At What Point does a Legislature Become Institutionalized? the Mercosur Parliament's Path
Clarissa Dri
Abstract:The Mercosur Parliament was created in 2005 to represent the peoples of the region. The constitutive documents affirm the necessity of reinforcing and deepening integration and democracy within Mercosur through an efficient and balanced institutional structure. In order to examine the potential role of the Parliament in strengthening the institutional framework of the bloc, this paper aims to analyse its initial years of activity. What is the institutionalization level reached by the assembly so far? The resea… Show more
This article explains how institutional rules change after they have been established in two important areas of European decision‐making: co‐decision and comitology. It shows how legislation under co‐decision was transformed into fast‐track legislation and why the Parliament gradually – between treaty reforms – gained more institutional power in comitology. The rational choice institutionalist explanation applied here focuses on the efficiency increasing/transaction cost saving aspects of interstitial institutional change, but also on the question of who gains and who loses in power under specific rules and how power may subsequently be shifted. The hypotheses derived from the theoretical considerations are subject to empirical (dis)confirmation on the basis of quantitative and qualitative empirical data collected on co‐decision and delegation over time. The conclusion summarizes the argument and explores the applicability of the explanations to two other polities of regional integration: North Atlantic Free Trade Association (Nafta) and Mercosur (the Common Southern Market).
This article explains how institutional rules change after they have been established in two important areas of European decision‐making: co‐decision and comitology. It shows how legislation under co‐decision was transformed into fast‐track legislation and why the Parliament gradually – between treaty reforms – gained more institutional power in comitology. The rational choice institutionalist explanation applied here focuses on the efficiency increasing/transaction cost saving aspects of interstitial institutional change, but also on the question of who gains and who loses in power under specific rules and how power may subsequently be shifted. The hypotheses derived from the theoretical considerations are subject to empirical (dis)confirmation on the basis of quantitative and qualitative empirical data collected on co‐decision and delegation over time. The conclusion summarizes the argument and explores the applicability of the explanations to two other polities of regional integration: North Atlantic Free Trade Association (Nafta) and Mercosur (the Common Southern Market).
Recent scholarship has argued that there has been an opening up of international and regional organizations toward transnational actors since the end of the Cold War, as a result of increased democratization, which is generally considered as a positive contribution to the legitimacy of these organizations. Yet it remains unclear how generalized the opening up has been in terms of regions and category of actors. The role of legislators, particularly outside the European Union, remains understudied even though their presence in regional organizations has increased over the past three decades. This article seeks to fill this void partially by way of a comparative analysis of the role of legislators using the Organization of American States and the Southern Common Market as case studies. The first part of the article offers an overview of the literature and presents our research design. We then proceed with a comparative analysis of the role of legislators at the input, throughput, and output stages of the legitimation process. We conclude with a general assessment of the contribution of legislators as dispensers of legitimacy for regional organizations in the Americas.
Resumo O Parlamento do Mercosul (Parlasul) enfrenta limitações legais para participar do processo decisório regional. Suas atribuições são restritas e incluem, por exemplo, o envio de projetos de norma e recomendações aos órgãos superiores. Este artigo analisa se e de que maneira o Parlasul se utiliza dessas competências para influenciar as decisões do bloco. Considera-se que o Parlasul dispõe de alguns mecanismos formais e informais que, mesmo limitados, lhe permitiriam intervir nos temas discutidos pelos órgãos decisórios. Para avaliar se há um poder de agenda parlamentar no Mercosul e se ele é eficaz, procede-se a uma análise quali-quantitativa das recomendações enviadas pelo Parlasul ao Conselho Mercado Comum (CMC). Após estabelecer uma tipologia das recomendações enviadas ao CMC pelo Parlasul entre 2007 e 2010, avalia-se a taxa de resposta do CMC (quantitativamente) e as manifestações do CMC sobre as posições do Parlasul (qualitativamente). Também se compara as agendas do Parlasul e do CMC para identificar eventual superposição ou coincidência de temas. As conclusões apontam para uma desconsideração sistemática das iniciativas parlamentares que visa evitar a quebra do monopólio dos poderes executivos na cena regional. O CMC apenas “toma nota” da maioria das recomendações enviadas pelo Parlasul e aprovou menos de 5% delas. As agendas de ambos os órgãos são bastante distintas, o que mostra que os assuntos discutidos pelo Parlasul em geral não se tornam regras adotadas pelo Mercosul. Os resultados confirmam a baixa influência de atores outros que os poderes executivos no processo decisório do Mercosul. O artigo ressalta quais mecanismos têm sido usados para evitar que os atores legislativos sejam considerados nas decisões regionais. Caso os parlamentares estejam conscientes deles, eles podem pressionar os órgãos executivos por melhores respostas às recomendações, o que poderia engendrar um papel diferente para os congressos em questões de política externa.
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.