| dc.description.abstract | This thesis explores if, and to which degree, the democratic legitimacy of the European Union has improved since implementing the principle of subsidiarity in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. It explains why democratic legitimacy can be thought of as a combination of input, output, and throughput legitimacy, discusses how subsidiarity could in principle affect each, and evaluates if legitimacy in these areas have improved to the present date. The thesis finds that there are some improvements to output legitimacy on a local level, but that while EU subsidiarity may have had an impact, competing explanations of the development also exist. In addition to the positive output development, it finds positive developments to input and throughput legitimacy. On a national level the improvements to output legitimacy are insignificant. Nevertheless, input and throughput legitimacy both see positive developments. Still, there is more room for improvement, as it seems that Member States either lack the capability or willingness to use the new tools afforded to them. The EU Commission seems to have adhered decently to the changes, but has taken the technical interpretation of subsidiarity, which undermines the purpose of the principle. The European Court of Justice has had virtually no effect on the development of democratic legitimacy in terms of subsidiarity. | |
