Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:57:28.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving Rookies’ Performance: An Assessment of the Romanian MEPs’ Activity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2010

Sergiu Gherghina  and
Doru Frantescu
Sergiu Gherghina*
Affiliation:
University of Leiden, Department of Political Science, Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen, Instituut Politieke Wetenschappen, Pieter de la Court gebouw, Wassenaarseweg 52 (Kamernummer 5A51), 2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Doru Frantescu
Affiliation:
European Institute for Participatory Democracy Qvorum, and VoteWatch CIC, 13, 2 Fairfield Road, London N8 9HG, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

General figures indicate stark differences between both cross-country and cross-party groups in MEPs’ activity. Our attempt to explain this variation accounts for five variables (plus age for control): (1) the background of the MEPs, (2) their political experience, (3) belonging to a European party group, (4) the duration of their mandate, and (5) their status (i.e. elected versus appointed). Using statistical techniques and original data, we focus on the representatives coming from the most recent EU member state (i.e. Romania) as activity differences are most likely to occur at their level. Results indicate that, in essence, the socialization with the EP workings (duration of term in office) considerably shapes newcomers’ performance.

Type
Focus: Central and Eastern Europe
Information
European Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 155 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2010

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.)

References

References and Notes

1. R. Corbett, F. Jacobs and M. Shackleton (2000) The European Parliament, 4th edition (London: John Harper).Google Scholar
2.Hix, S., Noury, A. G. and Roland, G. (2007) Democratic Politics in the European Parliament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. K. Featherstone (1979) Labour in Europe: the work of a National Party delegation to the European Parliament. In: V. Herman and R. van Schendelen (eds) The European Parliament and the National Parliaments (Saxon House, Farnborough), pp. 81–110.Google Scholar
4.Westlake, M. (1994) A Modern Guide to the European Parliament (London, New York: Pinter).Google Scholar
5.Franklin, M. and Scarrow, S. (1999) Making Europeans? The socialising power of the European Parliament. In: R. Katz and B. Wessels (eds) The European Parliament, the National Parliaments, and European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
6.Scully, R. (2005) Becoming Europeans? Attitudes, Behaviour and Socialization in the European Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Hix, S., Raunio, T. and Scully, R. (2003) Fifty years on: research on the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. A. Kreppel and G. Gugnor (2005) Politics and power: the partisan dynamics of EU enlargement in the EP. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference 2005 in Budapest.Google Scholar
9. G. Benedetto (2005) Enlargement, institutional change and the pervasiveness of consensus in the European Parliament. Paper presented at the workshop ‘The European Parliament after enlargement’, Leicester.Google Scholar
10.Muller, W. C. and Strom, K. (1999) Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Norris, P. (1997) Introduction: theories of recruitment. In: P. Norris (ed.) Passages to Power. Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
12.Gallagher, M. (1988) Introduction. In: M. Gallagher and M. Marsh (eds) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics (London: Sage).Google Scholar
13.Wahlke, J. C., Eulau, H., Buchanan, W. and Ferguson, L. C. (1962) The Legislative System. Explorations in Legislative Behavior (New York: Wiley).Google Scholar
14.Budge, I., Robertson, D. and Hearl, D. (eds) (1987) Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Budge, I. and Laver, M. J. (eds) (1992) Party Polica and Government Coalitions (New York: St Martin’s Press).Google Scholar
16.Denzau, A., Riker, W. H. and Shepsle, K. A. (1985) Farquharson and Fenno: sophisticated voting and home style. American Political Science Review, 79, 1117–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Corbett, R. (1997) The European Parliament’s Role in Closer EU Integration (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
18.Grabbe, H. (2003) Europeanization goes east: power and uncertainty in the EU accession process. In: K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli (eds) The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
19.Kirchner, E. J. (1984) The European Parliament: Performance and Prospects (Aldershot: Gower).Google Scholar
20.Miller, A. H. and Wattenberg, M. P. (1985) Throwing the rascals out: policy and performance evaluations of presidential candidates, 1952–1980. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield).Google Scholar
22.Marks, G. (1993) Structural policy after Maastricht. In: A. Cafruny and G. Rosenthal (eds) The State of the European Community (New York: Lynne Rienner).Google Scholar
23.Hooghe, L. (1996) Building a Europe with the regions. the changing role of the European Commission”. In: L. Hooghe (ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
24. To keep it simple and easy to follow, each hypothesis refers to activity as a general concept. As mentioned in the introduction and clearly specified in the methodological section, we work with four components of activity, thus generating four models. Each hypothesis will assume a similar logic for these components. For example, hypothesis 1 should be read as ‘MEPs with political background attend more often the meetings, write and amend more reports, and give more speeches compared with the rest of the MEPs’.Google Scholar
25.Strøm, K. (1997) Rules, reasons and routines: legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Bellier, I. (1997) The commission as an actor: an anthropologist’s view. In: H. Wallace and A. Young (eds) Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
27.Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
28.Trondal, J. (2001) Is there any social constructivist-institutionalist divide? Unpacking social mechanisms affecting representational roles among EU decision-makers. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Hooghe, L. (1999) Supranational activists or intergovernmental agents? Explaining the orientations of senior commission officials toward European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 32(4), 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. J. Brzinski, H. Gunning, M. Haspel and K. Saunders (1998) Understanding defection in the European Parliament. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
31.Kreppel, A. (2002) The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
32.Katz, R. (1999) Representation, the locus of democratic legitimation, and the role of the national parliament in the European Union. In: R. Katz and B. Wessels (eds) The European Parliament, the National Parliaments, and European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Scully, R. (2002) Going native? Institutional and partisan loyalty in the European Parliament. In: B. Steunenberg and J. Thomassen (eds) The European Parliament: Moving Towards Democracy in the EU (London: Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
34.Raunio, T. (2002) Beneficial cooperation or mutual ignorance? Contacts between MEPs and National Parties. In: B. Steunenberg and J. Thomassen (eds) The European Parliament: Moving Towards Democracy in the EU (London: Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
35.Hix, S. (2005) The Political System of the European Union, 2nd edn (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
36.Hix, S. and Lord, C. (1997) Political Parties in the European Union (Basingstoke: Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar