Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualizing Opposition in the EU Multi-Level Polity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Opposition in the EU Multi-Level Polity

  • 216 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the problems of considering opposition politics in the context of the EU multi-level polity. We start from the classical, typology-centered literature on political opposition and opposition strategies, concluding that opposition politics in the EU requires more imaginative approaches. Analogous to governance, the multi-level character of the EU imposes both organizational and strategic challenges and opportunities for actors engaged in opposition, privileging new actors and coordination. We argue that the concept of an issue-oriented, i.e., policy-motivated, ad hoc opposition provides a fruitful starting point for considering opposition in a polity such as the EU. This implies that a focus on extra-parliamentary actors and oppositional objectives other than obtaining government alternation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alter, K. J. (2009). The European Court’s political power: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux, K. (2006). The federal face of voting: Are elected officials held accountable for the functions relevant to their office? Political Psychology, 27(5), 731–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton Legacy Library. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyers, J., Eising, R., & Maloney, W. (2009). Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much we study, little we know? West European Politics, 31(6), 1103–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, J. (1997). Political opposition in the contemporary world. Government and Opposition, 32(4), 462–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brack, N., & Weinblum, S. (2011). “Political opposition”: Towards a renewed research agenda. Interdisciplinary Political Studies, 1(1), 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporaso, J. A., Marks, G., Moravcsik, A., & Pollack, M. A. (1997). Does the European Union represent an n of 1? Ecsa Review, 10(3), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cichowski, R. A. (2007). The European court and civil society: Litigation, mobilization and governance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conant, L., Hofmann, A., Soennecken, D., & Vanhala, L. (2018). Mobilizing European law. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(9), 1376–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespy, A., & Parks, L. (2017). The connection between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition in the EU: From ACTA to the financial crisis. Journal of European Integration, 39(4), 453–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1968a [1966]). The American oppositions. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Political oppositions in western democracies (pp. 34–69). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1968b [1966]). Patterns of opposition. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Political oppositions in western democracies (pp. 332–347). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1968c [1966]). Some explanations. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Political oppositions in western democracies (pp. 348–386). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (Ed.). (1968d [1966]). Political oppositions in western democracies. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bruycker, I., & Beyers, J. (2015). Balanced or biased? Interest groups and legislative lobbying in the European news media. Political Communication, 32(3), 453–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, F., & Sonnicksen, J. (2011). An alternative approach to European Union democratization: Re-examining the Direct Election of the Commission President. Government and Opposition, 46(2), 168–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M. (2013). Organizational fields and social movement dynamics. In J. van Stekelenburg, C. Roggeband, & B. Klandermans (Eds.), The future of social movement research: Dynamics, mechanisms, and processes (pp. 145–168). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eising, R., & Lenschow, A. (2007). Europäische Union. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance (pp. 325–338). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Epp, C. R. (2008). Law as an instrument of social reform. In K. E. Whittington (Ed.), The Oxford handbooks of political science (general ed.): Robert E. Goodin. The Oxford handbook of law and politics (pp. 595–613). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2004). Interorganizational negotiation and intraorganizational power in shared decision making: Early agreements under codecision and their impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies, 37(10), 1184–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garritzmann, J. L. (2017). How much power do oppositions have? Comparing the opportunity structures of parliamentary oppositions in 21 democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, E. (2000). Multi-Level Governance: Institutionelle Besonderheiten und Funktionsbedingungen des europäischen Mehrebenensystems. In E. Grande & M. Jachtenfuchs (Eds.), Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die EU?: Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem (pp. 11–25). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam, D. (2008). Comparative federalism and the role of the judiciary. In G. A. Caldeira, R. D. Kelemen, & K. E. Whittington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law and politics (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, L. (2002). Politische Opposition: Theorie und Praxis in westlichen Regierungssystemen. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & Tilley, J. (2014). Who’s in charge? How voters attribute responsibility in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 47(6), 795–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration: Governance in Europe. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ionescu, G., & de Madariaga, I. (1968). Opposition: Past and present of a political institution. London: Watts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, G., Halpin, D., & Maloney, W. (2004). Defining interests: Disambiguation and the need for new distinctions. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(2), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. A. (2003). Adversarial legalism: The American way of law (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, A. (2008). Parliamentary opposition in Westminster democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(1/2), 20–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, R. D. (2003). The structure and dynamics of EU federalism. Comparative Political Studies, 36(1/2), 184–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, R. D. (2011). Eurolegalism: The transformation of law and regulation in the European Union. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch, B., & Rittberger, B. (2007). Charting crowded territory: Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. In B. Kohler-Koch & B. Rittberger (Eds.), Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union (pp. 1–32). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kramm, L. (1986). Grundzüge einer Theorie der politischen Opposition. Zeitschrift Für Politik, 33(1), 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochvíl, P., & Sychra, Z. (2019). The end of democracy in the EU? The Eurozone crisis and the EU’s democratic deficit. Journal of European Integration, 41(2), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreppel, A. (2011). Looking ‘up’, ‘down’ and ‘sideways’: Understanding EU institutions in context. West European Politics, 34(1), 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. (2007). Parliamentary representation in a decentred polity. In B. Kohler-Koch & B. Rittberger (Eds.), Debating the democratic legitimacy of the European Union (pp. 139–156). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. (2007). Political opposition and the European Union. Government and Opposition, 42(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neunreither, K. (1998). Governance without opposition: The case of the European Union. Government and Opposition, 33(4), 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberreuter, H. (1975). Einleitung. In H. Oberreuter (Ed.), Parlamentarische Opposition: Ein internationaler Vergleich (pp. 8–24). Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, Y. (2007). Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. European Law Journal, 13(4), 469–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, G. (1997). Opposition questions. Government and Opposition, 32(4), 457–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N. W. (1997). Political opposition in the United States. Government and Opposition, 32(4), 511–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romoser, G. K. (1975). Politische Opposition zwischen Konsens und Instabilität: Das amerikanische Präsidialsystem. In H. Oberreuter (Ed.), Parlamentarische Opposition: Ein internationaler Vergleich (pp. 52–82). Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1966). Opposition and control problems and prospects. Government and Opposition, 1(2), 149–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1991). Comparing and miscomparing. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(3), 243–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1988). The joint-decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66(3), 239–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (2006). The joint decision trap revisited. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(4), 845–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selinger, W. (2019). Parliamentarism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, P. (2013). Twenty years of multi-level governance: “Where does it come from? What is it? Where is it going?”. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 817–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R. W. (1970). The process of opposition in India: Two case studies if how policy shapes politics. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallberg, J. (2002). Delegation to supranational institutions: Why, how, and with what consequences? West European Politics, 25(1), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, M., & Stone Sweet, A. (2002). Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics, 25(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tömmel, I. (2016). Gewaltenteilung in der EU – Problem oder Baustein demokratischer Ordnung? Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft, 26(S1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. New York and Princeton: Russell Sage and Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, H., Pollack, M. A., & Young, A. R. (2014). Policy-making in the European Union. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, H., & Reh, C. (2014). An institutional anatomy and five policy modes. In H. Wallace, M. A. Pollack, & A. R. Young (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 72–112). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, F., & Brändli, M. (2015). Inside versus outside lobbying: How the institutional framework shapes the lobbying behaviour of interest groups. European Journal of Political Research, 54(4), 745–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of European Studies, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Stefan Thierse

  2. Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Sanja Badanjak

Authors
  1. Stefan Thierse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanja Badanjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Thierse .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thierse, S., Badanjak, S. (2021). Conceptualizing Opposition in the EU Multi-Level Polity. In: Opposition in the EU Multi-Level Polity . Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47162-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation