de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean

Post

 
 Vis
  Krisen kradser - gør demokratiet?
Item is

Ophav

 Ophav:
Gram, Eva Mara1, Forfatter
Johnsen, Michelle Ida1, Forfatter
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca2, Vejleder
Tilknytninger:
1Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet, København, Danmark, diskurs:7001              
2Institut for Statskundskab, Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet, København, Danmark, diskurs:7003              
skjul Ophav
Vis Ophav

Indhold

Ukontrollerede emneord: EU, demokrati, økonomisk politik, økonomisk krise, finanspagten, sixpacken
 Abstract: The last couple of years the European Union has initiated several economic politics in order to solve the economic crisis and forestall future crises. The speed, at which these initiatives have been decided, raises the question of the democratic standards, and we therefore suggest that different democratic views can be applied to the EU.
More specific we wish to analyse the political function of the fiscal compact and the sixpack, with the intention to demonstrate whether they are regulatory or redistributive in function. Our claim is that different standards should be applied depending on the function, and furthermore on the democratic approach. Regarding the democratic approach we have developed three ideal types of democracy: the efficient, the pluralistic, and the inclusive democracy. To analyse the standards we have developed three categories based on our theoretical groundwork: institutional actors, political competition, and the public debate.
We find that the fiscal compact and the sixpack differ not only in how they were adopted, but also in the political function they have and in the democratic approach. The fiscal compact is regulatory and therefore acquires lower standards than the sixpack, which is redistributive in function. With this in mind we analyse which democratic approach they each represent. Here we find that the fiscal compact lives up to the standards of the efficient democracy, and the sixpack lives up to the standards of the pluralistic democracy. The inclusive democracy therefore lacks representation.
The different democratic approaches are further applied in the discussion where we identify a connection between each of them and the EU-institutions. We find that the Council/European Council mostly represents the efficient democracy, whereas the Commission represents the pluralistic democracy, and finally that the EP represents the inclusive democracy.

The main intention with this master’s thesis is to show the importance of analysing the political function before democracy is debated. Moreover we wish to illustrate that the EU is based upon various democratic approaches, and that this might get in the way of living up to any democratic standard. In order to strengthen the democracy of the EU we therefore advice the EU to use one democratic approach only, but to vary the standards depending on the political function of any given initiative.
skjul Indhold
Vis Indhold

Filer

Navn:
Krisen.pdf (Hovedtekst)
Bemærkninger:
-
Tilgængelighed:
Offentlig
Mime-type / størrelse:
application/pdf / 2MB
Copyright dato:
2014-05-15
Copyright information:
De fulde rettigheder til dette materiale tilhører forfatteren.
skjul Filer
Vis Filer

Basal

Bogmærk denne post: https://diskurs.kb.dk/item/diskurs:59677:1
 Type: Speciale
Alternativ titel: En demokratiteoretisk analyse af finanspagten og sixpacken
skjul Basal
Vis Basal

Links

Vis Links

Detaljer

Sprog: Danish - dan
 Datoer: 2013-08-28
 Sider: -
 Publiceringsinfo: København : Københavns Universitet
 Indholdsfortegnelse: Kapitel 1: Indledning 1
1.1 Problemformulering 2
1.2 Afgrænsning . 4
1.2.1 Casevalg 5
1.2.2 Teoretiske valg 6
1.2.3 Metodiske valg 7
1.3 Specialets videre struktur 8
Kapitel 2: EUꞌs økonomiske politik – de mange skridt ud af krisen 10
2.1 Udvikling fra bankkrise til gældskrise 10
2.2 De politiske tiltag 12
2.2.1 Finanspagten 13
2.2.2 Sixpacken 15
2.2.3 Tiltagenes samspil . 17
Kapitel 3: Demokratiteori – fra oldtidens Athen til EUꞌs Bruxelles . 18
3.1 Udviklingen af demokratibegrebet . 18
3.2 Demokratiretninger i EU 21
3.2.1 Legitimitet fra effektive resultater . 21
3.2.2 Legitimitet fra staten 23
3.2.3 Legitimitet fra institutionel proces 25
3.2.4 Legitimitet fra borgerinddragelse 27
3.2.5 Legitimitet fra deliberativ proces 28
3.2.6 Kritik af teoriretninger . 31
3.3 Vores teoritilgange . 32
3.3.1 Det effektive demokrati . 34
3.3.2 Det pluralistiske demokrati 36
3.3.3 Det inddragende demokrati . 38
3.4 Vores kategoriudvikling . 39
3.4.1 Hvilken politisk funktion er der tale om? 40
3.4.2 Hvilke institutionelle aktører er i spil? 43
3.4.3 Hvordan kommer politikkonkurrence til udtryk? 44
3.4.4 Hvilken roller spiller den offentlige debat? . 45
3.5 Vores analyseramme . 46
Kapitel 4: De metodiske redskaber – fra teori til praksis 49
4.1 Videnskabsteori og forskningsstrategi 49
4.2 Forskningsmetode . 51
4.2.1 Brugen af dokumenter 51
4.2.2 Brugen af interviews 53
4.3 Metoden ved analyserammen 56
4.3.1 Demokratitilgange som idealtyper . 56
4.3.2 Tolkning af den politiske funktion . 57
4.3.3 Tolkning af kategorier 57
4.4 Den samlede værktøjskasse for analysen 60
Kapitel 5: Den politiske funktion – et nyt begreb i demokratiet . 61
5.1 Type af integration 61
5.1.1 Finanspagten 61
5.1.2 Sixpacken . 63
5.2 Hvilket spil spilles der? . 66
5.2.1 Finanspagten 66
5.2.2 Sixpacken . 69
5.3 Opsummering 74
Kapitel 6: De demokratiske standarder – en ny tjekliste 77
6.1 Finanspagten . 77
6.1.1 Institutionelle aktører . 78
6.1.2 Politikkonkurrence . 84
6.1.3 Den offentlige debat . 90
6.1.4 Sammenfatning 94
6.2 Sixpacken 96
6.2.1 Institutionelle aktører . 96
6.2.2 Politikkonkurrence . 104
6.2.3 Den offentlige debat . 111
6.2.4 Sammenfatning 114
6.3 Sammenligning – EUꞌs demokrati i økonomisk politik 115
6.4 Kritiske refleksioner 117
 Note: -
 Type: Speciale
skjul Detaljer
Vis Detaljer

Kilde

Vis Kilde