This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Legislate or Delegate? Bargaining over Implementation and Legislative Authority in the European Union

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Carl-Fredrik Bergström
Henry Farrell
Adrienne Héritier
Abstract

In this article we explain how actors' ability to bargain successfully in order to advance their institutional preferences has changed over time as a function of the particular institutional context. We show how actors use their bargaining power under given institutional rules in order to shift the existing balance between legislation and delegation, and shift the rules governing delegation in their favor, between formal treaty changes. We argue that a collective actor's preferences over delegation is a function of whether the actor has more ability to influence policy through delegation or through legislation. We go on to argue that the degree to which a specific actor's preferences can prevail (in a setting in which different actors have different preferences) will depend upon its bargaining power under existing institutional rules, i.e. its ability to impede or veto policy in order to change the division between legislation and delegation and the rules of delegation. Our primary focus in this article is on choice over procedure; i.e. the battles over whether or not delegation or legislation should be employed. We maintain a secondary focus on change in procedure, examining how different procedures of comitology have come into being and been removed from the table. We examine the evolution of the debate over comitology and implementation, over five key periods. We scrutinize how actors within these periods seek to shift the balance of legislation and delegation and the rules of delegation according to their preferences. Our conclusions assess our empirical findings on the basis of our model.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.eui.eu/ERPA/RSCAS/../../RSCAS/WP-Texts/06_42.pdf
File Format: text/html
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://www.eui.eu/ERPA/RSCAS/../../RSCAS/WP-Texts/06_42.pdf
File Format: text/html
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS) in its series EUI-RSCAS Working Papers with number 42.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 15 Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:erp:euirsc:p0181

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Via dei Roccettini, 9 - I-50016 San Domenico di Fiesole
Web page: http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Luca Arnaudo).

Related research
Keywords: accountability; European Commission; Council of Ministers; European Parliament; European Parliament;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There are over 21000 authors registered on RePEc Author Service.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-2.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.