IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v56y2002i03p551-574_44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delegation, Comitology, and the Separation of Powers in the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Ballmann, Alexander
  • Epstein, David
  • O'Halloran, Sharyn

Abstract

Although relatively unknown outside of Europe, comitology committees are an object of considerable controversy in the European Union (EU). Controversy stems from their pivotal role in overseeing policy implementation authority delegated from the Council of Ministers (Council) to the European Commission (Commission). In this article, we employ a game-theoretic model to analyze the influence of these, committees on policy outcomes. Our analysis provides three important insights. First, we show that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, comitology committees move outcomes toward the Commission's preferred policies rather than the Council's. Second, we demonstrate that the possibility of a Council veto may also move outcomes away from Council members' policy preferences and toward the Commission's. Third, the 1999 changes to the comitology procedures, designed to enhance the Commission's autonomy in policymaking, may have had the exact opposite effect. Paradoxically, we conclude that comitology serves to enhance the Commission's role in policy implementation and thereby strengthens the separation of powers within the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • Ballmann, Alexander & Epstein, David & O'Halloran, Sharyn, 2002. "Delegation, Comitology, and the Separation of Powers in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(3), pages 551-574, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:56:y:2002:i:03:p:551-574_44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818302441793/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yannis Karagiannis, 2007. "Foundational Economic Theories for Political-Scientific Inter-Branch Studies," RSCAS Working Papers 2007/16, European University Institute.
    2. Ana Mar Fernández Pasarín & Nuria Font, 2022. "Unveiling Inconsistency: Consensus and Contestation along the Council–Comitology Cycle of EU Policy‐Making," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 427-444, March.
    3. Christophe Crombez & Martijn Huysmans & Wim Van Gestel, 2017. "Choosing an informative agenda setter: The appointment of the Commission in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 145-167, June.
    4. Böhling, Kathrin, 2009. "Symbolic knowledge at work: Comitology and learning from experts in European technology policy [Symbolisches Wissen in der europäischen Technologiepolitik: Experten, Lernen und das Ausschusswesen]," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2009-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Luthardt, Ulf & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-88.
    6. Jens Blom‐Hansen & Gijs Jan Brandsma, 2009. "The EU Comitology System: Intergovernmental Bargaining and Deliberative Supranationalism?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 719-740, September.
    7. Yannis Karagiannis, 2007. "Economic Theories and the Science of Inter-Branch Relations," RSCAS Working Papers 2007/04, European University Institute.

    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:cup:intorg:v:56:y:2002:i:03:p:551-574_44. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.