This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tsebelis, G. Articles by Garrett, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Legislative Politics in the European Union

UCLA, USA

Geoffrey Garrett

Yale University, USA

This paper compares legislative dynamics under all procedures in which the Council of Ministers votes by qualified majority (QMV). We make five major points. First, the EU governments have sought to reduce the democratic deficit by increasing the powers of the European Parliament since 1987, whereas they have lessened the legislative influence of the Commission. Under the Amsterdam treaty's version of the codecision procedure, the Parliament is a coequal legislator with the Council, whereas the Commission's influence is likely to be more informal than formal. Second, as long as the Parliament acts as a pro-integration entrepreneur, policy outcomes under consultation, cooperation and the new codecision will be more integrationist than the QMV-pivot in the Council prefers. Third, the pace of European integration may slow down if MEPs become more responsive to the demands of their constituents. Fourth, the EU is evolving into a bicameral legislature with a heavy status quo bias. Not only does the Council use QMV but absolute majority voting requirements and high levels of absenteeism create a de facto supermajority threshold for Parliamentary decisions. Finally, if the differences between the Council and the Parliament concern regulation issues on a traditional left-right axis, the Commission is more likely to be the ally of the Council than the Parliament.

Key Words: democratic deficit • European Parliament • European Union • legislative institutions • spatial models

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K.-O. Lindgren and T. Persson The Structure of Conflict over EU Chemicals Policy European Union Politics, March 1, 2008; 9(1): 31 - 58. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Thomson National Actors in International Organizations: The Case of the European Commission Comparative Political Studies, February 1, 2008; 41(2): 169 - 192. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. McElroy and K. Benoit Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament Party Politics, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 5 - 28. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Hausemer Participation and Political Competition in Committee Report Allocation: Under What Conditions Do MEPs Represent Their Constituents? European Union Politics, December 1, 2006; 7(4): 505 - 530. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Hoyland Allocation of Codecision Reports in the Fifth European Parliament European Union Politics, March 1, 2006; 7(1): 30 - 50. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Kaeding and T. J. Selck Mapping Out Political Europe: Coalition Patterns in EU Decision-Making International Political Science Review/ Revue internationale de science pol, July 1, 2005; 26(3): 271 - 290. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Franchino A Formal Model of Delegation in the European Union Journal of Theoretical Politics, April 1, 2005; 17(2): 217 - 247. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Farrell and A. HERitier 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, December 1, 2004; 37(10): 1184 - 1212. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Konig and J. Slapin Bringing Parliaments Back in: The Sources of Power in the European Treaty Negotiations Journal of Theoretical Politics, July 1, 2004; 16(3): 357 - 394. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Kasack The Legislative Impact of the European Parliament Under the Revised Co-Decision Procedure: Environmental, Public Health and Consumer Protection Policies European Union Politics, June 1, 2004; 5(2): 241 - 260. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Crombez The Democratic Deficit in the European Union: Much Ado about Nothing? European Union Politics, March 1, 2003; 4(1): 101 - 120. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Hug Endogenous Preferences And Delegation In The European Union Comparative Political Studies, February 1, 2003; 36(1-2): 41 - 74. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Kaiser Alternation, Inclusion and the European Union European Union Politics, December 1, 2002; 3(4): 445 - 458. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. KREPPEL Moving Beyond Procedure: An Empirical Analysis of European Parliament Legislative Influence Comparative Political Studies, September 1, 2002; 35(7): 784 - 813. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. G. Noury Ideology, Nationality and Euro-Parliamentarians European Union Politics, March 1, 2002; 3(1): 33 - 58. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Konig and M. Poter Examining the EU Legislative Process: The Relative Importance of Agenda and Veto Power European Union Politics, October 1, 2001; 2(3): 329 - 351. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Garrett, G. Tsebelis, and R. Corbett The EU Legislative Process: Academics vs. Practictioners - Round 2 European Union Politics, October 1, 2001; 2(3): 353 - 366. [PDF]

				M. Mattila and J.-E. Lane Why Unanimity in the Council?: A Roll Call Analysis of Council Voting European Union Politics, February 1, 2001; 2(1): 31 - 52. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Majone Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance European Union Politics, February 1, 2001; 2(1): 103 - 122. [PDF]

				G. Garrett and G. Tsebelis Even More Reasons to Resist the Temptation of Power Indices in the EU Journal of Theoretical Politics, January 1, 2001; 13(1): 99 - 105. [PDF]

				C. Crombez, B. Steunenberg, and R. Corbett Understanding the EU Legislative Process: Political Scientists' and Practitioners' Perspectives European Union Politics, October 1, 2000; 1(3): 363 - 381. [PDF]