|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
European Union Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1,
9-36 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1465116500001001002
Legislative Politics in the European Union
George Tsebelis
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]
|
|
|
|
