Group coordinators are part of a highly influential circle of members of the European Parliament (MEPs). However, there is only scant knowledge about the powers and purpose of this position. This article draws upon theories of legislative organization and committee assignments to assess the question: What individual qualities determine the selection of group coordinators? Using a novel dataset of all MEPs elected to the 8th session of the European Parliament (EP), we consider various aspects of MEP professional background, experience in the chamber and interest group ties as potential predictors of this selection. Our findings indicate the particularly strong effect of incumbency in the committee system, as well as professional background for selection. Ultimately, the results bear relevance to the legislative organization of the EP as a legislature with both strong committees and strong parties.
While many contributions on legislative politics in the European Parliament rely on recorded votes, the motivations behind the decision to record a vote remain somewhat arcane. This article frames roll-call vote requests as a minority right which offers party groups an opportunity to shape the voting agenda and signal commitment to a policy proposal. The analysis adds to our understanding of legislative behavior by linking the committee stage to the plenary stage. Party groups which do not support a floor proposal drafted by the lead committee are found to be more likely to request a roll-call vote in plenary. The quantitative evidence is supplemented by interview data which shed light both on the actors' motivations and the internal decision-making processes preceding the decision to go on record.
Individual amendments at the committee stage offer Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) a valuable tool to change legislation, prior to its passage at the plenary stage. And until a recent rule change, they were also one of the last meaningful ways for MEPs to self-select into the EP legislative process. Applying theories of legislative organization, internal positions, and differences in national institutional background, we use novel data to examine why MEPs proposed amendments to select EP committees during a one-year period between October 2015 and 2016. Our findings address a remaining gap on the individual determinants for legislative behavior in the EP, while also highlighting the effects of uneven prestige and contestation found in the EP committee system. KEYWORDS legislatures; committees; amendments; expertise; European Parliament Scholars of the European Parliament (EP) have evaluated a number of research questions about how the supranational body functions as a 'normal' legislature. In this vein, scholars document the rise of a functioning party system from transnational European party groups (EPGs) (Hix, Noury, and Roland 2007; Raunio 1997), account for the veto powers now accorded to it via the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) (e.g. Corbett 2001; Kreppel 2002; Yordanova 2011a), and evaluate the professionalization of internal legislative organizations (e.g. Kaeding 2005; Whitaker 2011). Others problematize the EP as a 'unique' legislature: elected directly via different sets of nationally based laws, nominated for election by more than 150 different national parties, and not accorded typical parliamentary rights of legislative initiative and executive branch formation (e.g. Farrell and Scully 2010; Hix and Marsh 2011; Schmitt 2005; de Vreese 2009).One area that neatly encapsulates this tension between the 'normal' and 'unique' demands of EP work is the tabling of legislative amendments at the committee stage. As with many other legislatures, the EP contains a highly developed set of standing committees, specialized by substantive focus. Unlike in other legislatures, however, the most powerful Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) at the committee level are not the committee chairs and vice-chairs, but rather the legislative rapporteur, a set of
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.