IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v13y2025a9094.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting ECB’s Technocratic Legitimacy: No Longer Fit‐for‐Purpose?

Author

Listed:
  • Dimitrios Argyroulis

    (Department of Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg / Centre d’Étude de la Vie Politique (Cevipol), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium)

  • Nikolas Vagdoutis

    (Department of Law, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg / Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, UK)

Abstract

This article revisits the technocratic model of legitimacy that the European Central Bank (ECB) has enjoyed since its early period, by exploring the Monetary Policy Strategy statements that constitute the “comprehensive framework” guiding the Bank’s operational decisions. We examine whether the operational framework and the interpretation of the ECB’s legal mandate, which are included in these statements, are aligned with this model. We find that the ECB’s early monetary policy statements (1998 and 2003) appear to be aligned with this model, due to the presence of strictly defined performance criteria and an interpretation of the ECB’s mandate that was limited to pursuing price stability as a single objective. Our analysis of the ECB’s 2021 monetary policy strategy highlights its incompatibility with the technocratic model as a result of significant changes that enabled wide policy discretion and a re-interpretation of the ECB’s mandate, which revealed a largely vague and broad mandate. We argue that the ECB’s model of technocratic legitimacy is untenable in a democratic polity, given the extent and type of choices that the Governing Council is required to make in the current policy setting. Finally, we suggest that only a strengthening of the (hitherto diminished) input dimension of the ECB’s legitimacy could address this legitimacy gap.

Suggested Citation

  • Dimitrios Argyroulis & Nikolas Vagdoutis, 2025. "Revisiting ECB’s Technocratic Legitimacy: No Longer Fit‐for‐Purpose?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9094
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.9094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/9094
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.9094?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9094. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.