Non-elected Political Elites in the EU

  • Niilo Kauppi
  • Mikael Rask Madsen


With globalization and Europeanization, profound changes have taken place in the composition and structure of elites. Once solidly tied to the nation state, elites have, following processes of differentiation and specialization, become more transnational than ever before. Their development has been conditioned by the evolving relationship between international, transnational, and national powers. In the European context, key institutional players today include the European Commission, the European Ombudsman and the European Court of Justice as aspiring representatives of the general European interest and the Council of Ministers and member states as representing national interests in the EU. Their relationship and changing interfaces are crucial when assessing the development of non-elected political elites as well as more generally the rise of an institutionalized and integrated Europe.


  1. Biering, P. (2005). The Danish Proposal to the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union. In The European Ombudsman: Origins, Establishment, Evolution. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  2. Boerger-De Smedt, A. (2008). La Cour de Justice dans les négociations du traité de Paris instituant la CECA. Journal of European Integration History, 14, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Courty, G., & Devin, G. (2005). La construction européenne. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, A. (2013). The Genesis of Europe: Competing Elites and the Emergence of a European Field of Power. In N. Kauppi & M. R. Madsen (Eds.), Transnational Power Elites: The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, A., & Madsen, M. R. (2007). «Cold War Law» Legal Entrepreneurs and the Emergence of a European Legal Field (1945-1965). In V. Gessner & D. Nelken (Eds.), European Ways of Law: Towards a European Sociology of Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Egenberg, M. (2006). Executive Politics as Usual: Role Behaviour and Conflict Dimensions in the College of European Commissioners. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellinas, A. A., & Suleiman, E. N. (2012). The European Commission and Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erkkilä, T., & Kauppi, N. (2017). The Institutionalization of the European Ombudsman. In H. F. Carey (Ed.), The Challenges of European Governance in the Age of Economic Stagnation, Immigration, and Refugees. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  9. Follesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why There Is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44, 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. (2015). The Lure of Technocracy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Hooghe, L. (2012). The European Commission in the 21st Century. Core Beliefs on EU Governance (KFG Working Paper 38).Google Scholar
  12. Kauppi, N. (2005). Democracy, Social Resources and Political Power in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kauppi, N., & Madsen, M. R. (2013). Transnational Power Elites: The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security. In N. Kauppi & M. R. Madsen (Eds.), Transnational Power Elites: The New Professionals of Governance, Law and Security (pp. 1–16). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Kauppi, N., & Madsen, M. R. (2016). Global Elites. In X. Guillaume, P. Bilgin, & M. B. Salter (Eds.), Handbook of International Political Sociology. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Madsen, M. R. (2013). The Power of Legal Knowledge in the Reform of Fundamental Law: The Case of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In A. Vanchez & B. de Witte (Eds.), The European Legal Field (pp. 197–219). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Madsen, M. R., & Thornhill, C. (Eds.). (2014). Law and the Formation of Modern Europe: Perspectives from the Historical Sociology of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Madsen, M. R., & Christensen, J. (2015). Global Actors. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
  18. Michel, H. (2013). EU Lobbying and the European Transparency Initiative: A Sociological Approach to Interest Groups. In N. Kauppi (Ed.), A Political Sociology of Transnational Europe (pp. 53–78). Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nye, J. (2001). Globalization’s Democratic Deficit: How to Make International Institutions More Accountable. Foreign Affairs, 80, 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slaughter, A.-M. (2003). A Global Community of Courts. Harvard International Law Review, 44, 191–219.Google Scholar
  21. Söderman, J. (2005). The Early Years of the European Ombudsman. In The European Ombudsman: Origins, Establishment, Evolution (pp. 83–105). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  22. Vauchez, A. (2012). Keeping the Dream Alive: The European Court of Justice and the Transnational Fabric of Integrationist Jurisprudence. European Political Science Review, 4, 51–71. doi:
  23. Vauchez, A. (2014). Démocratiser l’Europe. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  24. Vauchez, A. (2015, October 9). Le nouveau président de l’Union est arrivé et c’est un juge ! Libération.Google Scholar
  25. Weber, M. (1959). From Max Weber (G. Roth & C. Wright Mills, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100, 2403–2483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niilo Kauppi
    • 1
  • Mikael Rask Madsen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations