The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance
Open accessAbstract
This symposium demonstrates the potential for throughput legitimacy as a concept for shedding empirical light on the strengths and weaknesses of multi‐level governance, as well as challenging the concept theoretically. This article introduces the symposium by conceptualizing throughput legitimacy as an ‘umbrella concept’, encompassing a constellation of normative criteria not necessarily empirically interrelated. It argues that in order to interrogate multi‐level governance processes in all their complexity, it makes sense for us to develop normative standards that are not naïve about the empirical realities of how power is exercised within multi‐level governance, or how it may interact with legitimacy. We argue that while throughput legitimacy has its normative limits, it can be substantively useful for these purposes. While being no replacement for input and output legitimacy, throughput legitimacy offers distinctive normative criteria—accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness—and points towards substantive institutional reforms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“She states that not just the accuracy but also the transparency of the throughput, the receptiveness to participation, and the accountability for organizational processes are crucial to the legitimacy of the political system (Schmidt and Wood 2019).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Schmidt and Wood 2019
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 73
- 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00380.x · DOI
- Ban C., 2017, From crisis to stability: How to make the European stability mechanism transparent and accountable
- Bekkers V., 2007, Governance and the democratic deficit, 35
- 10.1080/13501760903465256 · DOI
- 10.4324/9780203086162 · DOI
- Bianculli A. C., 2014, Accountability and regulatory governance: Audiences, control, and the politics of regulation
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703617.003.0001 · DOI
- Bohman J., 1996, Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199778256.001.0001 · DOI
- Bovens M., 2010, The real world of EU accountability
- 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0012 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00716.x · DOI
- 10.3390/f7100212 · DOI
- 10.1017/9781108679053 · DOI
- 10.1080/23745118.2014.974312 · DOI
- 10.1002/poi3.80 · DOI
- 10.1111/padm.12406 · DOI
- Coen D., 2009, Lobbying in the European Union: Institutions, actors, and issues, 10.1093/oso/9780199207350.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1177/0032329292020004003 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1574019617000281 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716273.003.0004 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.026 · DOI
- 10.1057/9780230240865 · DOI
- 10.1057/9780230590144 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0008423914000420 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4020-6510-1_1 · DOI
- 10.1177/0042098012459581 · DOI
- Franck T., 1995, Fairness in international law and institutions
- 10.1002/epa2.1022 · DOI
- 10.1080/07036337.2018.1450405 · DOI
- 10.1080/07036337.2018.1450407 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044240 · DOI
- 10.1177/0032329206288152 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0007123407000166 · DOI
- Haus M., 2005, Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement, 12
- 10.1080/1350176032000124104 · DOI
- 10.1080/01402382.2010.486122 · DOI
- 10.1080/01402382.2016.1206380 · DOI
- 10.2307/2111217 · DOI
- 10.1080/13501763.2018.1478876 · DOI
- Kica E., 2012, Regulation by means of standardization: Key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards, Jurimetrics, 53, 11
- 10.17645/pag.v3i1.85 · DOI
- Kreilinger V.(2019).National parliaments in Europe's post‐crisis economic governance. Doctoral dissertation submitted to the Hertie School of Governance (Berlin).
- 10.1111/padm.12410 · DOI
- Levi M., 1998, Trust and governance, 77
- 10.1080/14719037.2015.1014397 · DOI
- 10.1111/1468-0386.00040 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10113-013-0527-2 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10551-008-0013-9 · DOI
- 10.1111/jcms.12063 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511659959.003 · DOI
- 10.1080/01402382.2010.486126 · DOI
- 10.1111/padm.12558 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1537592711004877 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.008 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00703.x · DOI
- Rittberger B., 2016, The Oxford handbook of comparative regionalism, 579
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1080/14719037.2015.1112423 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389 · DOI
- Schmidt V. A., 2019, Europe's crisis of legitimacy: Governing by rules and ruling by numbers in the eurozone
- 10.1111/1468-0386.00187 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2011.00597.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.06.004 · DOI
- Steffek J, 2019, The limits of proceduralism: Critical remarks on the rise of ‘throughput legitimacy’, Public Administration, 10.1111/padm.12565 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01151.x · DOI
- Tallberg J. &Zürn M.(2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework.Review of International OrganizationsSpecial Issue onLegitimacy and Legitimation in Global Governance.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9330-7 · DOI
- 10.1080/07900627.2011.627756 · DOI
- Wille A., 2010, The real world of EU accountability, 63
- Wolf K. D., 2006, Governance and democracy: Comparing national, European and international experiences, 200
- 10.1111/padm.12178 · DOI
- 10.1177/1354066100006002002 · DOI
Cited by
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2022) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvac008 · Cited by 189
Starke, C., & Lünich, M. (2020) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2020.19 · Cited by 107
Hillo, J., Vento, I., & Erkkilä, T. (2026) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70028 · Cited by 22
“…both the input side (alignment with citizen interest) of the political system, procedural characteristics (openness, responsibility, and trustworthiness) and expected outputs (effectiveness) [compare e.g., Schmidt and Wood (2019) Grimmelikhuijsen and Meijer (2022) and Haesevoets et al. 2024].”
Brummel, L., & de Blok, L. (2024) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2024.2337843 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt, V., & Wood, M.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wood, Matthew
- Venue
- Public Administration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-10-23
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 727-740
- ISSN
- 0033-3298 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9299
- OpenAlex
- W2954579544
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 29
- FWCI
- 111.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Public Administration (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/S00730X/1, ES/L010925/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European Union Policy and Governance
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Systems and Governance
- Keywords
- throughput legitimacy, multi-level governance, EU governance, accountability, transparency, inclusivity, openness, input legitimacy, output legitimacy, normative standards, institutional reform
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/padm.12615
- The paper
- Schmidt, V., & Wood, M. (2019). Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12615
