European Union (EU) policymakers and academics regard impact assessments as the primary mechanism for communicating the added value of EU Cohesion Policy to citizens. There is a need to look beyond impact evaluations and towards active citizen engagement in policymaking to increase support for EU cohesion policies. This article examines the benefits and different types of legitimacy that citizen involvement confers upon policymaking, before outlining recommendations for proactively engaging citizens within existing EU cohesion policymaking structures. It is argued that citizen engagement fosters greater input and throughput legitimacy into the process, which supplements the output legitimacy bestowed by impact assessments.

Resumen

Los formuladores de políticas y académicos de la Unión Europea (UE) consideran que las evaluaciones de impacto son el principal mecanismo para comunicar a los ciudadanos el valor añadido de la Política de Cohesión de la UE. Es necesario mirar más allá de las evaluaciones de impacto y hacia la participación activa de los ciudadanos en la elaboración de políticas para aumentar el apoyo a las políticas de cohesión de la UE. Este artículo estudia los beneficios y los diferentes tipos de legitimidad que la participación de la ciudadanía confiere a la formulación de políticas, antes de ofrecer recomendaciones para involucrar proactivamente a los ciudadanos en las estructuras existentes de formulación de políticas de cohesión de la UE. Se sostiene que la participación de la ciudadanía fomenta una mayor legitimidad de los insumos y el rendimiento del proceso, lo que complementa la legitimidad de los resultados conferida por las evaluaciones de impacto.

抄録

欧州連合 (EU)の政策立案者や学者は、影響の評価を、EU統合政策の付加価値を市民に伝えるための主要なメカニズムとみなしている。EUの結束政策へのより多くの支持を集めるには、影響の評価だけでなく、市民の政策立案への積極的な関与に目を向ける必要がある。本稿では、市民の参加が政策決定にもたらす利益と様々な正当性を検証し、EUの政策決定の既存の構造の範囲で市民を積極的に参加させるための提言を概説する。市民の参加は、プロセスへのインプットとスループットの正当性の向上を促進し、影響の評価によって得られるアウトプットの正当性を補完するものである。

