Argued consensus or bargained compromise? a governance approach to assessing the legitimacy of European Commission legislative proposals

Are the legislative proposals of the European Commission the result of consensus oriented arguing or the result of compromise oriented bargaining with stakeholders? This has become a key question since the European Commission is perceived to have introduced a governance approach to build legitimacy in its legislative proposals through the 2001 White Paper on European Governance and the 2002 Better Regulation Action Plan. A governance approach implies consensus oriented negotiations between the regulating authority and stakeholders. This constitutes for the European Commission a shift away from its technocratic policy making tradition. To what extent has the better regulation strategy of the European Commission proven to be successful? On the basis of three case studies, this PhD thesis argues that the legislative proposals of the European Commission ca be the result of a process of consensus oriented arguing between the European Commission and stakeholders. This conclusion provides important answers on the legitimacy of the legislative proposals of the European Commission in general and the legitimacy building potential of the better regulation strategy in particular. Furthermore, this research has added to the theoretical sophistication of the governance approach to assessing the legitimacy of EU legislation.