Evaluation of public consultations and citizens’ participation in 2015 Better Regulation Agenda of the EU and the need for a deliberative e-rulemaking initiative in the EU

References

• Aichholzer, G., & Rose, G. (2020). Experience with digital tools in different types of e-participation. In L. Hennen, I. van Keulen, I. Korthagen, G. Aichholzer, R. Lindner, & R. Ø. Nielsen (Eds.), European e-democracy in practice (pp. 93–140). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Alemanno, A. (2015). How much better is better regulation? Assessing the impact of the better regulation package on the European Union – a research agenda. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(3), 344–356. doi: 10.1017/S1867299X00004736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang, H., Jensen, M. D., & Nedergaard, P. (2015). ‘We the people’ versus ‘we the heads of states’: The debate on the democratic deficit of the European Union. Policy Studies, 36(2), 196–216. doi: 10.1080/01442872.2014.1000846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R., & Kröger, S. (2013). The representation deficits and surpluses in EU policy-making. Journal of European Integration (Special Issue), 35(5), 477–497. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2254032 doi: 10.1080/07036337.2013.799937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy and difference. Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2000). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bunea, A. (2017). Designing stakeholder consultations: Reinforcing or alleviating bias in the European Union system of governance? European Journal of Political Research, 56(1), 46–69. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunea, A., & Ibenskas, R. (2017). Unveiling patterns of contestation over better regulation reforms in the European Union. Public Administration, 95(3), 589–604. doi: 10.1111/padm.12335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buonanno, L., & Nugent, N. (2013). Policies and policy processes of the European Union. New York, NY: Macmillan International Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Butcher, P., & Pronckutė, S. (2019). European citizens’ consultations: Consultation begins at home. European View, 18(1), 80–88. doi: 10.1177/1781685819847637
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, N., & Lourenço, R. P. (2018). E-rulemaking: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 14(2), 35–53. doi: 10.4018/IJTHI.2018040103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cengiz, F. (2018). Bringing the citizen back into EU democracy: Against the input-output model and why deliberative democracy might be the answer. European Politics and Society, 19(5), 577–594. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1469236
   Google Scholar
• Coglianese, C. (2003). E-rulemaking: Information technology and regulatory policy new directions in digital government research (Regulatory Policy Program Report, No. RPP-05). USA.
   Google Scholar
• Coglianese, C. (2006). Citizen participation in rulemaking. Past, present and future. Duke Law Journal, 55, 943–968.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespy, A. (2014). Deliberative democracy and the legitimacy of the European Union: A reappraisal of conflict. Political Studies, 62, 81–98. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtice, J., & Jowell, R. (1997). Trust in the political system. In R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A. Park, L. Brook, K. Thomson, & C. Bryson (Eds.), British social attitudes: the 14th Report. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Dalakiouridou, E., Smith, S., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2012). Electronic participation policies and initiatives in the European Union institutions. Social Science Computer Review, 30(3), 297–323. doi: 10.1177/0894439311413436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, T. (2009). The blossoming field of online deliberation. In T. Davies & S. P. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation. Design, research, and practice (pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Decker, F. (2002). Governance beyond the nation-state. Reflections on the democratic deficit of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(2), 256–272. doi: 10.1080/13501760110120255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deligiaouri, A. (2013). Open governance and e-rulemaking: Online deliberation and policy-making in contemporary Greek politics. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 104–124. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.746109
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J., Felicetti, A., … Warren, M. E. (2019, March). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363, 1144–1146. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2017). If evaluation is the solution, what is the problem? In N. Zahariadis & L. Buonanno (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of European public policy (pp. 331–343). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (2017, April). A typology of democratic innovations. Political Studies Association’s Annual Conference. Retrieved from https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2017/A20Typology20of20Democratic20Innovations20-20Elstub20and20Escobar%202017.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ercan, S., & Dryzek, J. S. (2015). The reach of deliberative democracy. Policy Studies, 36(3), 241–248. doi: 10.1080/01442872.2015.1065969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2010). The European eGovernment action plan 2010–2015. Harnessing ICT to promote smart, sustainable and innovative government. SEC(2010)1539, final, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, better regulation for better results – an EU agenda, COM(2015) 215 final.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019a). Better regulation: Taking stock and sustaining our commitment. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/better-regulation-taking-stock_en_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2019b). Stocktaking of the commission’s ‘better regulation’ approach: Summary report of contributions to the public consultation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/summary-report-consultaion-results-better-regulation_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Committee of the Regions. (2019). From local to European: Putting citizens at the centre of the EU agenda. doi:10.2863/597145
   Google Scholar
• Fabbrini, F. (2016). Economic governance in Europe: Comparative paradoxes, constitutional challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farina, C. R., & Newhart, M. J. (2013). Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and getting better public participation. Cornell e- Rulemaking Initiative Publications. Paper 15, 14. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ceri/15
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, D. M., Suiter, J., & Harris, C. L. (2018). Systematizing’ constitutional deliberation: The 2016–18 citizens’ assembly in Ireland. Irish Political Studies. doi: 10.1080/07907184.2018.1534832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R.C. (2000). The quest for deliberative democracy. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation (pp. 31–42). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203165485
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S., Luskin, R. C., & Jowell, R. (2000). Deliberative polling and public consultation. Parliamentary Affairs, 53(4), 657–666. doi: 10.1093/pa/53.4.657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(3), 533–562. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00650.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garben, S. (2018). An impact assessment’ of EU better regulation. In S. Garben & I. Govaere (Eds.), The EU better regulation agenda a critical assessment (pp. 217–242). Oxford: Hart publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Garben, S., & Govaere, I. (Eds). (2018). The EU better regulation agenda, a critical assessment. Oxford: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Black, L. W. (2008). Public deliberation as the organizing principle of political communication research. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), 1–49.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2009). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hix, S. (2008). What’s wrong with the Europe Union and how to fix it. London: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Impact Assessment Institute (IAI). (2017). A year and a half of the better regulation agenda: What happened? Final study.
   Google Scholar
• Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA). (2016). Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on better law making, 13 April 2016. Retrieved from https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016Q0512(01)&from=EN
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, A., & Roman, A. (2015). Reflections on e-rulemaking. Challenges, limitations and unrealistic expectations. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 13(1), 43–55. Retrieved from www.ejeg.com
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & Saltane, V. (2016). Citizen engagement in rulemaking. Evidence on regulatory practices in 185 countries (Policy Research Working Paper 7840). World bank Group. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/462571475068174273/pdf/WPS7840.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kamlage, J. H., & Nanz, P. (2017). Public participation and democratic innovations: Assessing democratic institutions and processes for deepening and increased public participation in political decision-making. World Forum for Democracy, 1–36. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/public-participation-and-democratic-innovations-assessing-democratic-i/168075f47b
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B. (2010). Civil society and EU democracy: ‘Astroturf’ representation? Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 100–116. doi: 10.1080/13501760903464986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriesi, H., & Grande, E. (2014). Political debate in a polarizing Union. In O. Cramme & S. B. Hobolt (Eds.), Democratic politics in a European Union under stress (pp. 67–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laffan, B. (2016). Europe’s union in crisis: Tested and contested. West European Politics, 39(5), 915–932. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2016.1186387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. (2013). Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: An epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives. Synthese, 190(7), 1209–1231. doi: 10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Listorti, G., Basyte, F. E., Acs, S., Munda, G., Rosenbaum, E., Paruolo, P., & Smits, P. (2019). The debate on the EU better regulation agenda: A literature review. EUR 29691 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-76-00840-8. doi:10.2760/46617, JRC116035
   Google Scholar
• Marxsen, C. (2015a). Open stakeholder consultations at the European level-voice of citizens? European Law Journal, 21(2), 257–280. doi: 10.1111/eulj.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marxsen, C. (2015b). Participatory democracy in Europe article 11 TEU and the legitimacy of the European Union. In F. Fabbrini, E. H. Ballin, & H. Somsen (Eds.), What form of government for the European Union and the Eurozone? (pp. 151–169). Oxford: Hart. Retrieved from SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2630925
   Google Scholar
• Maśnicki, J. (2016). Good governance thorough better regulation. Looking for the impact analysis approach to the proportionality principle. In R. Grzeszczak (Ed.), Challenges of good governance in the European Union (pp. 197–227). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Muhlberger, P., Webb, N., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2008). The deliberative e-rulemaking project (DeER): Improving federal agency rulemaking via natural language processing and citizen dialogue. Proceedings of the 2008 International conference on Digital government research (pp. 403–404). Digital Government Society of North America.
