The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

The European Parliament under the current cooperation procedure has an important power: it can make proposals that, if accepted by the Commission of the European Communities, are easier for the Council of Ministers to accept than to modify, since only qualified majority is required for acceptance, whereas full unanimity for modification. The importance of this power, which I call the power of the conditional agenda setter, has not been recognized in previous scholarly work. For structural reasons explained in the text, this power is likely to increase in the future. I conclude by arguing that the conditional delegation of power to international actors (the European Parliament, Commission, and the Court of Justice) is a frequent phenomenon in European institutions. This delegation presents three important advantages: it makes possible the selection of one among many possible equilibria, it accelerates European integration, and it diffuses responsibility for politically unpopular measures.

References

Baron, David, and Ferejohn, John. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83:1181–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bieber, Roland. 1988. “Legislative Procedure for the Establishment of the Single Market.” Common Market Review 25:711–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bieber, Roland, Pantalis, J., and Schoo, J.. 1986. “Implications of the Single Act for the European Parliament.” Common Market Law Review 23:767–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bogdanor, Vernon. 1989. “The June 1989 European Elections and the Institutions of the Community.” Government and Opposition 24:199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowler, Shaun, and Farrell, David M.. 1993. “Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator/Voter Relationships.” Journal of Common Market Studies 31:45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cameron, David R. 1992. “The 1992 Initiative: Causes and Consequences.” In Euro-Politics, ed. Sbragia, Alberta. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar

Dehousse, R. 1989. “1992 and Beyond: The Institutional Dimension of the Internal Market Programme.” Legal Issues of European Integration 1:109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edward, David. 1987. “The Impact of the Single Act on the Institutions.” Common Market Law Review 24:19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

European Parliament. 1992. Les avis legislatifs du Parlement Europeen et leur impact. Direction Generale des Etudes, Luxembourg.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, John. 1988. “An Analysis of the European Community's Co-operation Procedure.” Journal of Common Market Studies 4:389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garrett, G. 1992. “International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European Community's Internal Market.” International Organization 46:533–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garret, G., and Weingast, B.. 1993. “Ideas, Interests, and Institutions: Constructing the EC's Internal Market.” In Ideas and Foreign Policy, ed. Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. “Collective Decision-Making and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Prodedures.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3:145–93.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. 1979. “Consistent Majority Rule over Compact Sets of Alternatives.” Econometrica 47:627–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haas, Ernst B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–57. London: Stevens & Sons.Google Scholar

Haas, Ernst B. 1971. “The Study of Regional Integration: Reflections on the Joy and Anguish of Pretheorizing.” In Regional Integration, Theory, and Research, ed. Linberg, L. N. and Scheingold, S. A.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hammond, Thomas H., and Miller, Gary J.. 1987. “The Core of the Constitution.” American Political Science Review 81:1155–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobs, Francis, and Corbett, Richard. 1990. The European Parliament. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar

Keohane, Robert O., and Hoffmann, Stanley. 1991. The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Kim, Charlotte. 1992. “Cats and Mice: The Politics of Setting EC Car Emission Standards.” Center for European Policy Studies Standards Program Paper No. 2. Harvard University.Google Scholar

Krasner, Stephen. 1991. “Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier.” World Politics 43:336–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. “Why Are Congressional Committees Powerful?” American Political Science Review 81:929–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peter, Lange. 1992. “The Politics of the Social Dimension.” In Euro-Politics, ed. Sbragia, Alberta. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar

Lenaerts, Koen. 1991. “Some Reflections on the Separation of Powers in the European Community.” Common Market Law Review 28:11–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindberg, Leon N. 1963. The Political Dynamics of European Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lodge, Juliet. 1987. “The Single European Act and the New Legislative Cooperation Procedure: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of European Integration 11:5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodge, Juliet. 1989. “The European Parliament—from ‘Assembly’ to Co-legislature: Changing the Institutional Dynamics.” In The European Community and the Challenge of the Future, ed. Lodge, Juliet. London: Pinter.Google Scholar

McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory 12:472–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Money, Jeannette, and Tsebelis, George. 1992. “Cicero's Puzzle: Upper House Power in Comparative Perspective.” International Political Science Review 13:25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1991. “Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community.” International Organization 45:17–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nugent, Neill, 1989. The Government and Politics of the European Community. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ordeshook, Peter C., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1987. “Agenda and the Control of Political Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 81:179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, B. Guy. 1992. “Bureaucratic Politics and the Institutions of the European Community.” In Euro-Politics, ed. Sbragia, Alberta. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar

Putnam, Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games.” International Organization 42:427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sbragia, Alberta M., Ed. 1992. Euro-Politics. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar

Scharpf, Fritz W. 1988. “The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration.” Public Administration 66:239–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheingold, Stuart A. 1970. “Domestic and International Consequences of Regional Integration.” International Organization 24:978–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, Norman. 1978. “Instability of Simple Dynamic Games.” Review of Economic Studies 45:575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, Shapiro. 1992. “The European Court of Justice.” In Euro-Politics, ed. Sbragia, Alberta. Washington: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar

Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science. 23:27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1984. “Uncovered Sets and Sophisticated Outcomes with Implications for Agenda Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 28:49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987a. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.” American Political Science Review 81:85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987b. “Why Are Congressional Committees Powerful?” American Political Science Review 81:935–45.Google Scholar

Stephen, R. 1992. “Domestic Interests, Interstate Bargains, and European Integration: The Case of the Automobile Sector.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar

Thomas, H. G. 1988. “Democracy and 1992—integration without Accountability?” Liverpool Law Review 10:185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Tsebelis, George, and Money, Jeannette. N.d. “Bicameral Negotiations: The Navette System in France.” British Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar

Van Hamme, Alain. 1989. “The European Parliament and the New Cooperation Procedure.” Studia Diplomatica 3:291–314.Google Scholar

Wallace, Helen, Wallace, William, and Webb, Carol, eds. 1983. Policy Making in the European Community 2d ed.New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Wallace, William. 1982. “Europe as a Confederation: The Community and the Nation State.” Journal of Common Market Studies 21:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wallace, William. 1983. “Less Than a Federation, More Than a Regime: The Community as a Political System.” In Policy Making in the European Community, 2d ed., Helen Wallace, William Wallace and Carol Webb. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Webb, Carol. 1983. “Theoretical Perspectives and Problems.” In Policy Making in the European Community, 2d ed., Wallace, Helen, Wallace, William, and Webb, Carol. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Weber, Shlomo, and Wiesmeth, Hans. 1991. “Issue Linkage in the European community.” Journal of Common Market Studies 29:255–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wessels, Wolfgang. 1991. “The EC Council: The Community's Decisionmaking Center.” In The New European Community, ed. Keohane, Robert and Hoffman, Stanley. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar

Williams, Shirley. 1991. “Sovereignty and Accountability in the European Community.” In The New European Community, ed. Keohane, R. O. and Hoffman, S.. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar