Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:53:48.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Activity and Gridlock in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2014

Christophe Crombez  and
Simon Hix
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article develops a game-theoretical model of European Union (EU) policy making that suggests that the amount of legislative activity depends on the size of the gridlock interval. This is consistent with Krehbiel's study of US politics. This interval depends on two factors: (1) the preference configuration of the political actors and (2) the legislative procedures used in a particular period. Actors’ preferences and procedures are not expected to have any effect beyond their impact on the gridlock interval. The study predicts smaller gridlock intervals, and thus more legislative activity, under the co-decision (consultation) procedure when the pivotal member states and the European Parliament (Commission) are closer to each other. More activity is expected under qualified majority voting in the Council than under unanimity. The results find support for these propositions in an empirical analysis of EU legislative activity between 1979 and 2009.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 477 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor of Political Economy, University of Leuven, and Consulting Professor, Stanford University (email: [email protected]); Professor of European and Comparative Politics, London School of Economics and Political Science (email: [email protected]). We would like to thank Frank Häge, Simon Hug, Thomas König, Keith Krehbiel and Robert Thomson for comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the article. Online appendices and data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123413000380.

References

Benoit, Kenneth Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Castles, Francis Mair, Peter. 1984. Left Right Political Scales: Some Expert Judgements. European Journal of Political Research 12:73–78.Google Scholar
Crombez, Christophe. 1996. Legislative Procedures in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science 26:199–228.Google Scholar
Crombez, Christophe. 1997. The Codecision Procedure in the European Union. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22:97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombez, Christophe. 2001. The Treaty of Amsterdam and the Codecision Procedure. In The Rules of Integration: Institutional Approaches to the Study of Europe, edited by Gerald Schneider and Mark Aspinwall, 101–122. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Crombez, Christophe, Groseclose, Timothy Krehbiel, Keith. 2006. Gatekeeping. Journal of Politics 68:322–334.Google Scholar
Crombez, Christophe Hix, Simon. 2011. Treaty Reform and the Commission's Appointment and Policy Making Role in the European Union. European Union Politics 12:291–314.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert, Manow, Philip 2010. Parliament and Government Composition Database (ParlGov): An Infrastructure for Empirical Information on Political Institutions – Version 10/02. Available from http://parlgov.org.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Mackuen, Michael B. Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2009 . Activity Report: 1 May 2004 to 13 July 2009 (Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Vidal-Quadras, Rothe report). PE427.162v01-00.Google Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. Wlezien, Christopher. 1997. The Responsive Public – Issue Salience, Policy Change, and Preferences for European Unification. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9:347–363.Google Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 1999. In the Shadow of the Vote? Decision Making in the European Community. International Organization 53:733–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 2008. The Study of Decision-Making Speed in the European Union. European Union Politics 9:167–179.Google Scholar
Hagemann, Sara. 2007. Applying Ideal Point Estimatation Methods to the Council of Ministers. European Union Politics 8:279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häge, Frank. 2011. The European Union Policy-Making Dataset. European Union Politics 12:455–477.Google Scholar
Hertz, Robin F. Leuffen, Dirk. 2011. Too Big to Run? Analyzing the Impact of Enlargement on EU Decision-Making. European Union Politics 12:193–215.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul Roland, Gérard. 2006. Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 50:494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul Roland, Gérard. 2007. Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon Høyland, Bjørn. 2012. The Political System of the European Union, 3rd edn. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Bakker, Ryan, Brigevich, Anna, De Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Marks, Gary, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco Vachudova, Milada. 2010. Reliability and Validity of Measuring Party Positions: The Chapel Hill Expert Surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research 49:687–703.Google Scholar
Huber, John Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies. Party Politics 1:73–111.Google Scholar
König, Thomas. 2007. Divergence or Convergence? From Ever-Growing to Ever-Slowing European Legislative Decision Making. European Journal of Political Research 46:417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Thomas. 2008. Analysing the Process of EU Legislative Decision-Making: To Make a Long Story Short. European Union Politics 9:145–165.Google Scholar
König, Thomas, Luetgert, Brooke Dannwolf, Tanja. 2006. Quantifying European Legislative Research: Using CELEX and PreLex in EU Legislative Studies. European Union Politics 7:553–574.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mattila, Mikko. 2004. Contested Decisions: Empirical Analysis of Voting in the European Union Council of Ministers. European Journal of Political Research 43:29–50.Google Scholar
Moser, Peter. 1997. A Theory of the Conditional Influence of the European Parliament in the Co-operation Procedure. Public Choice 91:333–350.Google Scholar
Ray, Leonard. 1999. Measuring Party Positions on European Integration: Results from an Expert Survey. European Journal of Political Research 36:283–306.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo. Public Choice 33:27–43.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz. 1988. The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. Public Administration 66:239–278.Google Scholar
Schulz, Heiner König, Thomas. 2000. Institutional Reform and Decision-Making Efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science 44:653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan. 2013. Measurement, Model Testing, and Legislative Influence in the European Union. European Union Politics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, Marco Marks, Gary. 2007. Evaluating Expert Surveys. European Journal of Political Research 46:347–366.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, Bernard. 1994. Decision Making Under Different Institutional Arrangements: Legislation by the European Community. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150:642–669.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, Bernard. 1997. Codecision and its Reform: A Comparative Analysis of Decision Making Rules in the European Union. In Political Institutions and Public Policy: Perspectives on European Decision Making, edited by Bernard Steunenberg and Frans van Vught, 205–229. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Robert. 2011. Resolving Controversy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Robert, Boerefijn, Jovanka Stokman, Frans N.. 2004. Actor Alignments in European Union Decision Making. European Journal of Political Research 43:237–261 Google Scholar
Thomson, Robert, Stokman, Frans N., Achen, Christopher H. König, Thomas. 2006. The European Union Decides: Testing Theories of European Decision-Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toshkov, Dimitar. 2011. Public Opinion and Policy Output in the European Union: A Lost Relationship. European Union Politics 12:169–191.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1994. The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter. American Political Science Review 88:128–142.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George Garrett, Geoffrey. 2000. Legislative Politics in the European Union. European Union Politics 1:9–36.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George Garrett, Geoffrey. 2001. The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union. International Organization 55:357–390.Google Scholar
Warntjen, Andreas, Hix, Simon Crombez, Christophe. 2008. The Party Political Make-up of EU Legislative Bodies. Journal of European Public Policy 15:1243–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Christina, Schneider, Gerald Dobbins, Michael. 2005. The Contested Council: Conflict Dimensions of Intergovernmental Institution. Political Studies 53:403–422.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material(File)
File 26.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material(File)
File 4.8 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 21.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Crombez and Hix Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 21.9 KB