Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:57:00.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delegation, Comitology, and the Separation of Powers in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2003

Alexander Ballmann ,
David Epstein  and
Sharyn O'Halloran
Get access

Abstract

Although relatively unknown outside of Europe, comitology committees are an object of considerable controversy in the European Union (EU). Controversy stems from their pivotal role in overseeing policy implementation authority delegated from the Council of Ministers (Council) to the European Commission (Commission). In this article, we employ a game-theoretic model to analyze the influence of these, committees on policy outcomes. Our analysis provides three important insights. First, we show that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, comitology committees move outcomes toward the Commission's preferred policies rather than the Council's. Second, we demonstrate that the possibility of a Council veto may also move outcomes away from Council members' policy preferences and toward the Commission's. Third, the 1999 changes to the comitology procedures, designed to enhance the Commission's autonomy in policymaking, may have had the exact opposite effect. Paradoxically, we conclude that comitology serves to enhance the Commission's role in policy implementation and thereby strengthens the separation of powers within the EU.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , Summer 2002 , pp. 551 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2002

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

Baron, David, and Ferejohn, John. 1989. Bargaining in Legislatures. American Political Science Review 83 (4):1181–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bignami, Francesca. 1999. The Administrative State in a Separation of Powers Constitution: Lessons for European Community Rulemaking from the United States. Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/99. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
Blumann, Claude. 1989. La Commission, agent d'execution du droit communautaire: La Comitologie. In La Commission au coeur du système institutionnel des Communautés Européennes, edited by Louis, Jean-Victor and Waelbroeck, Denis, 49–70. Brussels: Editions de l'Universite de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Bradley, Kieran St. Clair. 1992. Comitology and the Law: Through a Glass, Darkly. Common Market Law Review 29 (4):693–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Bueno de Mesquita, and Stokman, Frans, eds. 1994. European Community Decision Making. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall, Moran, Mark, and Weingast, Barry. 1987. Congressional Influence over Policy Making: The Case of the FTC. In Congress: Structure and Policy, edited by McCubbins, Mathew and Sullivan, Terry, 493–522. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall, McCubbins, Mathew, and Weingast, Barry. 1989. A Theory of Political Control and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 33 (3):588–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombez, Christophe. 1996. Legislative Procedures in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science 26 (2):199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombez, Christophe. 1997. The Co-Decision Procedure in the European Union. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1):97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della, Cananea Giacinto. 1990. Cooperazione e integrazione nel sistema amministrativo della Comunità Europee: La questione della ‘Comitologia’. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Publico (3):655–702.Google Scholar
Epstein, David. 1998. Partisan and Bipartisan Signaling in Congress. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 14 (2):183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. Administrative Procedures, Information and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 38 (3):697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1995. A Theory of Strategic Oversight: Congress, Lobbyists, and the Bureaucracy. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 11 (2):227–55.Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falke, Josef. 1996. Comitology and Other Committees: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment. In Shaping European Law and Policy: The Role of Committees and Comitology in the Political Process, edited by Pedler, Robin H. and Schaefer, Guenther F., 117–65. Maastricht: EIPA.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 6 (Special Issue):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchino, Fabio. 1999. The Determinants of Control of Commission's Executive Functions. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 3 (2); ⟨eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-002a.htm⟩.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey, and Tsebelis, George. 1996. An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism. International Organization 50 (2):269–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon. 1999. The Political System of the European Union. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Lord, Christopher. 1995. The Making of a President. Government and Opposition 31:(1) 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Herwig C. H., and Töller, Annette Elisabeth. 1998. Zur Reform der Komitologi Regeln und Grundsätze für die Verwaltungskooperation im Ausschußsystem der Europäisc Gemeinschaft. Staatswissenschaft und Staatspraxis 9:209–39.Google Scholar
Institut für Europäische Politik. 1989. Comitology—Characteristics, Performance and Options, Research Project for the EC Commission. Berlin: Institute for European Policy.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert Owen, and Hoffman, Stanley. 1991. The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Emil Joseph. 1992. Decision-Making in the European Community: The Council Presidency and European Integration. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico, ed. 1996. Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 1997. The New European Agencies: Regulation by Information. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (2):262–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew, and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28 (1):165–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meng, Werner. 1988. Die Neuregelung der Verwaltungsausschüsse - Streit um die Comitologie. ZaöRV 48 (2):208–28.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul, and Roberts, John. 1992. Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2001. Despotism In Brussels? Misreading the European Union. Foreign Affairs 80 (3):114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicoll, William. 1987. Qu'est-ce que la comitology? Revue du Marché Commun 306 (April):185–187; 312 (December):703.Google Scholar
Nugent, Neill. 1999. The Government and Politics of the European Union. 4th ed. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedler, Robin H., and Schaefer, Guenther F., eds. 1996. Shaping European Law and Policy - The Role of Committees and Comitology in the Political Process. Maastricht: EIPA.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, Roland, Gérard, and Tabellini, Guido. 1997. Separation of Powers and Political Accountability. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4):1163–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, Mark A. 1997. Delegation, Agency, and Agenda-Setting in the European Community. International Organization 51 (1):99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Charles. 1990. Le parlement européen et la comitologie. Revue de Marché Commun 336 (April):319–23.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo. Public Choice 33 (4):27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spulber, Daniel, and Besanko, David. 1992. Delegation, Commitment, and the Regulatory Mandate. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 8 (1):126–54.Google Scholar
Steunenberg, Bernard, Koboldt, Christian, and Schmidtchen, Dieter. 1996. Policymaking, Comitology, and the Balance of Power in the European Union. International Review of Law and Economics 16 (3):329–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1994. The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda-Setter. American Political Science Review 88 (1):128–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, Ellen. 1997. The Rise of Committee. European Law Journal 3 (3):210–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Helen. 1993. Deepening and Widening: Problems of Legitimacy for the EC. In European Identity and the Search for Legitimacy, edited by Garcia, Soledad:. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph. 1996. Legitimation and Democracy of Union Governance: The 1996 International Agenda and Beyond. ARENA Working Paper 22/96. Oslo, Norway: Advanced Research on the Europeanisation of the Nation-State.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry, and Moran, Mark. 1983. Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy 91 (5):765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yataganas, Xenophon. 2001. Delegation of Regulatory Authority in the European Union. Jean Monnet Working Paper 3/01. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
Zeckhauser, Richard, and Pratt, John, eds. 1991. Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar