Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-plzwj Total loading time: 0.31 Render date: 2022-05-21T10:18:20.739Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Legislative Gridlock and Bureaucratic Politics in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2014

Abstract

How does the risk of gridlock affect the type of legislative output? Do bureaucratic agents expand their activities when they can expect that the principals are unable to overrule them? This article introduces a novel approach for calculating the risk of gridlock in bicameral legislatures in order to estimate its impact on bureaucratic activities, combining data on all secondary and tertiary acts of the European Union (EU) from 1983 to 2009. The findings reveal that bureaucratic activities expand when the risk of gridlock increases and an overruling of tertiary acts becomes less likely. This may sustain the EU's overall decision-making productivity, but its bureaucratic nature may raise further questions about democratic legitimacy and principal-agent problems in the representation of interests.

Type
Articles
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

*

Department of Government, University of Essex (email: djunge@essex.ac.uk); University of Mannheim (email: koenig@uni-mannheim.de); German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer (email: bernd.luig@mzes.uni-mannheim.de). Earlier versions were presented at the Conference ‘Inclusion Completed, Adaptation Successful? What Divides New and Old Members in the European Union, 6 Years On?’ at the Central European University in Budapest on 14 May 2010, at the Centre for European Economic Research in Mannheim on 19 February 2013 and at the 3rd Annual General Conference of the European Political Science Association in Barcelona on 20 June 2013. The authors contributed equally. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for valuable comments that led to an in-depth analysis of bicameral decision making in the European Union. Online appendices and data replication sets are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000027.

References

Alemán, Eduardo Calvo, Ernesto. 2010. Unified Government, Bill Approval, and the Legislative Weight of the President. Comparative Political Studies 43 (4):511534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, CarlFredrik. 2005. Comitology: Delegation of Powers in the European Union and the Committee System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhard, William. 1998. A Political Explanation of Variations in Central Bank Independence. American Political Science Review 92 (2):311327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1999. The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96. American Political Science Review 93 (3):519533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan Newing, Robert A.. 1951. Committee Decisions with Complementary Valuation. London: Hodge.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens. 2011. The EU Comitology System in Theory and Practice. Keeping an Eye on the Commission? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bradbury, John C. Crain, W. Mark. 2001. Legislative Organization and Government Spending: Cross-Country Evidence. Journal of Public Economics 82 (3):309325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W. Volden, Craig. 2006. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Braun, Daniela, Salzwedel, Maike, Stumpf, Christian Wüst, Andreas M.. 2007. Euromanifesto Documentation. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas König, Thomas. 1999. The Checks and Balances of Party Federalism: German Federal Government in a Divided Legislature. European Journal of Political Research 36 (2):207234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto Sagarzazu, Iñaki. 2011. Legislator Success in Committee: Gatekeeping Authority and the Loss of Majority Control. American Journal of Political Science 55 (1):115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice de Marchi, Scott. 2002. Presidential Approval and Legislative Success. Journal of Politics 64 (2):491509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José A., Przeworski, Adam Saiegh, Sebastian M.. 2004. Government Coalitions and Legislative Success under Presidentialism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 34 (4):565587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi Rothenberg, Lawrence S.. 2003. When Pivotal Politics Meets Partisan Politics. American Journal of Political Science 47 (3):503522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, Fang-Yi Rothenberg, Lawrence S. 2008. Comparing Legislators and Legislatures: The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock Reconsidered. Political Analysis 16 (2):197212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congleton, Roger D. 2003. On the Merits of Bicameral Legislatures: Policy Stability Within Partisan Polities. In European Governance. Jahrbuch für Neue Politische Ökonomie, Vol. 22, edited by Manfred J. Holler, Hartmut Kliemt, Dieter Schmidtchen and Manfred E. Streit, 2949. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Conley, Richard S. Bekafigo, Marija A.. 2010. ‘No Irish Need Apply’? Veto Players and Legislative Productivity in the Republic of Ireland, 1949–2000. Comparative Political Studies 43 (1):91118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2007. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombez, Christoph Hix, Simon. 2014. Legislative Activity and Gridlock in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000380 Google Scholar
Dehousse, Renaud, Deloche-Gaudez, Florence Jacquot, Sophie, eds. 2009. What is Europe Up To? Paris: SciencesPo Les Presses.Google Scholar
Edwards, George C., Barrett, Andrew Peake, Jeffrey. 1997. The Legislative Impact of Divided Government. American Journal of Political Science 41 (2):545563.Google Scholar
Epstein, David O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion. American Journal of Political Science 38 (3):697722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, Argelina C. Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics 32 (2):151170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franchino, Fabio. 2007. The Powers of the Union. Delegation in the EU. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 1999. In the Shadow of the Vote? Decision Making in the European Community. International Organization 53 (4):733764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 2007. Survival Analysis and European Union Decision-Making. European Union Politics 8 (2):155179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub, Jonathan Steunenberg, Bernard. 2007. How Time Affects EU Decision-Making. European Union Politics 8 (4):555566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallerberg, Mark. 2002. Veto Players and the Choice of Monetary Institutions. International Organization 56 (4):775802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Thomas H. Miller, Gary J.. 1987. The Core of the Constitution. American Political Science Review 81 (4):11551174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Thomas H. Knott, Jack H.. 1996. Who Controls the Bureaucracy? Presidential Power, Congressional Dominance, Legal Constraints, and Bureaucratic Autonomy in a Model of Multi-Institutional Policy-Making. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 12 (1):119166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, William B. 2007. Divided Politics: Bicameralism, Parties, and Policy in Democratic Legislatures. Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1):245269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertz, Robin Leuffen, Dirk. 2011. Too Big to Run? Analysing the Impact of Enlargement on the Speed of EU Decision-Making. European Union Politics 12 (2):193215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. The Political System of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon Lord, Christopher. 1997. Political Parties in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Bakker, Ryan, Brigevich, Anna, De Vries, Catherine, Edwards, Erica, Marks, Gary, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco R. Vachudova, Milada. 2010. Reliability and Validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill Expert Surveys on Party Positioning. European Journal of Political Research 49 (5):687703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, William, Adler, Scott, Cameron, Charles Riemann, Charles.. 2000. Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945–94. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (2):285312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D. Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2003. Endogenous Preferences and Delegation in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 36 (1/2):4174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, Harold. 1961. Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Junge, Dirk (forthcoming). Analytical Politics Package: Tools for Analyzing Formal Models in R.Google Scholar
Keefer, Philip Stasavage, David. 2002. Checks and Balances, Private Information, and the Credibility of Monetary Commitments. International Organization 56 (4):751774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, Philip Stasavage, David. 2003. The Limits of Delegation: Veto Players, Central Bank Independence, and the Credibility of Monetary Policy. American Political Science Review 97 (3):407423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian McDonald, Michael. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klüver, Heike Sagarzazu, Iñaki. 2013. Ideological Congruency and Decision-Making Speed: The Effect of Partisanship across European Union Institutions. European Union Politics 14 (3):388407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Thomas. 2007. Divergence or Convergence? From Ever-Growing to Ever-Slowing European Legislative Decision Making. European Journal of Political Research 46 (3):417444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Thomas. 2008. Analysing the Process of EU Legislative Decision-Making: To Make a Long Story Short … European Union Politics 9 (1):145165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Thomas Luig, Bernd. 2012. Party Ideology and Legislative Agendas: Estimating Contextual Policy Positions for the Study of EU Decision-Making. European Union Politics 13 (4):604625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Thomas, Schulz, Heiner. 1997. The Efficiency of Legislative Decision Making in the European Union. An Event-History Analysis of EU Decision Making Speed. Berkeley Working Paper Series 1.54. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne. 1998. Federalism and Central Bank Independence – The Politics of German Monetary Policy, 1957–92. World Politics 50 (3):401446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, William, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava Laver, Michael. 2011. Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (1):123155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1994. Who Controls? Information and the Structure of Legislative Decision Making. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (3):361384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 2001. Nonmajoritarian Institutions and the Limits of Democratic Governance: A Political Transaction-Cost Approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 157 (1):5778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Gary Steenbergen, Marco. 2002. Understanding Political Contestation in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 35 (8):879892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1998. The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Peter. 1999. Checks and Balances, and the Supply of Central Bank Independence. European Economic Review 43 (8):15691593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, Mark A. 2003. The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1992. The Justification of Bicameralism. International Political Science Review 13 (1):101116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2001. An Informational Rationale for Congruent Bicameralism. Journal of Theoretical Politics 13 (2):123151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2003. The Impact of Bicameralism on Legislative Production. Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (4):509528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James R. 2005. The Impact of Divided Government on Legislative Production. Public Choice 123 (1/2):217233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saeki, Manabu. 2009. Gridlock in the Government of the United States: Influence of Divided Government and Veto Players. British Journal of Political Science 39 (3):587607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santoni, Michele Zucchini, Francesco. 2004. Does Policy Stability Increase the Constitutional Court's Independence? The Case of Italy During the First Republic (1956–1992). Public Choice 120 (3/4):439461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Heiner König, Thomas. 2000. Institutional Reform and Decision-Making Efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science 44 (4):653666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. Weingast, Barry R.. 1984. Uncovered Sets and Sophisticated Voting Outcomes with Implications for Agenda Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 28 (1):4974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steunenberg, Bernard, Koboldt, Christian Schmidtchen, Dieter. 1996. Policymaking, Comitology, and the Balance of Power in the European Union. International Review of Law and Economics 16 (3):329344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Robert Torenvlied, René. 2011. Information, Commitment and Consensus: A Comparison of Three Perspectives on Delegation in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science 41 (1):139159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25 (3):289325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1999. Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis. American Political Science Review 93 (3):591608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2008. Thinking about the Recent Past and the Future of the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies 46 (2):265292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George Garrett, Geoffrey. 2001. The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union. International Organization 55 (2):357390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George Yataganas, Xenophon. 2002. Veto Players and Decision-Making in the EU after Nice: Policy Stability and Bureaucratic/Judicial Discretion. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2):283307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lehmann, Pola, Merz, Nicolas, Regel, Sven Werner, Annika. 2013. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Warntjen, Andreas, Crombez, Christophe Hix, Simon. 2008. The Party Political Make-up of EU Institutions. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (8):12431253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wüst, Andreas M., Volkens, Andrea. 2003. Euromanifesto Coding Instructions. Working Paper 64, University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Junge Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Junge Supplementary Material(File)
File 147 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Junge Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Junge Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 90 KB
18
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Legislative Gridlock and Bureaucratic Politics in the European Union
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Legislative Gridlock and Bureaucratic Politics in the European Union
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Legislative Gridlock and Bureaucratic Politics in the European Union
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *