Product Description

The European Union seems incapable of undertaking economic reforms and defining its place in the world. Public apathy towards the EU is also increasing, as citizens feel isolated from the institutions in Brussels and see no way to influence European level decisions.

Taking a diagnosis and cure approach to the EU′s difficulties, Simon Hix tackles these problems with distinct clarity and open–mindedness. What the EU needs, Hix contends, is more open political competition. This would promote policy innovation, foster coalitions across the institutions, provide incentives for the media to cover developments in Brussels, and enable citizens to identify who governs in the EU and to take sides in policy debates. The EU is ready for this new challenge. The institutional reforms since the 1980s have transformed the EU into a more competitive polity, and political battles and coalitions are developing inside and between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

This emerging politics should be more central to the Brussels policy process, with clearer coalitions and identifiable winners and losers, at least in the short term. The risks are low because the EU has multiple checks–and–balances. Yet, the potential benefits are high, as more open politics could enable the EU to overcome policy gridlock, rebuild public support, and reduce the democratic deficit. This indispensable book will be of great interest to students of the European politics, scholars, policy makers and anyone concerned with the future of the European Union.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #152139 in Books
• Published on: 2008-01-27
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 228 pages

Review
"An exciting, rigorous and compelling book. The fix of Hix makes much more sense than the Panglossians who want to do nothing or others who argue that all the EU′s problems will be resolved with better PR and more procedural reforms."
International Affairs

"Hix′s research makes a convincing case that left–right divisions have deeply penetrated policymaking in the parliament, the council and the commission. Missing is a contest for political power and policymaking between rival groups and policies, with clear winners and losers and a visible link between voting, leadership and outcome."
Irish Times

"[A] short and highly readable book, which began life as a series of policy papers written for the UK government."
Ethics and International Affairs

"Simon Hix′s analysis is as authoritative as his case for reform is compelling. Reasoned, rigorous and riveting, this book is a must–read for all who care about the future of the European Union."
Sir Stephen Wall

"An exceptionally clear and provocative argument in favour of ′limited democratic politics′ in the EU, showing precisely how it could be applied to the 2009 European elections."
Michael Shackleton, Secretariat of the European Parliament

"Simon Hix is among the leading political analysts of the European Union of his generation. Here he offers a critical yet balanced analysis of Europe′s ′democratic deficit′, linked to pragmatic proposals for reform. Whether one agrees or not, this slim and readable volume is required reading for anyone seriously concerned about the constitutional future and political legitimacy of Europe."
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University

From the Back Cover
The European Union seems incapable of undertaking economic reforms and defining its place in the world. Public apathy towards the EU is also increasing, as citizens feel isolated from the institutions in Brussels and see no way to influence European level decisions.

Taking a diagnosis and cure approach to the EU’s difficulties, Simon Hix tackles these problems with distinct clarity and open–mindedness. What the EU needs, Hix contends, is more open political competition. This would promote policy innovation, foster coalitions across the institutions, provide incentives for the media to cover developments in Brussels, and enable citizens to identify who governs in the EU and to take sides in policy debates. The EU is ready for this new challenge. The institutional reforms since the 1980s have transformed the EU into a more competitive polity, and political battles and coalitions are developing inside and between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

This emerging politics should be more central to the Brussels policy process, with clearer coalitions and identifiable winners and losers, at least in the short term. The risks are low because the EU has multiple checks–and–balances. Yet, the potential benefits are high, as more open politics could enable the EU to overcome policy gridlock, rebuild public support, and reduce the democratic deficit. This indispensable book will be of great interest to students of the European politics, scholars, policy makers and anyone concerned with the future of the European Union.

Customer Reviews

raising the average
I don't normally write amazon reviews so this is partly just to counteract the incredibly misleading one-star review that is already there. That review, although clearly by a raving Euro-sceptic (as his/her reference to the Irish vote shows) may be giving out the wrong idea.
This book is an excellent analysis of the Eu's democratic/legitimacy deficit and addresses the fundemental problem that while the EU is procedurally very democratic (elected Council, elected Parliament, indirectly elected Commission), moreso than the UK, it lacks a 'European public' necessary to make these institutions work properly. He does not say that the system is perfect (far from it, hence the title 'what's wrong with the EU) and does not think the US system is perfect, just the only system that we can reasonably compare the EU to (although the EU is unique and thus comparisons don't work).

If Hix is pushing any agenda at all, it is to stop the EU being run by 'faceless Brussels bureaucrats', something surely everyone wants?!

This is an excellent book and as someone who did their Masters degree partly on European Union politics I found it incredibly useful both for the points it makes and the style used to make them which is eloquent and accessible.

Poor defence of the EU
Simon Hix is the Professor of European and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He chaired a working group for the Cabinet Office during the Convention drawing up the EU Constitution.

Hix sees three problems with the EU: policy gridlock, lack of popular legitimacy and the democratic deficit. He notes, In substantive terms the EU is closer to a form of enlightened despotism than a genuine democracy. Yet he calls its political design pure genius. He also thinks that the US has an ideal political-economic model, which gives some idea of his political nous.

In response to the EUs problems, he proposes to change the European Parliaments procedures for choosing its president and committee chairs, to make the Councils proceedings more open to the public, and to have a more open contest for the Commissions president. He explains patronisingly that through these reforms, citizens will begin to understand and engage with EU politics.

He also mentions that the EU is a driving force of global economic and political integration. He calls for the liberalisation of labour markets, welfare states, public services and energy industries, although he admits the downward pressures on public spending, corporate tax rates and wages that result from market integration and liberalisation. He notes, one group in society that has benefited enormously from European integration is the economic, political and social elite.

His proposed reforms completely ignore these economic realities, but these, not the EUs institutional failings, explain why public support for the EU has fallen since the early 1990s to just 50% across the EU and 30% in Britain.

Hix rejects the Lisbon Treaty, writing that the new treaty reforms are unlikely to bring the EU closer to the citizens, and may even undermine the legitimacy of the EU further if a second attempt to ratify a new treaty is rejected. And, even if the new treaty is ratified and eventually enters into force, the minor institutional changes are not significant enough to enable the EU to overcome policy gridlock or make the EU more democratically accountable. But his minor procedural changes would do no better.

Of course, like all EU fans, he opposes referendums, calling them a crude and ineffectual mechanism for expressing citizens preferences on policy issues. Hardly ineffectual - the Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty indeed undermined the legitimacy of the EU - in fact it has changed everything.