Témata prací (Výběr práce)Témata prací (Výběr práce)(verze: 341)
Detail práce
   Přihlásit přes CAS
New understanding of corruption and EU legitimacy
Název práce v češtině: Nové chápání korupce a legitimity EU
Název v anglickém jazyce: New understanding of corruption and EU legitimacy
Klíčová slova: EU legitimita, legitimizace, demokratizace, zastupitelské demokracie, protikorupční politika, parlament, suverenita, transformace států, demokracie stran
Klíčová slova anglicky: EU democratic legitimacy; legitimation; democratization; representative democracies; anti-corruption policy; national-parliaments; sovereignity; state transformations; party democracy
Akademický rok vypsání: 2017/2018
Typ práce: disertační práce
Jazyk práce: angličtina
Ústav: Katedra veřejné a sociální politiky (23-KVSP)
Vedoucí / školitel: doc. PhDr. Pavol Frič, Ph.D.
Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno a potvrzeno stud. odd.
Datum přihlášení: 02.11.2017
Datum zadání: 02.11.2017
Datum potvrzení stud. oddělením: 02.11.2017
Datum a čas obhajoby: 16.09.2021 09:30
Místo konání obhajoby: Voršilská 1/144
Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby:20.07.2021
Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 16.09.2021
Oponenti: prof. PhDr. Vladimíra Dvořáková, CSc.
  doc. Michel Perottino, Ph.D.
 
 
Konzultanti: PhDr. Zdenka Mansfeldová, CSc.
Seznam odborné literatury
- AHG, Attila. (2020). Central European message about the triple crisis. The coronavirus crisis from a Central European view Discussion Paper/working paper.

· AUEL, Katrin. (2007). Democratic Accountability and National Parliaments: Redefining the Impact of Parliamentary Scrutiny in EU Affairs. European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, July 2007, pp. 487–504.

· AUEL, Katrin; Raunio, Tapio. (2012). Introduction: National Parliaments, Electorates and EU Affairs in National Parliaments, Electorates and EU Affairs. Political Science Series 129. Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna

· AUEL, Katrin & Christiansen, Thomas (2015) After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union, West European Politics, 38:2, 261-281;

· AVBELJ, Matej; Cernic, Jernej Letnar. (2020). The Impact of European Institutions on the Rule of Law and Democracy: Slovenia and Beyond, Bloomsbury Publishing

· BAKOWSKI, Piotr; Voronova, S. (2017). Corruption in the European Union Prevalence of corruption, and anti-corruption efforts in selected EU Member States. European Parliamentary Research Service. (EPRS)

· BAKKER, Heleen; Schultle Nordholt, Nico. (2000). Corruption and Legitimacy. SISWO Publication 33. Amsterdam; pp. 65-95;

· BAUMAN, Zygmunt. (1999). In Search of Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. Volume 35.

· BEETHAM, David. (2003). The Legitimation of Power. Palgrave Macmillan. Second edition. New York

· BELLAMY, Richard; Weale, A. (2015) ‘Political Legitimacy and European Monetary Union: Contracts, Constitutionalism and the Normative Logic of Two-level Games’, Journal of European Public Policy, 22 (2): 257-74 (17 pp)

· BENNET, Andrew; Checkel, Jeffrey. (2015). Process Tracing: from Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge University Press.

· BICKERTON, Christopher. (2016). The European Union: A Citizen’s Guide. Penguin Random House UK;

· BICKERTON, Chirstopher. (2012). European Integration, From Nation-States to Member States. Oxford University Press;

· BICKERTON, Christopher. (2009). From Brezhnev to Brussels: Transformations of sovereignty in Eastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan 1384-5748; International Politics Vol. 46, 6, 732–752

· BICKERTON, Christopher; D. Hodson, and U. Puetter, eds. (2015). The New Intergovernmentalism: States, Supranational Actors and European Politics in the Post-Maastricht Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press;

· BLATTER, Joachim; Haverland, Markus. (2014). Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. Palgrave Macmillan.

