IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v16y2015i4p490-513.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond rules and resources: Parliamentary scrutiny of EU policy proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Finke
  • Annika Herbel

Abstract

This article examines the factors that shape parties' motivation to invest time and other resources in scrutinizing European Union policy proposals. We distinguish between two different motivations to engage in scrutiny activities. First, parties use such mechanisms to influence the national position directly. Second, parties play a two-level game and use scrutiny to manipulate their negotiator's domestic constraints. Both arguments depend on a set of conditions, namely the government's relative strength in Brussels, the transparency of the European Union decision-making process as well as the government's relative strength and cohesion in the domestic arena. On the empirical side, we study scrutiny at the level of committees in the national parliaments of Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom over a 13-year period, during which 32 governments are covered. Our findings suggest that parties deploy scrutiny to shift the domestic constraint strategically, but only if such a shift can be communicated convincingly to the international bargaining partners. Moreover, our findings suggest that opposition parties employ such measures to influence the position of a weak government.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Finke & Annika Herbel, 2015. "Beyond rules and resources: Parliamentary scrutiny of EU policy proposals," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(4), pages 490-513, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:4:p:490-513
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116515584202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116515584202
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116515584202?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. Lanny W. Martin & Georg Vanberg, 2004. "Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 13-27, January.
    2. John M. Carey, 2007. "Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 92-107, January.
    3. Franchino, Fabio & Høyland, Bjørn, 2009. "Legislative Involvement in Parliamentary Systems: Opportunities, Conflict, and Institutional Constraints," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(4), pages 607-621, November.
    4. Goetz, Klaus H.; Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik, . "The Europeanisation of national political systems: Parliaments and executives," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thomas Winzen, 2013. "European integration and national parliamentary oversight institutions," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 297-323, June.
    2. Thomas König & Bernd Luig, 2014. "Ministerial gatekeeping and parliamentary involvement in the implementation process of EU directives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 501-519, September.
    3. Thomas M Meyer, 2012. "Dropping the unitary actor assumption: The impact of intra-party delegation on coalition governance," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 485-506, October.
    4. Nora Dörrenbächer & Ellen Mastenbroek & Dimiter D. Toshkov, 2015. "National Parliaments and Transposition of EU Law: A Matter of Coalition Conflict?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 1010-1026, September.
    5. Carol Mershon, 2020. "Challenging the wisdom on preferential proportional representation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(1), pages 168-182, January.
    6. Nuria Font & Ixchel Pérez‐Durán, 2023. "Legislative Transparency in the European Parliament: Disclosing Legislators' Meetings with Interest Groups," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 379-396, March.
    7. Christine Benesch & Monika Bütler & Katharina Hofer, 2019. "Who Benefits from More Transparency in Parliamentary Voting?," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(01), pages 36-41, May.
    8. David Stadelmann & Marco Portmann & Reiner Eichenberger, 2012. "Do Female Representatives Adhere More Closely to Citizens’ Preferences Than Male Representatives?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2012-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Ohara, Kento & Hepplewhite, Matthew, 2024. "Just in Time? A Temporal Analysis of the Initiation of Legislation in Coalition Governments," I4R Discussion Paper Series 104, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    10. Paula Clerici, 2021. "Legislative Territorialization: The Impact of a Decentralized Party System on Individual Legislative Behavior in Argentina," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 51(1), pages 104-130.
    11. Sprungk, Carina, 2010. "Ever more or ever better scrutiny? Analysing the conditions of effective national parliamentary involvement in EU affairs," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 14, June.
    12. Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2023. "Party leaders as welfare-maximizing coalition builders in the pursuit of party-related public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 194(1), pages 75-99, January.
    13. Manow, Philip & Zorn, Hendrik, 2004. "Office versus Policy Motives in Portfolio Allocation: The Case of Junior Ministers," MPIfG Discussion Paper 04/9, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    14. Caroline Close & Lidia Nunez Lopez, 2016. "At the root of parliamentary party cohesion: the role of intraparty heterogeneity and party ideology," CEVIPOL Working Papers 1/2016, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Eligius M. T. Hendrix & Annelies Ridder & Agnieszka Rusinowska & M. Elena Sáiz, 2013. "Coalition Formation: The Role of Procedure and Policy Flexibility," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 407-427, May.
    16. Olga Gorelkina & Ioanna Grypari & Erin Hengel, 2023. "The theory of straight ticket voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(3), pages 365-381, April.
    17. Roni Lehrer & Gijs Schumacher, 2018. "Governator vs. Hunter and Aggregator: A simulation of party competition with vote-seeking and office-seeking rules," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Royce Carroll & Monika Nalepa, 2020. "The personal vote and party cohesion: Modeling the effects of electoral rules on intraparty politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(1), pages 36-69, January.
    19. Born, Andreas & Janssen, Aljoscha, 2020. "Does a District-Vote Matter for the Behavior of Politicians? A Textual Analysis of Parliamentary Speeches," Working Paper Series 1320, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    20. R. Aytimur, 2014. "Importance of status quo when lobbying a coalition government," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 203-219, August.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:16:y:2015:i:4:p:490-513. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.