In moderne staatssystemen gaan we ervan uit dat er een soort ‘feedback loop’ bestaat tussen de staatsinstellingen. Zou de wetgever bijvoorbeeld een wet maken die niet verenigbaar is met een internationale verdragsbepaling, dan moet de rechter die wet herinterpreteren of zelfs buiten toepassing laten. Vervolgens is het aan de wetgever om daarop te reageren, bijvoorbeeld door de wet aan te passen of een nieuwe wet te introduceren. Die zou de rechter weer kunnen beoordelen op verenigbaarheid met verdragen, enzovoort. Het punt is alleen dat we niet weten of in de praktijk deze wisselwerking zo soepel verloopt als we veronderstellen. We weten vooral erg weinig van de terugkoppeling van de rechter naar andere staatsinstellingen. De rechter doet een uitspraak, maar wat gebeurt er dan?

Hoe raakt ‘de wetgever’ of ‘het bestuursorgaan’ daarvan op de hoogte? Wie zijn ‘de wetgever’ en ‘het bestuursorgaan’ eigenlijk? En hoe verloopt het proces als zij eenmaal kennis hebben gekregen? Welke factoren maken dat wel of niet wijzigingen worden doorgevoerd, en leren de staatsinstellingen van hun verbeterprocessen van de toekomst? Hoe kunnen tekortkomingen in de wisselwerking worden opgelost? Dit is het soort vragen dat het project wil beantwoorden. 

• prof. dr. Mirko Noordegraaf
• prof. dr. mr. Eddy Bauw

Together with the Netherlands’ Institute for Sport and Physical Activity (NISB) and fifteen National Sport Organizations (NSOs), representing over 3.2 million sport club members, this research project examines changes in membership and engagement in sport clubs. Combining a sociological, geographical and public administration perspective, we analyze to what extent people bond themselves to one another in sport clubs and are willing to engage themselves with their club. We zoom in on regional and social differences and variations with respect to each branch of sport. The study is based on a mixed methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative research and the application and assessment of interventions. The goal of the research project is to develop new insights into (changing) meanings of citizenship, membership and membership organizations in Dutch society in general and sport organizations in particular. In doing so, we intend to help Dutch sport organizations to successfully anticipate and respond to changing meanings that sport participants attach to club membership and engagement, and to contribute to wider scholarly and public debates on civil society and social cohesion.

• prof. dr. Pieter Hooimeijer
• dr. M.G. (Michel) van Slobbe
• prof. dr. Maarten van Bottenburg

• Stijn Verhagen (Hogeschool Utrecht)

This research was fully funded by NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, under the Shifts in governance programme (project number 450-04-319).

The European Union has assumed a growing number of competences that previously were located within the national realm. There is a concern that the transfer of competences is not matched with a simultaneous development of arrangements with which European decision-makers are being held to account. The European Union is, for example, blamed of not being democratic, because it takes decisions behind closed doors. The bottom line of the debate on the democratic deficit is that the development of the European Union has come to a point that it needs some procedures that ensure fair outcomes. It needs a system in which decision-makers explain and justify their conduct, and face consequences if necessary. In short: it requires accountability.

This research project focuses on the issue of accountability in the EU. In order to cover several significant parts of EU affairs, the research is organized in three research projects:

• European Agencies by Madalina Busuioc ( m.busuioc@uva.nl) The number of European agencies is growing rapidly. Agencies are ‘independent’ bodies assigned with informational, executive, regulatory or operational tasks. But who controls these independent agencies? What is the purpose of accountability in this context? What do accountability arrangements look like and are the ones in place appropriate?
• European Comitology Committees by Gijs Jan Brandsma (g.j.brandsma@uu.nl)
  Comitology committees are in charge of the implementation of European policies. Several hundreds of these committees exist, and their competences range from juridical aspects of cableways to preventing animal diseases. The Comitology committees are mainly composed of national representatives, but stakeholders are also involved in their decision-making. Technical and political expertise plays a prominent role. What does accountability look like in expert arenas like these, and to what extent are the current arrangements appropriate?
• European Council by Marianne van de Steeg (m.w.vandesteeg@uu.nl)
  Parliament is the main locus for democratic accountability. The task of the elected representatives is to check that decision-makers do not abuse the power bestowed on them and act in accordance with the citizens’ wishes. Decision-makers in the European Council have two hats on: they are both European and national leaders. As European leaders, they are being held to account by the European Parliament. As national leaders, they report back to the various parliaments of the member states. In the name of the European citizens, who holds these decision-makers to account? To what extent do these two venues for accountability on European political decision-making cover the need for democratic accountability? Or, does democratic accountability fall between two stools?

We participated in Connex, research group 2 on 'Democratic governance and multilevel accountability'.

• drs. Gerolf Pikker
• dr. Jeroen Vermeulen
• prof. dr. Mirko Noordegraaf