· BOHMELT, Tobias; Freyburg, Tina (2018). Forecasting candidate states’compliance with EU accession rules, 2017–2050, Journal of European Public Policy, 25:11, 1667-1685, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1348385

· BOVENS, Mark. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, July 2007, pp. 447–468

· BOVENS, Mark. (2010). Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism. West European Politics, Vol. 33, No. 5, 946–967, September 2010

· BUCHANAN; Allen; Keohane, R.O. (2006). The Legitimacy of global governance institutions; Ethics and International Affairs, 20: 405-37 (32 pp)

· BUCHANAN; Allen. (2002) ‘Political Legitimacy and Democracy’, Ethics, 112 (4): 689-719 (30 pp)

· ČAKAR, Dario; Krašovec, Alenka (2021): Coping with the new party challenge: patterns of prime ministerial survival in Croatia and Slovenia, East European Politics, DOI: 10.1080/21599165.2021.1873778

· CAMPOS, Edgardo; Pradhan, S. (2007): The many faces of corruption: tracking vulnerabilities at the sector level, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

· CAPOCCIA, Giovanni. (2015). Critical junctures and institutional change. Ed. Mahoney, James and Thelen Kathleen, Cambridge University Press, p. 147-179

· CARVER, James. (2003). Combating Corruption: The Emergence of New International Law, International Law Forum, p.119-123.

· CHIVA, Christine and Phinnemore, David. (2012). The European Union’s 2007 Enlargement, Routledge.

· COOK, J. Linda. (2012). Eastern Europe and Russia. Chapter 46 in the Handbook of Social Policy.

· COX, Michael et all. Ed. (2000). American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts. Oxford University Press.

· CREMER, Georg (2008): Corruption and Development Aid: Confronting the Challenge, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

· CROUCH, Colin. (2020). Post-democracy after the Crisis. Polity Press, UK.

· CRUM, Ben (2018) Parliamentary accountability in multilevel governance: what role for parliaments in post-crisis EU economic governance?, Journal of European Public Policy,25:2, 268-286, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1363270

· DELLA-PORTA, Donatella.; Vannucci, A. (1999). Corrupt Exchanges: Actors, Resources and Mechanisms of Political Corruption. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York;

· EDVIN, Amenta, Nash, Kate, and Scott, Alan. (2012). The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Blackwell Publishing.

· ESPING-ANDERSEN, Gøsta. (1996). Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. SAGE Publications Ltd

· FRIC, Pavol, (2010). Czech Elites and Citizens as a Part of Public Accountability System. In: Social Accounting and Public Management Accountability for the Public Good. Edited by Stephen P. Osborne, Amanda Ball.

· GANEV, Veselin. (2007). Preying on the State: The Transformation of Bulgaria after 1989. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

· GANEV, Venelin I. Ganev. (2007). Post-Accession Hooliganism: Democratic Governance in Bulgaria and Romania after. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures Volume 27 (1), p. 26-44

· GAILMARD, Sean. (2012). Accountability and Principal-Agent Model. Chapter prepared for the Oxford Handbook of Public Administration. Oxford University Press

· GALLIE, W. B. (1996). Art as an essentially contested concept. The Philosophical Quarterly,6, 1956, pp. 97 – 114

· GILLEY, Bruce. (2009) The Right to Rule: How States Win and Lose Legitimacy, New York: Columbia University Press. Chapters 1 & 2, pp. 1-57 (56 pp)

· GIDDENS, Anthony. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, Polity.

· GOSTA Esping-Andersen (ed.), (1996). Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies, Sage Publications.

· GRABBE, Heather (2006). The EU’s transformative power: Europeanization through conditionality in Central and Eastern Europe, London, New York, Palgrave Macmillan

· GRABBE, Heather. (2014). Six Lessons of Enlargement Ten Years On: The EU's Transformative Power in Retrospect and Prospect. Article in JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12174

· GRESKOVITS, Bela. (2015). The hollowing and backsliding of democracy in East Central Europe. Global Policy 6. Supplement: 28-37.

· GRYZMALA-BUSSE, Anna. (2003a). “Political Competition and the Politicization of the State in East Central Europe,” Comparative Political Studies 36(10): 1123–1147.

· —— (2003b). “Party Politics and Informal Institutions in East Central Europe,” delivered at the conference “Evaulating Success and Failure in Postcommunist Reform,” Claremont-Mckenna College, February.

· GUASTI, P. Dobovsek, B. (2011). Informal Institutions and EU Accession: Corruption and Clientelism in Central and Eastern Europe, 6th ECPR General Conference Reykjavik, Island, 25.-27.8 2011

· FJELDE, Hanne; Håvard Hegre (2014) Political Corruption and Institutional Stability, Studies in Comparative International Development 49(3): 267–299.

· FLORA, P, et all. (1999). State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe. The Theory of Stein Rokkan. Oxford University Press.

· HABERMAS, Jürgen. (2012). The Crisis of the European Union: A Response. Polity Press.

· HABERMAS,, Jürgen. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Contribution of a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Polity Press

· FINK-HAFNER, Danica, Mitja; Hafner-Fink and Meta Novak. (2015). ‘Europeanisation as a Factor of National Interest Group Political-Cultural Change: The Case of Interest Groups in Slovenia’. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 287, 301

· HEYWOOD, Paul. (1997). Political Corruption: Problems and Perspectives. Political Studies, XLV, 417-435.

· HIX, Simon; Bjørn Høyland (2011). The political system of the European Union. Basingstoke ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

· HOXHAJ, Andi. (2020). The EU Anti-Corruption Report A Reflexive Governance Approach. Routledge

· HUGHES, James; Sasse, Gwendolyn; Gordon, Claire. (2002). Saying ‘Maybe’ to the ‘Return To Europe’ Elites and the Political Space for Euroscepticism in Central and Eastern Europe. European Union Politics. Sage publication. Volume 3 (3).

· KAUFMANN, Daniel and Vicente, Pedro C. (2005). Legal Corruption. Department of Economics/CSAE, University of Oxford. Available at://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8186/MPRA Paper No. 8186

· KLIMA, Michal. (2020). Informal politics in post-communist Europe. Political parties, clientelism and state capture. Routlege.

· KITSCHELT; Wilkinson, (2007). Ed. Patrons, Clients and Policies Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge University Press.

· KOHLER-Koch, B.; Berthold, R. (2007). Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

· KRASOVEC, Alenka. Slovenia: Political Developments and Data in 2018. European Journal of Political Research.

· KULENOVIĆ, Enes; Petkovic Kresimir. (2016). The Croatian Princes: Power, Politics and Vision (1990-2011). Croatian Political Science Review, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2016, pp. 105-131

· KURER, Oskar (2005). Corruption: An Alternative Approach to its Definition and Measurement. Political Studies. Political Studies Association, vol. 53(1), pages 222-239

· LADRECH, Robert. (1994). ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32, 69–88.

· LADRECH, Robert. (2007). ‘National Political Parties and European Governance: The Consequences of “Missing in Action’, West European Politics, 30, 945–60.

· LEDENEVA, Alena, Bratu, R. Koker, P. (2017), Corruption studies for the Twenty-First Century: Paradigm Shifts and Innovative Approaches. The Salvonic and East European Review;

· LIPSET, Seymour Martin (1959). ‘Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy’, American Political Science Review, Vol.53, No.1 pp.69–105;

· LIPSET, Seymor Martin (1981). Political Man. The Social Basis of Politics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.31.

· JOHNSTON Michael, (2005). Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy, Cambridge University Press.

· JONES, Erik et all (2016). Failing Forward? The Euro Crisis and the Incomplete Nature of the European Integration. SAGE Publication.

· IMBEAU, M. Lane (2018). Parliaments as Agents of Corruption Control: The Impact of Legislative Institutions on the Level of Perceived Corruption. IPSA

· IMMERGUT, M., Ellen (2010). Political Institutions. Chapter 15 in Oxford Handbook The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State; Edited by Francis G. Castles, Stephan Leibfried, Jane Lewis, Herbert Obinger, and Christopher Pierson; Oxford University Press;

· LANGE. S.Kajnč. (2015). Slovenian Parliament and EU Affairs: Strong Formal Powers Awaiting Interest and Capacity to Be Used. In: Hefftler C., Neuhold C., Rozenberg O., Smith J. (eds).The Palgrave Handbook of National Parliaments and the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

· MAJONE, Giandomenico. (1998). „Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’:The Question of Standards“. European Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1998, pp. 5–28

· MAJONE, Giandomenico (1994), „The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe“, West European Politics, 17/3: 77-101.

· MAJONE, Giandomenico. (1999). The Regulatory State and Its Legitimacy Problems. West European Politics, p. 22:1.

· MALOVA, D; Haughton, T. (2002). Making Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe, and the Impact of Europe. West European Politics, Volume 25, 2002, pages 101-120

· MALCIC;, Matevž; Krašovec, Alenka. (2019). New Parties and Democracy in Slovenia. Politics in Central Europe. Vol. 15, No. 1;

· MALDINI, Pero; Paukovic, Davor. Ed. (2015). Croatia and the European Union: Changes and Development, Routledge.

· MANSFELDOVA, Zdenka. (2011). Central European Parliaments over Two Decades - Diminishing Stability? Parliaments in Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. The Journal of Legislative Studies;

· MAURO, Paolo. (1998). Corruption: Causes, Consequences and Agenda for Further Research. IMF Finance and Development.

· MAATSCH, Aleksandra. (2017). Effectiveness of the European Semester: Explaining Domestic Consent and Contestation. MPIfG Discussion Paper 17/6. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne

· MAIR, Peter (1997). What Is Different About Post‐Communist Party Systems? Oxford University Press;

· MAIR, Peter (2013). Ruling the void: the hollowing of Western democracy. Verso

· MAIR, Peter. (2005). Party System Change Approaches and Interpretations; Clarendon Press.

· MILL, John Stuart. (1977). Essays on Politics and Society. University of Toronto Press

· MORAVCSIK, Andrew; Sangiovanni, Andrea. (2003). On Democracy and “Public Interest” in the European Union. CES Working Paper, no. 93. EU (122-148)

· MULLER, Jan-Werner. (2012). ‘Beyond Militant Democracy?’, New Left Review, 73 39–47 (43–4).

· MUNGUI-PIPPIDI, Alina et all. (2015). Government Favoritism in Europe: The Anticorruption report 3. Barbara Budrich Publishers.

· MUNGUI-PIPPIDI, Alina (2016). The good, the bad and the ugly: controlling corruption in the European Union. Hertie School of Governance. Anticorruption policies revisited: Global Trends and European responses to the Challenge of Corruption (Anticorrp)

· MUNGUI-PIPPIDI, Alina. (2013). Becoming Denmark: Historical Designs of Corruption Control. Book chapter in ,The Development of Good Governance‘. Cambridge University Press

· MULGAN, Richard. (2009). Aristotle on Legality and Corruption. History of Political Thought, 30(4). 596–616. ANU.

· NEUHOLD, C., Rozenberg, O., Smith, J., Hefftler, C. (Eds.) (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of National Parliaments and the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan UK

· NULLMEIER, Frank, KAUFMANN. (2012). Post‐War Welfare State Development. Chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Welfare State. Ed. Castles et all. Oxford University Press.

· LANE,Jan-Erik. (2013). The principal-agent approach to Politics: Policy Implementation and Public Policy Making. Open Journal of Political Science Vol 3. No2, 85-89

· LINDSETH, Peter. (2010). Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation State, Oxford: Oxford University Press (364 pp)

· LIJPHART, Arend. (1999). Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press;

· LIPSET, Seymour Martin and Rokkan Stein. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives; New York: Free Press.

