better governance. This has been further enhanced by the application of the open method of coordination as one of the tools of EU governance, which has enabled the Commission to take a more informal role in implementing e-government strategies at the pan-European level. This article does not attempt to define e-government at the European level nor does it go into policy areas concerning e-government (such as research, socioeconomic inclusion, improving competitiveness, or specific e-government policy developed by the European Commission), but will contribute to a greater understanding of how the EU itself has used the Internet to promote an e-government agenda that is affecting all public administrations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Gatialová

Abstract The European Health Parliament (EHP) is a movement connecting and empowering the next generation of European health leaders to rethink EU health policies. The initiative connects promising young professionals and challenges them to develop solutions for European health policy that are both innovative and actionable. The EHP answers Europe’s need for fresh ideas in health and believes that the solutions required must come from young European health leaders who influence the policies that will ultimately concern their generation as they become senior decision-makers. Participants work together for six months to develop policy recommendations that address today’s most pressing European health issues which are picked in cooperation with the European Commission.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manja Klemenčič ◽  
Fernando Miguel Galán Palomares

The article seeks to advance understanding of the involvement of transnational student associations in European governance of higher education policies within the European Union (EU) and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Specifically, the article explores the mechanisms for interest intermediation that exist for transnational student associations in both policy arenas. Three transnational student associations stand out in terms of their involvement: European Students’ Union (ESU), Erasmus Student Network (ESN) and European Students’ Forum (AEGEE). The findings point to two distinct models of student interest intermediation in European policy-making. Within the EU, the European Commission interacts with all three transnational student associations; however, ESU and ESN participate in more expert and working groups. The roles afforded to each association in relation to the European Commission are demarcated and functionally differentiated. Within EHEA, in neo-corporatist fashion, ESU, as a representative platform of national student unions, holds representational monopoly. In the EHEA and the EU, the involvement of transnational student associations in policy-making can be attributed to the evolving nature of transnational governance regimes in which participation of transnational student associations not only brings expertise to but also aids the legitimacy of the policy processes and outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 493-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Dewandre ◽  

In this article, I argue that Hannah Arendt’s well-known but controversial distinction between labour, work, and action provides, perhaps unexpectedly, a conceptual grounding for transforming politics and policy-making at the EU level. Beyond the analysis and critique of modernity, Arendt brings the conceptual resources needed for the EU to move beyond the modern trap it fell into thirty years ago. At that time, the European Commission shifted its purpose away from enhancing interdependence among Member States with a common market towards achieving an internal market in the name of boosting growth and creating jobs. Arendt provides the conceptual tools to transform the conceptualisation of relations and of agents that fuels the growing dissatisfaction among many Europeans with EU policy-making. This argument is made through stretching and re-articulating Arendt’s labour-work-action distinction and taking seriously both the biological and plural dimensions of the human condition, besides its rational one. By applying this shift in an EU context, EU policies could change their priorities and better address the needs and expectations of plural political agents and of European citizens.


2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-36
Author(s):  
Jan Klasinc

This paper aims to establish whether collaborative governance may be a useful concept in Croatian local government and what barriers might prevent Croatian ULGs from developing such models. Recent research has shown that some ULGs in Croatia are more successful than others in terms of financial management and resource allocation, which may be due to better quality of civil servants working in local government and increased participation of citizens in public policy making but also to some form of collaborative governance. The second case also offers a possibility of achieving higher level of citizen satisfaction with local government on the basis of results, although this satisfaction is not necessarily linked to achieving proclaimed policy objectives or transparency and openness. In the case of e-governance we also assess the technological development of ULGs as a precondition for dynamic communication needed for collaboration. We find that in some cases the achievement of public good and community goals are due to better leadership and creating trust and in some others due to better participation in policies and involvement of citizens in common problems, such as unemployment. Barriers are detected by studying the most and least successful ULGs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document