   Google Scholar
• Newhart, M. J., & Brooks, J. D. (2017). Barriers to participatory eRulemaking platform adoption: Lessons learned from regulation room. Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications, 19. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/ceri/19
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaïdis, K. (2004). The new constitution as European ‘demoi-cracy’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 7(1), 76–93. doi: 10.1080/1369823042000235985
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. (2013a). European demoicracy and its crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(2), 351–369. doi:10.1111/jcms.12006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaidis, K. (2013b). Of bread, games and gladiators: Why magic bullets will not placate EU citizens and why we should nurture a European democracy instead. In R. Bellamy & U. Staiger (Eds.), The Eurozone crisis and the democratic deficit (pp. 11–12). UCL European Institute. Retrieved from http://kalypsonicolaidis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2013_MagicBullets.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, S. (2011). The emancipatory effect of deliberation: Empirical lessons from mini-publics. Politics & Society, 39(1), 103–140. doi: 10.1177/0032329210395000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the internet worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2019). Better regulation practices across the European Union. Paris: OECD. doi: 10.1787/9789264311732-en
   Google Scholar
• Perez, O., Bar-Ilan, J., Gazit, T., Aharony, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Bronstein, J. (2018). The prospects of E-democracy: An experimental study of collaborative e-rulemaking. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 15(3), 278–299. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2018.1485605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2018). Halfway through the better regulation strategy of the Juncker commission: What does the evidence say? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56, 85–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuchamps, M., & Suiter, J. (Eds.). (2016). Constitutional deliberative democracy in Europe. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roth, F., Nowak-Lehmann, D. F., & Otter, T. (2013). Crisis and trust in national and European Union institutions: Panel evidence for the EU, 1999 to 2012. Retrieved from https://www.inesad.edu.bo/bcde2014/papers/BCDE2014-49.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Russack, S. (2018). Pathways for citizens engage in EU policy making. In S. Blockmans & S. Russack (Eds.), Direct democracy in the EU: The myth of a citizens’ union. Brussels: Rowman & Littlefield International, Centre for European Policy Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. (2008). Democracy and e-rulemaking. Web-based technologies, participation and the potential for deliberation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 4(1), 37–55. doi: 10.1300/J516v04n01_04
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, C. (2018). Integrating regulatory governance and better regulation as reflexive governance. In S. Garben & I. Govaere (Eds.), The EU better regulation agenda a critical assessment (pp. 13–25). Oxford: Hart publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Setälä, M. (2014). Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, S. W. (2009). The case against mass e-mails: Perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. Federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1, 22–52. doi: 10.2202/1944-2866.1010
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G. (2013). Designing democratic innovations at the European level: Lessons from the experiments. In R. Kies & P. Nanz (Eds.), Is Europe listening to us? Success and failure of EU citizen consultations (pp. 201–216). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S., Macintosh, A., & Millard, J. (2011). A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), 304–321. doi: 10.1504/IJEG.2011.046013
   Google Scholar
• Strandberg, K., & Grönlund, K. (2014). Online deliberation: Theory and practice in virtual mini-publics. In K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger, & M. Setälä (Eds.), Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process (pp. 93–113). Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J., Webb, N., & Muhlberger, P. (2012). Deliberative e-rulemaking project: Challenges to enacting real world deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(1), 82–96. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.63597 doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.635971
   Google Scholar
• Suiter, J., Farrell, D., & Harris, C. (2016). The Irish constitutional convention: A case of ‘high legitimacy’?. In M. Reuchamps & J. Suiter (Eds.), Constitutional deliberative democracy in Europe (pp. 33–54). Colchester, Essex: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suiter, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2016). Constitutional turn for deliberative democracy in Europe? In M. Reuchamps & J. Suiter (Eds.), Constitutional deliberative democracy in Europe (pp. 1–13). Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Smith, S., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K., & Millard, J. (2012). Understanding eParticipation state of play in Europe. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 321–330. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2012.716994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Abeele, E. (2015). Better regulation: A bureaucratic simplification with a political agenda. Etui Working Paper (04).
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E., & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weale, A. (2005). Democratic citizenship and the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, M. (2012). Europe’s new communication policy and the introduction of translational deliberative citizens ‘involvement projects’. In R. Kies & P. Nanz (Eds.), Is Europe listening to us? Successes and failures of EU citizens consultations (pp. 17–34). Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Zweifel, T. D. (2002).  … Who is without sin cast the first stone: The EU’s democratic deficit in comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(5), 812–840. doi: 10.1080/13501760210162375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar