Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2006 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 16

The socio-political analysis of EU’s institutional deficit within the notion of democratic governances

Demokratik yönetişim nosyonu bağlamında AB’nin kurumsal kısıtlarının sosyo-politik analizi

Pages
359–382
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This article tries to indicate the institutional deficits of EU in achieving the aforementioned aims.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The EU began its journey at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century as a sectoral cooperation between the six founding member states and progressed miraculously by creating an economic union and then a political union with the new members.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Throughout the years it has developed with new members and institutional set up in order to cope with the tremendous issues concerning the administration of European people.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This article tries to indicate the institutional deficits of EU in achieving the aforementioned aims.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The EU began its journey at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century as a sectoral cooperation between the six founding member states and progressed miraculously by creating an economic union and then a political union with the new members. Throughout the years it has developed with new members and institutional set up in order to cope with the tremendous issues concerning the administration of European people. It has advanced to such an extent that, recently its structure and institutions have been questioned in terms of congruence with democratic rules and procedures; and what is more, this is usually done by comparing the EU with democratically and economically developed states. This article tries to indicate the institutional deficits of EU in achieving the aforementioned aims.

Özet

AB, yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısının başlarında, altı kurucu devlet arasında, sektörel bir işbirliği olarak başlayan, göz kamaştırıcı bir başarıyla bir ekonomik bütünleşmeye ilerleyen ve yeni üyelerin katılımıyla politik bir birliğe dönüşen uzun bir yolculuğun hikayesidir. İçeriği devasa Avrupa halklarının yönetimi olan konularla baş edebilmek için yeni kurumsal mekanizmalar ve üyeler bu yolculuğa eklemlendi. Ancak bu zaman zarfı içerisinde yapısını ve işleyiş mekanizmasını daima sorgulayan AB, demokratik kurallar ve prosedürlere yakınlaşabilmek için kendini demokratik ve ekonomik olarak geliştirmiş ülkelerle mukayese ederek hep en iyisini arama çabasını sürdürdü. Bu çalışmamız, bu çabayı gerçekleştirme sürecinde AB’nin maruz kaldığı kurumsal problemleri sosyo-politik boyutuyla çözümlemeyi amaçlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

İNAÇ, H., GÜNER, Ü. (2022). The socio-political analysis of EU’s institutional deficit within the notion of democratic governances. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 16, 359–382. https://ajindex.com/articles/493624

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. A., Limongi, F. and Przeworski, A., 1996, ‘Classifying Political Regimes’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 3–36.
  2. Qted in Zweifel, D. T.,2002a, Democratic Deficit?, Lenxington Books, Oxford, Newyork. Barker, R., 1993, ‘Democracy and Individual Freedom’ in A.M.Rieu and G. Duprat (eds.), European Democratic Culture, Routledge, London. Qted in Mather, J., 2001, ‘The European Parliament- A Model of Representative Democracy?’, West European Politics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 181-201.
  3. Bealey, F., 1998, The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science, Blackwell Publishers,
  4. Massachusetts. Qted in Neuhold, C., 2001, ‘The Legislative Backbone-Keeping The Institution Upright? The Role of European Parliament Braud, P., 1997, ‘Decline of the Founding Values of Democracy and Weakening of Quasi-Missionary Institutions’, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 112-124.
  5. Carter, C. And Scott, A., 1998, ‘Legitimacy and Governance Beyond the European Nation State: Conceptualising Governance in the European Union’, European Law Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.429-446.
  6. Casey, L.A., and Rivkin Jr., D. B., 2001, ‘Europe in the Balance’, Policy Review, no.107, pp. 41-54.
  7. Christiansen, T., 1997, ‘Legitimacy Dilemmas of Supranational Governance: The European Commission between Accountability and Independence’, European University Institute Working Papers, no. 97/74. Chryssochoou, D. N., 2001, 'Models of Democracy and the European Polity’, University of Exeter Working Papers, no. 1/2001. Commission of the European Communities, 2001, White Paper on ‘European Governance’, COM (2001) 428. Corbett, R., 1999, ‘The European Parliament and the Idea of European Representative Government’ in J. Pinder (ed.), Foundation of Demoracy in the European Union, Palgrave Publishers,
  8. New York. Coultrap, J., 1999, ‘From Parliamentarism to Pluralism: Models of Democracy and the European Union’s Democratic Deficit’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.107-135.
  9. Dahrendorf, R., 2001, ‘Can European Democracy Survive Globalization?’, National Interest, no.65, pp.17-23
  10. Decker, F., 2002, ‘Governance Beyond the Nation-State. Reflections on the Democratic Deficit of the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 256–272.
  11. Egeberg, M., 2002, ‘The European Commission-The Evolving EU Executive’, Arena Working Papers, no. 02/30. Eichengreen, B., 2003, ‘Putting It Together: The Foibles and Future