· LEDENEVA, Alena et all. (2017). Corruption studies for the Twenty-First Century: Paradigm Shifts and Innovative Approaches. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.95. No. 1

· LORD, Chris; Beetham, D. (2001). Legitimizing the EU: Is there a ‚Post-parliamentary Basis‘ for its Legitimation? Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol 39, No.3 pp.443-62

· LORD, Chirs, Magnette, P. (2004). E Pluribus Unum? Creative Disagreement about Legitimacy in the EU; JCMS Volume 42, Number 1. pp.183-202

· LORD, Chris. (2013) The democratic legitimacy of co-decision, Journal of European Public Policy, 20:7, 1056-1073, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2013.795400

· LORD, Chris. (2015). A different kind of Democracy? Debates about Democracy and the European Union. Open Society Foundations.

· LORD, Chris. (2004). A Democratic Audit of the European Union. One Europe or Several? Palgrave Macmillan; Process of Integration – page 43-44, Lindseth (2010), Power and Legitimacy;

· LORD, Chris; Pollak, Johannes. (2010) Representation and Accountability: Communicating Tubes?, West European Politics, 33:5, 968-988;

· LUPIA, A. (2003). Delegation and its Perils in: Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracy, Strom et.al (ed.). Oxford University Press.

· O’BRENNAN, J. Raunio, T. (2007). National parliaments within the enlarged European Union: from victims of integration to competitive actors? Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

· OCHRANA, Frantisek (2015). Methodology of Social Sciences. Karolinum Press;

· OFFE, Claus. (2013). Europe entrapped. Does the EU have the political capacity to overcome its current crisis? European Law Journal. Vol 19, No.5, pp. 595 – 611

· OLSEN, P. Johan (2013). The Institutional Basis of Democratic Accountability. West European Politics 36/3: 447-473

· OLSEN, P. Johan (2010). Governing through institutional building. Institutional theory and recent European experiments in democratic organizations. Oxford University Press.

· PIERSON, Paul. (1996). The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Perspective. Program for the Study of Germany and Europe. Working Paper No. 5.2

· PEGAN, Andreja; Krašovec, Alenka. (2021). Slovenian Parliament. Available at:

· PERSON, Torsten; Roland, Gerald; Tabellini Guido. (1997). Separation of Powers and Political Accountability. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112.

· PERSSON, Thomas; Parker F. Charles; Widmalm Sten (2017). Social trust, impartial administration and public confidence in EU crisis Management instituions;

· PETERS, B. Gay. (2010). Institutional theory of political science: the new institutionalism. 3rd edition. Continnum International Publishing group.

· PLATO. (2000). The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

· POTUCEK, Martin. (2017). Public Policy: Comprehensive Introduction. Karolinum Press.

· POPE, Jeremy. (2000). Confronting corruption: the elemetns of a national integrity system. Transparency International Source Book.

· PRZEWORSKI, Adam., Stokes, S.C. and Manin, B. (eds) (1999) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

· PRIDHAM, Geoffrey. (2006). European Union Accession Dynamics and Democratization in Central and Eastern Europe: Past and Future Perspectives. Government and Opposition, Vol. 41, No. 3 (SUMMER 2006), pp. 373-400 Published by: Cambridge University Press

· RAIK, Kristi. (2004). EU Accession of Central and Eastern European Countries: Democracy and Integration as Conflicting Logics. East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 18, No. 4, pages567– 594. ISSN 0888-3254

· RADAELLI, Claudio. (2003). ‘The Europeanization of Public Policy’, in Featherstone, K. & Radaelli, C., eds., The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

· RICHTER, Solveig; Natasha Wunsch (2019). Money, power, glory: the linkages between EU conditionality and state capture in the Western Balkans, Journal of European Public Policy;

· ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan. (1999). Political Corruption and Democracy. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 592.

· ROSE-ACKERMAN, Susan. (1999): Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform, Cambridge University Press.

· ROTHSTEIN, Bo. (2005). Social Traps and the problem of Trust. Theories of Institutional design. Cambridge University Press.

· ROTHSTEIN, Bo. (2011). The quality of government. Corruption, Social trust and inequality in international perspective. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago press.

· ROTHSTEIN, Bo; Teorell, J. (2008). What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance: An International Journal of policy, administration and institution. Volume21, Issue2. Pages 165-190.

