IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jcmkts/v41y2003i2p269-288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

MEPs as Representatives: Individual and Institutional Roles

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Scully
  • David M. Farrell

Abstract

Although the European Parliament (EP), as the sole directly‐elected institution of the EU, has often been accorded prominence in discussions of ‘democracy’ and ‘representation’ within the Union, relatively little attention has been paid to the attitudes of EP members to the practice of representation in the EU. This article develops our understanding of MEPs' attitudes in two important areas. First, we examine how MEPs view their role as individual representatives, and their priorities within that role. Second, we explore parliamentarians' attitudes to their collective position within the EU by considering their opinions on the powers of the EP itself. Drawing on data from a recent survey of MEPs, we assess the extent to which their views on these questions are predicted by individual, institutional and political sources of explanation; our findings indicate that all three significantly, but far from exclusively, shape MEPs' views.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Scully & David M. Farrell, 2003. "MEPs as Representatives: Individual and Institutional Roles," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 269-288, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jcmkts:v:41:y:2003:i:2:p:269-288
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-5965.00422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00422
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-5965.00422?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norris, Pippa & Lovenduski, Joni, 2001. "Blair's Babes: Critical Mass Theory, Gender, and Legislative Life," Working Paper Series rwp01-039, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Friedrich Heinemann & Philipp Mohl & Steffen Osterloh, 2009. "Who’s afraid of an EU tax and why?—revenue system preferences in the European Parliament," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 73-99, March.
    2. Lukas Obholzer & William T Daniel, 2016. "An online electoral connection? How electoral systems condition representatives’ social media use," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 387-407, September.
    3. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    4. Adina Akbik & Marta Migliorati, 2023. "Between Ideology and Nationality: Drivers of Legislative Oversight in the European Parliament's Economic Dialogues," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 1026-1046, July.
    5. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.
    6. Ladrech, Robert, . "Europeanization and political parties," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlo Murer & Alessandra Piccoli, 2022. "Affirmative Policy in Nepal’s Community Forestry: Does it Make a Difference in Terms of Social Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Paul Chaney, 2006. "Critical Mass, Deliberation and the Substantive Representation of Women: Evidence from the UK's Devolution Programme," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(4), pages 691-714, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jcmkts:v:41:y:2003:i:2:p:269-288. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 .

    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.