REFERENCES

Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots policy in Brazil. Lynne Rienner.
Ansell, C. (2012). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy (pp. 1–296). Oxford University Press.
Armbruster, H., Rollo, C., & Meinhof, U. H. (2003). Imagining Europe: Everyday narratives in European border communities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(5), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183032000149622
Arnull, A. (2002). Accountability and legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford University Press.
Bache, I. (1999). The extended gatekeeper: Central government and the implementation of EC regional policy in the UK. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343784
Bachtler, J., & McMaster, I. (2008). EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions: Investigating the influence of structural funds in the new member states. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 398–427. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0662
Bachtler, J., Mendez, C., & Oraže, H. (2014). From conditionality to Europeanization in central and Eastern Europe: Administrative performance and capacity in cohesion policy. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 735–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.772744
Bailey, D., & Propris, L. D. (2002). The 1988 reform of the European structural funds: Entitlement or empowerment? Journal of European Public Policy, 9(3), 408–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760210139696
Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2016). Popular democracy: The paradox of participation. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503600775
Böhme, K., Sabine Zillmer, S., Toptsidou, M., & Holstein, F. (2015). Territorial Governance and Cohesion Policy. European Parliament: Directorate General for Internal Policies. Brussels.
Briggs, X. D. S. (2008). Democracy as problem solving: Civic capacity in communities across the globe. MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262026413.001.0001
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x
Capello, R. (2018). Cohesion policies and the creation of a European identity: The role of territorial identity. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(3), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12611
Capello, R., & Kroll, H. (2016). From theory to practice in smart specialization strategy: Emerging limits and possible futures trajectories. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1393–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1156058
Capello, R., & Perucca, G. (2018). Understanding citizen perception of European Union cohesion policy: The role of the local context. Regional Studies, 52(11), 1451–1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1397273
Capello, R., & Perucca, G. (2019a). Citizens' perception of cohesion policy: From theory to empirical evidence. Regional Studies, 53(11), 1520–1530. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1587398
Capello, R., & Perucca, G. (2019b). Cohesion policy and European identity building: Trust as a mediating element. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 11(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12229
Chacha, M. (2013). Regional attachment and support for European integration. European Union Politics, 14(2), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116512462910
Chalmers, A. W., & Dellmuth, L. M. (2015). Fiscal redistribution and public support for European integration. European Union Politics, 16(3), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116515581201
Chartier, O., Salle, E., Irvine, K., Kull, M., Miller, D., Nieto, E., Vestergård, L. O., Potters, J., Slätmo, E., Zomer, B., & Iadecola, F. (2021). Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas: Contribution from SHERPA science-society-policy platforms. SHERPA Position Paper. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4557440
Committee of the Regions. (2019). Building the EU from the ground up with our cities and regions – Bucharest declaration, 8^th European Summit of Regions and Cities, 14-15^th March 2019.
Dahl, R. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press.
ECA. (2010) Impact assessments in the EU institutions: Do they support decision-making? European court of auditors, special report no 3, 2010, Luxembourg.
Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (2017). A typology of democratic innovations. In Political Studies Association's Annual Conference, April 2017.
S. Elstub, & O. Escobar (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Engage2020 Project. (2015). Action Catalogue, Accessed at: http://actioncatalogue.eu/
Escobar, O. (2011). The work of participation: Local deliberative policy making as mediated by public engagement practitioners. School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh.
ESPON. (2019a). Territorial impact assessment for cross-border cooperation project final report. ESPON.
ESPON. (2019b). TEVI – Territorial evidence support for European territorial cooperation Programmes targeted evidence support, D4 activity report, Luxembourg.
ESPON. (2020). Conceptual framework ESPON IRiE – Interregional relations in Europe, Luxembourg.
EU Reporter. (2021). Conference on the future of Europe: Greater say for regions and social partners, 22 July 2021, https://www.eureporter.co/politics/future-of-europe/2021/07/22/conference-on-the-future-of-europe-greater-say-for-regions-and-social-partners/
Eurobarometer. (2021). Special Eurobarometer 500 – Future of Europe.
European Commission. (2018). Active Subsidiarity: A New Way of Thinking, Report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality, and “Doing Less More Efficiently, European Union, Brussels.
European Commission. (2020a). COMMUNICATING COHESION POLICY IN 2021–2027, Regional and Urban Policy Report.
European Commission. (2020b). “Engaging citizens for good governance in cohesion policy”: Narrative of the high-level conference, Conference Background Document, Brussels.
European Commission. (2020c). From working for citizens to working with citizens – Cohesion policy shows the way, news briefing, February 2020.
European Commission. (2020d). Territorial Agenda 2030: A Future for All Places. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/brochure/territorial_agenda_2030_en.pdf
European Commission. (2021a). Conference on the future of Europe: Launch of the citizens platform, press release, 19^th April 2021.
European Commission. (2021b). Factual summary of the public consultation on the long-term vision for rural areas.
European Commission. (2021d). LEADER-CLLD Explainer, https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld/leader-toolkit/leaderclld-explained_en
European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. (2020). Joint Conclusions of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Policy Objectives and Priorities for 2020-2024. (2021/C 451 I/02). Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32020Y1229(01)&from=EN
Feindt, P., & Weiland, S. (2018). Reflexive governance: Exploring the concept and assessing its critical potential for sustainable development. Introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(6), 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1532562
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
Fung, A., & Warren, M. E. (2011). The Participedia project: An introduction. International Public Management Journal, 14(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2011.618309
Giacometti, A., Morf, A., Gee, K., Kull, M., Luhtala, H., Eliasen, S. Q. & Cedergren, E. (2020). Handbook: Process, Methods and Tools for Stakeholder Involvement in MSP. BONUS BASMATI Deliverable 2.
Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe: Political, economic and social forces, 1950–1957. Stevens & Sons.
Holst, C., & Moodie, J. R. (2015). Cynical or deliberative? An analysis of the European Commission's public communication on its use of expertise in policymaking. Politics and Governance, 3(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.240
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.
Hoppe, R. (2011). Institutional constraints and practical problems in deliberative and participatory policy making. Policy & Politics, 39(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310X519650
Jansen, F. M., Jensen, P. M., Vindig, D., Ellemann-Jensen, H., & Steffen, L. C. (1998). "we are strong enough": Participatory development in practice. DanChurchAid.
Löfving, L., Kamuf, V., Heleniak, T., Weck, S., & Norlén, G. (2021). Can digitalization be a tool to overcome spatial injustice in sparsely populated regions? The cases of digital Västerbotten (Sweden) and smart country side (Germany). European Planning Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1928053
López-Bazo, E., & Royuela, V. (2017). PERCEIVE project-deliverable D2. 2 “mapping the determinants of EU citizen's perception and identification”.
Medeiros, E. (2014). Assessing territorial impacts of the EU cohesion policy: The Portuguese case. European Planning Studies, 22(9), 1960–1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.813910
Medeiros, E. (2020). TARGET_TIA: A complete, flexible and sound territorial impact assessment tool. In Territorial impact assessment (pp. 9–25). Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-030-54502-4
Meinhof, U. H. (2003). Migrating borders: An introduction to European identity construction in process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(5), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183032000149569
Mendez, C., & Bachtler, J. (2016). European identity and citizen attitudes to cohesion policy: What do we know? COHESIFY research paper 1.
Mendez, C., Bachtler, J., & McMaster, I. (2019). The agenda for cohesion policy in 2019–2024: Key issues for the REGI committee. European Parliament.
Moodie, J. R., Wøien Meijer, M., Salenius, V., & Kull, M. (2021). Territorial governance and smart specialisation: Empowering the sub-national level in EU regional policy. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1905542
Morf, A., Kull, M., Piwowarczyk, J., & Gee, K. (2019). Towards a Ladder of MSP Participation. In J. Zaucha & K. Gee (Eds.), Maritime spatial planning, past, present, future. Palgrave Macmillian. 10.1007/978-3-319-98696-8_10
Morf, A., Moodie, J., Gee, K., Giacometti, A., Kull, M., Piwowarczyk, J., Schiele, K., Zaucha, J., Kellecioglu, I., Luttmann, A., & Strand, H. (2019). Towards sustainability of marine governance: Challenges and enablers for stakeholder integration in transboundary marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea. Ocean & Coastal Management, 177, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.009
Moynihan, D. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation citizen summits in Washington, D.C. American Review of Public Administration, 33, 164–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074003251379
OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en
Pegan, A., Mendez, C., & Triga, V. (2018). What do citizens think of cohesion policy and does it matter for European identity?: A comparative focus group analysis.
Phillips, P. W. (2012). Democracy, governance, and public engagement: A critical assessment. In K. O'Doherty & E. Einsiedel (Eds.). Public participation and emerging technologies, (pp. 45–65). Public engagement and emerging technologies. UBC Press.
Quick, K., & Feldman, M. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31, 272–290.
Quick, S., & Bryson, J. (2016). Public Participation. In C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar. 10.4337/9781782548508.00022
Risse, T. (2014). No demos? Identities and public spheres in the euro crisis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(6), 1207–1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12189
Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don't matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024
Ross, G. (1995). Jacques delors and European integration. Oxford University Press.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation in science. Technology and Human Values, 25, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
Schmitt, P., & Van Well, L. (2016). Territorial governance across Europe. Routledge.
Simonsen, W., & Robbins, M. (2000). Citizen participation in resource allocation. Routledge.
Steyaert, S. & Lisoir, H. (2005). Participatory methods toolkit. A practitioner's manual.
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”. Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 262–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265
Street, J., Duszynski, K., Krawczyk, S., & Braunack-Mayer, A. (2014). The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine. Vol., 109, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005
Suteo, S. (2015). Constitutional conventions in the digital era: Lessons from Iceland and Ireland. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 38(2), 251.
Territoria. (2020). Engaging citizens for good governance in cohesion policy: Ideas shared and lessons learned, news briefing, February 2020.
Van Hecke, S. (2003). The principle of subsidiarity: Ten years of application in the EU. Regional and Federal Studies, 13(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/714004786

Volume14, Issue5

Special Issue: Territorial inequalities: analysis and policy design, implementation and evaluation

October 2022

Pages 1113-1132

From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy

Abstract

Resumen

抄録

REFERENCES

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy

Abstract

Resumen

抄録

REFERENCES

References

Related

Information