· ROTHSTEIN, Bo. (2011) “Anti-Corruption: The Indirect “Big-Bang” Approach ” Review of International Political Economy 18 (2):228-250.

· ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques (2004/1968/1762). The Social Contract. Penguin Classics.

· RUPNIK, Jacques. (2007). Is East-Central Europe Backsliding? From democracy fatique to populist backlash. Journal of Democracy. Volume 18. Number 4.

· VACHUDOVA, Milada-Anna (2005). Europe Undivided Democracy, Leverage, and Integration After Communism. Oxford University Press

· SCHARPF, Fritz. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?. Oxford University Press.

· SCHMIDT, Vivien A. (2020). Europe’s Crisis of Legitimacy: governing by rules and ruling by numbers in the Eurozone. Oxford University Press.

· SCHMITTER, Paolo, C. (2003). The Quality of Democracy: The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability. Istituto Universitario Europeo settembro.

· STEINMO, Sven. (2012). Historical Institutionalism. Chapter 7. Cambridge University Press, pp 118-138

· STOKES, S. C. et all (2012). Brokers, Voters and Clientelism. Yale University and Universidad Nacional de Cordoba.

· STREECK, Wolfgang; Thelen, Kathleen (2005). Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, Chapter (1-57) in Beyond Continuity Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford University Press

· STROM, Kaare. (2000). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 261–89;

· STROM Kaare., Müller, W. C; Bergman, T., eds.(2003). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

· SZAREK-MASON, Patrycja. (2005). The European Union’s Fight against Corruption: the evolving policy towards Member States and Candidate Countries. Cambridge University Press

· THELEN, Kathleen. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review Political Science 1999. 2:369–404

· WARREN, E. Mark. (2014). Accountability and Democracy. Chapter in The Oxford Handbook by Public Accountability. Ed. Bovens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–54.

· WEBER, Martin. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

· WIBERG, Maati. (1995). ‘Parliamentary Questioning: Control by Communication?’, in Döring, H., ed., Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York: St Martin’s Press.

· WHITE, Jonathan. (2020). Politics of last resort. Governig by emergency in the European Union. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK;

· WOLFANG, Merkel. (2004). Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization, Vol.11, No.5, pages 33-58. Taylor & Francis Ltd.

· WOLFANG, Merkel, Kneip, Sasa. (2017). The idea of democratic legitimacy (WZB Discussion Paper. Berlin. WZB (forthcoming).

· WOLFANG, Merkel. (2019). Past, Present and Future of Democracy. Policy Review European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce
Abstrakt
This research aims to investigate the causal linkages between the EU democratic legitimacy and the crises of representative democracies in the field of anti-corruption. The threats of corruption to the EU democratic legitimacy and the approach in handling this negative phenomenon is seen as a symptom of a more profound crisis of the EU integration project. The mutual interdependence between the EU and it is member states in delivering the standards of democracy, its values and principles are seen through legitimation as an act of actual justification. This actual exercise of the EU indirect legitimacy in normative terms is translated into action through the key actors of representative democracies on a national level, the national parliaments and the political parties. However, the role of the parliaments and the party democracy in the broader EU context, especially evident in Central-East Europe (CEE), has been challenged and weak, suggesting the hollowness of democracy. This status has been also challenged by the misuse of political power for private gains, as a general understanding of corruption, also adopted by the EU. However, the mutual reinforcement of corruption and the hollowness of democracy have remained under-acknowledged in the broader neoliberal context. The reasons behind are a few: starting from the thick conceptualization of corruption; the EU approach towards corruption, the specifics of the CEE countries concerning party democracy, party cleavages and the transformations from communist to neoliberal democratic regimes.
This research, therefore, takes a different approach and set the premises that corruption as a negative phenomenon is an old concept, introduced on a greater scale by the liberalization and deregulation of the financial markets in the 1990s, and takes roots in the increased hollowness of representative democracies. The historical preconditions of communist regimes, the historical context (EU enlargements; post-1989 Cold war period; EU crises) and especially, the specifics of the process of Europeanization are important features for understanding a) the conditions under which corruptive practices are taking place; b) the EU approach in addressing corruption and c) the outcomes in form of democratic backsliding.

Corruption is not an isolated phenomenon, nor should it be treated as such, if we aim to understand the logic of the contemporary challenges of liberal democracies in the European Union, especially the deterioration of the rule of law. As an abstract concept, it also deeply incorporates the principles of legality and impartiality. This research, therefore, does not claim that it will produce a new definition of corruption, as this might be an impossible task. However, it does suggest a new logic of understanding this negative phenomenon through the lenses of state transformation under the process of Europeanization and the gradual hollowness of democracies bound to unaccountable use of power. In order to do so, in this research, we will use two concepts of corruption: the ‚legislative corruption‘, (Kaufmann, 2005; Kurer, 2005) and corruption as a social trap or lack of social trust (Rothstein, 2011). Both concepts are essential for understanding the misuse of power for doing politics on behalf of the ‚people‘, or the citizens seen as the ultimate source of legitimacy in the actions of the political actors. By looking into the processes of legitimation through the national parliaments on the nation-state level, this research will give answers on the conditions under which the EU democratic legitimacy is expected to satisfy the democratic standards and principles, by ‘borrowing’ legitimacy from representative democracies of its Member States, i.e. through indirect legitimation and contribute to the democratic embeddedness.

Under this scope, this research will argue that the national parliaments, political parties and elected members of parliaments can play essential roles in pursuing effective anti-corruption strategies and, as such, can provide for indirect democratic legitimation, both on national and EU level.

Therefore, this research took the position to examine the necessary conditions under which parliaments and political parties can provide for democratic legitimation and act as institutional guardians of representative democracies in service of the citizens. In order to do so, it has empirically examined the role of the states and their capacities to exercise the functions of legitimation and provide for the internal (national) and external (EU) embeddedness of democracies. Using three paradigmatic cases in Croatia, Slovenia (EU Member States) and North Macedonia (EU applicant state), based on document analysis and expert semi-structured interviews, the research has unpacked the causality between the observed theoretical fingerprints and the actual empirical findings.

The research has found that the difficulties in consolidating democracies, especially evident in CEE are linked to the process of state transformation under the EU integration, bound to the general weakening of the national parliament/legislatures vis-à-vis the role of the executives; the centralized party politics, particularly the lack of internal party democracy, and the questionable law-making processes. These conditions have contributed to opportunities in which citizens lack proper democratic representation, resulting in weak law enforcement (social trap) and further disenchantment between the citizens and their societies. These conditions do not allow for rooting out corruption from the political systems. Furthermore, the weak role of the national parliaments, particularly in its oversight capacities, and the weak internal party democracy, constrains the possibility of creating a political culture of accountability or restoring the social trust of the citizens. The lack of social and institutional trust inhibits democratic embeddedness and reduces the quality of representative democracies, both on the nation-state or EU level.

The facades of legitimation, exercised in the national parliaments, indirectly affects the EU democratic legitimacy. Moreover, improvisation in the exercise of democratic accountability constrains the identification of potential or actual abuses of power, particularly the legislative corruption. Nevertheless, the EU approach towards anti-corruption has remained mainly limited and associated with the EU enlargement processes and the post-communist states. This research has also found out that the current EU approach in tackling corruption under the European Semester is insufficient and requires a new comprehensive approach that can also tackle the hollowness of citizens ‘representation and the ineffective rule of law present in many contemporary democracies.

These views also suggest that the exercise of horizontal and vertical accountability - democratic accountability – through the capacities of the national parliaments, are necessary conditions for internal and external embeddedness of democracies, and taking control over legal abuses of power, particularly legislative corruption. Moreover, when an actual legitimation takes place through the national parliaments, societies may re-gain the chance to revitalize the broken trust(s), break the patterns of social traps, and provide for the quality of democracy. However, this sentiment requires an acknowledgement of the involvement of the EU and the states in the safeguard of the EU integration project, built on democratic values and principles.
 
Univerzita Karlova | Informační systém UK