Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:12:46.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coalition Politics and Parliamentary Oversight in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2016

Daniel Finke  and
Annika Herbel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the literature, parliamentary scrutiny is either used by the opposition to control the government or by a coalition partner to control the leading minister. Yet, neither the opposition alone nor individual governing parties alone can muster a parliamentary majority to adopt recommendations, resolutions or statements. Therefore, we ask which parties coalesce in co-sponsoring such joint position papers on European Union policy proposals and why. Tying in with the existing literature, we offer three explanations. Firstly, position papers are co-sponsored by so-called ‘policy coalitions’, a group of parties that hold similar preferences on the policy under discussion. Secondly, governing parties form coalitions which support their minister’s position vis-à-vis his or her international partners in Brussels. Thirdly, party groups co-sponsor position papers to counterbalance the leading minister’s deviation from the floor median.

On the empirical side, we study the statements issued by committees of the Finnish Eduskunta and recommendations adopted by committees of the German Bundestag over a period of 10 years. Though having similarly strong parliaments, the two countries are characterized by very different types of coalition governments. These differences are mirrored in the observed co-sponsorship patterns.

Keywords

coalition politicsparliamentary oversightEuropean Unionparliamentary resolutionsparliamentary statements
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 388 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

*

Daniel Finke is Professor of Political Science at Aarhus University. Contact email: [email protected].

Annika Herbel is a Research Assistant at the Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

REFERENCES

Achen, C.H. (2006), ‘Evaluating Political Decision Making Models’, in R. Thomson, F.N. Stokman, C.H. Achen and T. König (eds), The European Union Decides: The Empirical Relevance of Policy Making Models (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 264–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J.H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J. and Thompson Sharp, K. (2006), ‘Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection’, Annual Review of Political Science, 9: 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auel, K. (2007), ‘Democratic Accountability and National Parliaments: Redefining the Impact of Parliamentary Scrutiny in EU Affairs’, European Law Journal, 13(4): 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auel, K. and Benz, A. (2005), ‘The Politics of Adaptation: The Europeanisation of National Parliamentary Systems’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4): 372–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auel, K. and Christiansen, T. (2015), ‘After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union’, West European Politics, 38(2): 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auel, K., Rozenberg, O. and Tacea, A. (2015), ‘To Scrutinise or Not to Scrutinise? Explaining Variation in EU-Related Activities in National Parliaments’, West European Politics, 38(2): 282–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1970), Conflict of Interest (Chicago: Chicago Markham).Google Scholar
Becker, G.S. (1983), ‘A Theory of Competition Among Pressure Groups for Political Influence’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3): 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, T. (1997), ‘National Parliaments and EU Affairs Committees: Notes on Empirical Variation and Competing Explanations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4(3): 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, T., Müller, W.C., Strom, K. and Blomgren, M. (2003), ‘Democratic Delegation and Accountability: Cross-national Patterns’, in K. Strom, W.C. Müller and T. Bergman (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 109–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (2008), Annual Report 2007 on Relations Between the European Commission and National Parliaments, COM(2008) 237 final (Brussels).Google Scholar
COSAC (2008), 9th Bi-annual Report: Developments in the European Union Procedures and Practices Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny (Brussels: COSAC Secretariat).Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. and McCubbins, M.D. (1993), Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A (2000), On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
De Swaan, A. (1973), Coalition Theory and Cabinet Formation: A Study of Formal Theories of Coalition Formation Applied to Nine European Parliaments After 1918 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific).Google Scholar
De Vries, C.E., Edwards, E.E. and Tillman, E.R. (2011), ‘Clarity of Responsibility Beyond the Pocketbook: How Political Institutions Condition EU Issue Voting’, Comparative Political Studies, 44(3): 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diermeier, D., Swaab, R.I., Medvec, V.H. and Kern, M.C. (2008), ‘The Micro-dynamics of Coalition Formation’, Political Research Quarterly, 61(3): 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, H. and Manow, P. (2015), ‘Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections and Cabinets in Modern Democracies’, www.parlgov.org.Google Scholar
Dörrenbacher, N. (2016), ‘A Question of the Policy Level: Europeanization of Legislative–Executive Relations’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Finke, D. (2016), ‘Bicameralism in the European Union: Parliamentary Scrutiny as Tool to Reinforce Party Unity’, West European Politics, published early online June, doi:10.1080/01402382.2016.1188549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, D. and Dannwolf, T. (2013), ‘Domestic Scrutiny of European Union Politics: Between Whistle Blowing and Opposition Control’, European Journal of Political Research, (52): 715–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnish Eduskunta (1999), ‘Parliament’s Rules of Procedure’, unofficial translation, including amendments up to 63/2015, www.eduskunta.fi/EN/tietoaeduskunnasta/Documents/RulesofProcedure_20150416.pdf.Google Scholar
Gattermann, K. and Hefftler, C. (2015), ‘Beyond Institutional Capacity: Political Motivation and Parliamentary Behaviour in the Early Warning System’, West European Politics, 38(2): 305–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hefftler, C., Kreilinger, V., Rozenberg, O. and Wessels, W. (2013), National Parliaments: Their Emerging Control over the European Council, Policy Paper (Notre Europe – Jacques Delors Institute).Google Scholar
Hill, C. (2003), The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Holzhacker, R. (2007), ‘National Parliamentary Scrutiny: Comparing Rules, Institutions and Behaviour’, in R. Holzhacker and E. Albæk (eds), Democratic Governance and European Integration. Linking Societal and State Processes of Democracy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 180–206.Google Scholar
Jungar, A.-C. (2002), ‘A Case of a Surplus Majority Government: The Finnish Rainbow Coalition’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 25(1): 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J. (2012), Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Choices (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlas, J. (2011), ‘Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs in Central and Eastern Europe: Explaining the Variation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2): 258–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlas, J. (2012), ‘National Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs: Institutional Design after Enlargement’, West European Politics, 35(5): 1095–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R., Macedo, S. and Morvcsik, A. (2009), ‘Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism’, International Organization, 63(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I. and McDonald, M. (2006), Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990–2003 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, K. (1998), Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krekelberg, A. (2001), ‘The Reticent Acknowledgement of National Parliaments in the European Treaties: A Documentation’, in A. Maurer and W. Wessels (eds), National Parliaments on Their Ways to Europe: Losers or Latecomers? (Baden-Baden: Nomos): 477–489.Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Budge, I. (1992), Party Policy and Coalition Policy in Europe (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Shepsle, K.A. (1996), Making and Breaking Governments: Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, W., Benoit, K., Mikhaylov, S. and Laver, M. (2011), ‘Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36: 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Stevenson, R. (2001), ‘Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies’, Journal of Political Science, 45(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, L.W. and Vanberg, G. (2004), ‘Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny’, American Journal of Political Science, 48(1): 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, A. and Wessels, W. (2001), ‘National Parliaments after Amsterdam: From Slow Adapters to National Players?’, in A. Maurer and W. Wessels (eds), National Parliaments on Their Ways to Europe: Losers or Latecomers? (Baden-Baden: Nomos): 425–475.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (2012), Die Europafunktion der nationalen Parlamente in der Europäischen Union (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1973), ‘Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior’, in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (New York: Academic Press): 105–142.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2004), ‘Is There a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis’, Government and Opposition, 39(2): 336–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K. (1999), ‘Political Parties and Hard Choices’, in W.C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds), Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, W. and Strøm, K. (2003), ‘Conclusion: Coalition Governance in Western Europe’, in W. Müller and K. Strøm (eds), Coalition Governments in Western Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 559–592.Google Scholar
Neuhold, C. and de Ruiter, R. (2010), ‘Out of REACH? Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs in the Netherlands and the UK’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(1): 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neunreither, K. (2005), ‘The European Parliament and National Parliaments: Conflict or Cooperation?’, in K. Auel and A. Benz (eds), The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy (Abingdon: Routledge): 164–187.Google Scholar
Norris, P. (2011), Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, P. (1995), ‘Conclusion: Addressing the Democratic Deficit’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 1(3): 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nousiainen, J. (2001), ‘From Semi-presidentialism to Parliamentary Government: Political and Constitutional Developments in Finland’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 24(2): 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahre, R. (1997), ‘Endogenous Domestic Institutions In Two-Level Games and Parliamentary Oversight’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1): 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. (2000), Elections as Instruments of Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Rasch, B.E. (2011), ‘Why Minority Governments? Executive–Legislative Relations in the Nordic Countries’, in T. Persson and M. Wiberg (eds), Parliamentary Government in the Nordic Countries at a Crossroads: Coping with Challenges from Europeanisation and Presidentialisation (Stockholm: Santérus Academic Press Sweden): 41–62.Google Scholar
Raunio, T. (2004), ‘The Changing Finnish Democracy: Stronger Parliamentary Accountability, Coalescing Political Parties and Weaker External Constraints’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. (2005), ‘Holding Governments Accountable in European Affairs: Explaining Cross-national Variation’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4): 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. (2016), ‘The Politicization of EU Affairs in the Finnish Eduskunta: Conflicting Logics of Appropriateness, Party Strategy or Sheer Frustration?’, Comparative European Politics, 14(2): 232–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. and Hix, S. (2000), ‘Backbenchers Learn to Fight Back: European Integration and Parliamentary Government’, West European Politics, 23(4): 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raunio, T. and Wagner, W. (2015), ‘Legislative–Executive Relations in Foreign and Security Policy’, paper presented at the Workshop on Legislative–Executive Relations in Foreign and Security Policy, 21–22 May, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Riker, W.H. (1962), The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (2003), ‘Germany: Stable Parties, Chancellor Democracy, and the Art of Informal Settlement’, in W.C. Müller and K. Strom (eds), Coalition Governments in Western Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 32–85.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (2005), ‘Deliberate Delegation or Abdication? Government Backbenchers, Ministers and European Legislation’, in K. Auel and A. Benz (eds), The Europeanisation of Parliamentary Democracy (Abingdon: Routledge): 41–69.Google Scholar
Strøm, K., Müller, W.C. and Bergman, T. (2003) (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, A., Lacewell, O., Regel, S., Schultze, H. and Werner, A. (2010), The Manifesto Data Collection: Manifesto Project (mrg/cmp/marpor) (Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)).Google Scholar
Winzen, T. (2012), ‘National Parliamentary Control of European Union Affairs: A Cross-national and Longitudinal Comparison’, West European Politics, 35(3): 657–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zürn, M. (2004), ‘Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems’, Government and Opposition, 39(2): 260–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zürn, M. (2014), ‘The Politicization of World Politics and Its Effects: Eight Propositions’, European Political Science Review, 6(1): 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Finke and Herbel supplementary material

Appendix

Download Finke and Herbel supplementary material(File)
File 23.8 KB