Neoliberalism and Authority Relationships

Chapter

Abstract

In this contribution, evolving authority relationships between institutions are examined in connection with interpretative tasks. In recent decades, the interpretation of several general economic and political principles has been impacted by the influence of (mainstream) neoliberal ideas. This is illustrated by the changing frontiers of national and community action domains in the European Union. This case study raises a number of theoretical issues; the proposed developments, it is argued, have added value for explanatory purposes.

Keywords

Good Governance Institutional Actor French Government Legitimate Power Successful Coordination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Albi, A., and P. van Elsuwege. 2004. The EU constitution, national constitutions and sovereignty: An assessment of a European constitutional order. European Law Review 29(6): 741–765.Google Scholar
  2. Arnsperger, C., and E. Picavet. 2004. More than modus vivendi, less than overlapping consensus: Towards a political theory of social compromise. Social Science Information/Information sur les sciences sociales 43(2): 167–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhaus, J. 1979. Constitutional guarantees and the distribution of power and wealth. Public Choice 33(3): 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backhaus, J. 2001. Economic principles of constitutions: An economic analysis of constitutional law. Independent institute working paper Number 40 (August), Oakland.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, D.J. 2005. Obfuscation through integration: Legitimating “new” social democracy in the European union. Journal of Common Market Studies 43(1): 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellamy, R. 1999. Liberalism and pluralism: Towards a politics of compromise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bellamy, R., and J. Schönlau. 2004. The normality of constitutional politics: An analysis of the drafting of the EU charter of fundamental rights. Constellations 11(3): 413–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calvert, R. 2004. Coordination and constitutional change. Paper prepared for the midwest political science association annual meeting, Chicago, April 15–18 (published on the Internet).Google Scholar
  9. Calvert, R., and J. Johnson. 1998. Rational actors, political argument, and democratic deliberation. Presented at the American Political Science Association annual meetings, Boston.Google Scholar
  10. Calvert, R., and J. Johnson. 1999. Interpretation and coordination in constitutional politics. In Lessons in democracy, ed. Hauser Ewa and Wasilewski Jacek. Rochester/Krakow: University of Rochester Press/Jagellonian University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Commission des Communautes Europeennes/Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European governance: A white paper.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf.
  13. Commission des Communautes Europeennes/Commission of the European Communities. (DG IV) 1999. Livre blanc sur la modernisation des règles d’application des articles 815 et 816 du Traité CE (ex articles 85 et 86 du Traité CE). In Journal Officiel des Communautés Européennes (JOCE), no C-132, 12.5.1999, article 100.Google Scholar
  14. Davion, V., and C. Wolf (eds.). 2000. The idea of a political liberalism. Essays on Rawls. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Demeulenaere, P. 2003. Les Normes sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  16. Featherstone, K. 1994. Jean Monnet and the “Democratic Deficit” in the European union. Journal of Common Market Studies 32(2): 149–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelpi, C. 1997. Crime and punishment: The role of norms in crisis bargaining. American Political Science Review 91(2): 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hampshire, S. 2001. Justice is conflict (Tanner lectures on human values). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, H.L.A. 1961/1994. The concept of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Isla, A. 2002. Le contrôle communautaire des aides d’Etat. In Intégration européenne et institutions économiques, ed. S. Ngo-Maï, D. Torre, and E. Tosi, 43–60. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, A., and J. Clark. 2001. The modalities of European union governance. New institutionalist explanations of agri-environmental policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kolmar, M. 2002. An analysis of institutional change in the European union with an application to social policy. Diw Berlin (German Institute for Economic Research), Discussion paper no. 282.Google Scholar
  23. Le Gales, P. 2001. Est Maître Des Lieux Celui Qui Les Organise: When national and European policy domains collide. In The institutionalization of Europe, ed. A. Stone Sweet, W. Sandholtz, and N. Fligstein, 137–154. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lefevre, S. 2004. Interpretative communication and the implementation of community law at national level. European Law Review 29(6): 808–822.Google Scholar
  25. Longhi, C. 2002. Intégration européenne et dynamiques régionales. In Intégration européenne et institutions économiques, ed. Ngo-Maï S., Torre D., and E. Tosi, Ch. 13. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  26. Louri, V. 2002. ‘Undertaking’ as a jurisdictional element for the application of EC competition rules. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29(2): 143–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matland, R.E. 1995. Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5(2): 145–175.Google Scholar
  28. Moor, P. 2005. Pour une théorie micropolitique du droit. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  29. Moser, P. 1997. A theory of the conditional influence of the European parliament in the cooperation procedure. Public Choice 91: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perelman, C. 1976. Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
  31. Reynaud, B. 2003. Operating rules in organizations: Macroeconomic and microeconomic analyses. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, V.A. 2004. The European union: Democratic legitimacy in a regional state? Journal of Common Market Studies 42(5): 975–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Segal, J.A. 1997. Separation-of-powers games in the positive theory of congress and courts. American Political Science Review 91(1): 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steclebout, E. 2004. Hétérogénéité et conflits de pouvoir dans la formation des politiques économiques en Europe. Poster session, Congrès de l’Association Française de Science Economique (September 16–17). http://esteclebout.free.fr.
  35. Steunenberg, B., and D. Schmidtchen. 2002. The comitology game: European decision-making with parliamentary involvement. Universität des Saarlandes, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe, No. 0009.Google Scholar
  36. Stone Sweet, A., and T.L. Brunell. 1998. Constructing a supranational constitution: Dispute resolution and governance in the European community. American Political Science Review 92(1): 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stone Sweet, A., N. Fligstein, and W. Sandholtz. 2001. The institutionalization of European space. In The institutionalization of Europe, ed. A. Stone Sweet, N. Fligstein, and W. Sandholtz, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Streit, M.E., and W. Mussler. 1996. The economic constitution of the European community—from ‘Rome’ to ‘Maastricht’. In Constitutional dimensions of European economic integration, ed. F. Snyder, 109–139. The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Thomason, R. 2001. The beliefs of other agents. Working paper, Philosophy Department, University of Michigan. Available on the Internet. http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/.
  40. Tsakatika, M. 2005. Claims to legitimacy: The European commission between continuity and change. Journal of Common Market Studies 43(1): 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UFR 10, Université Paris I Panthéon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations