IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v2y2001i3p329-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the EU Legislative Process

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas König

    (University of Konstanz, Germany)

  • Mirja Pöter

    (University of Konstanz, Germany)

Abstract

This comparative case study tries to offer an empirical insight into the explanatory power of competing approaches on parliamentary influence in the cooperation procedure of the European Union. The theoretical debate on the impact of the cooperation procedure has received remarkable attention and centres around the relative importance of parliamentary agenda-setting and veto powers. Our comparative analysis reveals two important conceptual differences among the competing approaches on parliamentary power: first in their focus on the preference profile and, second, in their modelling of the reference point. The empirical findings show that the supranational preference profile characterizes the actor configuration in European legislative politics, at either the dimensional or the issue level of Commission proposals. The competing approaches overestimate supranational agenda-setting power and parliamentary veto power is unlikely to strengthen the pro-integrationist influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas König & Mirja Pöter, 2001. "Examining the EU Legislative Process," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 329-351, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:2:y:2001:i:3:p:329-351
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116501002003004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116501002003004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116501002003004?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. Crombez, Christophe, 1996. "Legislative Procedures in the European Community," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 199-228, April.
    2. David Earnshaw & David Judge, 1993. "The European Parliament and the Sweeteners Directive: From Footnote to Inter‐Institutional Conflict," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 103-116, March.
    3. Tsebelis, George & Jensen, Christian B. & Kalandrakis, Anastassios & Kreppel, Amie, 2001. "Legislative Procedures in the European Union: An Empirical Analysis," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 573-599, October.
    4. Peter Moser, 2000. "The Political Economy of Democratic Institutions," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1650.
    5. Richard Corbett, 1989. "Testing the New Procedures: The European Parliament's First Experiences with its New ‘Single Act’ Powers," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 359-372, June.
    6. Claudia Hubschmid & Peter Moser, 1997. "The Co‐operation Procedure in the EU: Why was the European Parliament Influential in the Decision on Car Emission Standards?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 225-242, June.
    7. Moser, Peter, 1996. "The European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter: What Are the Conditions? A Critique of Tsebelis (1994)," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(4), pages 834-838, December.
    8. Tsebelis, George, 1994. "The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 128-142, March.
    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. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    2. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    3. Madeleine O. Hosli & Běla Plechanovová & Serguei Kaniovski, 2018. "Vote Probabilities, Thresholds and Actor Preferences: Decision Capacity and the Council of the European Union," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 31-52, June.
    4. Christiane Kasack, 2004. "The Legislative Impact of the European Parliament Under the Revised Co-Decision Procedure," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(2), pages 241-260, June.
    5. Christophe Crombez & Pieterjan Vangerven, 2014. "Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 289-308, June.
    6. Christophe Crombez & Bernard Steunenberg & Richard Corbett, 2000. "Understanding the EU Legislative Process," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(3), pages 363-381, October.
    7. Torsten J. Selck & Bernard Steunenberg, 2004. "Between Power and Luck," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 25-46, March.
    8. Keith Dowding, 2000. "Institutionalist Research on the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 125-144, February.
    9. Holger Döring, 2007. "The Composition of the College of Commissioners," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(2), pages 207-228, June.
    10. Dirk Junge & Thomas König, 2007. "What's Wrong With Eu Spatial Analysis?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 465-487, October.
    11. Christophe Crombez, 2002. "Information, Lobbying and the Legislative Process in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 7-32, March.
    12. Christophe Crombez & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2011. "Political Institutions and Public Policy: The Co-Decision Procedure in the European Union and the Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy," LICOS Discussion Papers 28611, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    13. Raya Kardasheva, 2009. "The Power to Delay: The European Parliament's Influence in the Consultation Procedure," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 385-409, March.
    14. Vibeke Wøien Hansen, 2014. "Incomplete information and bargaining in the EU: An explanation of first-reading non-agreements," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 472-495, December.
    15. Crombez, Christophe, 2000. "Spatial models of logrolling in the European Union," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 707-737, November.
    16. Raya Kardasheva, 2009. "The Power to Delay: The European Parliament's Influence in the Consultation Procedure," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 385-409, March.
    17. Attila Kovács, 2013. "New Ways for Companies to Develop Effective Lobbying Strategies in the European Parliament A case study in the field of the Common Agricultural Policy," Proceedings of FIKUSZ '13, in: Pál Michelberger (ed.),Proceedings of FIKUSZ '13, pages 77-96, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    18. Mikko Mattila & Jan-Erik Lane, 2001. "Why Unanimity in the Council?," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 31-52, February.
    19. George Tsebelis & Geoffrey Garrett, 2000. "Legislative Politics in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 9-36, February.
    20. Serra Boranbay-Akan & Thomas König & Moritz Osnabrügge, 2017. "The imperfect agenda-setter: Why do legislative proposals fail in the EU decision-making process?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 168-187, June.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:2:y:2001:i:3:p:329-351. 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.