Incrementalism and Path Dependence: European Integration and Institutional Change in National Parliaments

Dimitrakopoulos, Dionyssis G.

doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00296

Cited by 72 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two factors were identified as being most important: domestic institutional strength and Euroscepticism. Institutional strength has been measured with a variety of variables such as the overall institutional strength of parliaments prior to and independent of integration, the power balance in legislative-executive relations or the type of government (especially minority governments) (Bergman 1997(Bergman , 2000Dimitrakopoulos 2001;Holzhacker, 2005;Karlas 2012;Martin 2000;Maurer and Wessels 2001;Raunio 2005;Saalfeld 2005). 'Indeed, research on explaining cross-national variation in the level of scrutiny in EU matters indicates that the overall strength of the legislature "spills over" to European affairs, with stronger control of the government in domestic matters producing also tighter cabinet scrutiny in European affairs' (Raunio 2009: 330, FN 11).…”

Section: Delegation and Ownership In Times Of Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

Auel¹,

Höing²

2015

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The eurozone crisis suggests a significant reinforcement of the executive dominance in EU policy-making. Opaque emergency decisions taken at European summits as well as treaties established outside of the EU legal framework facilitate the side-lining of democratically elected chambers. This development entails the risk of a new wave of deparliamentarisation in EU policy-making. An effective scrutiny of the crisis management by national parliaments is, however, indispensable to take national ownership of the reforms in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). This paper therefore investigates national parliaments' involvement in the development of instruments to combat the crisis. Based on a quantitative data set of crisis-related parliamentary activities in 2010-2012, we observe a very uneven engagement in the scrutiny of the crisis management. Institutional prerogatives in EU affairs as well as macro-economic factors can partly explain the observed variation. Surprisingly, however, crisis-related parliamentary activity is not a reaction to Eurosceptic attitudes either in parliament or the public.

show abstract

Section: Delegation and Ownership In Times Of Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

Auel¹,

Höing²

2015

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In his analysis of the adaptation of the French, Greek and British parliament to EU integration, Dimitrakopoulos' (2001), for example, shows how change 'has proceeded by means of small, marginal steps based on existing institutional repertoires in a manner that has reproduced the historically defined weaknesses of these Parliaments' (419-420). As a result, not only will new institutional provisions reflect given institutional paths, but parliamentary behaviour in EU affairs is also expected to follow the main patterns developed in domestic affairs.…”

Section: Institutional Capacity: Institutional Opportunities and Consmentioning

confidence: 99%

After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of national parliaments in EU matters has become an important subject in the debate over the democratic legitimacy of European Union (EU) decision-making. Strengthening parliamentary scrutiny and participation rights both at the domestic and at the European level is often seen as an effective measure to address the perceived 'democratic deficit' of the EUthe reason for affording them a prominent place in the newly introduced 'Provisions on Democratic Principles' of the Union (in particular Art.12 TEU). Whether this aim can be met, however, depends crucially on the degree and the manner in which national parliaments actually make use of their institutional rights. This volume therefore aims at providing a comprehensive overview of the activities of national parliaments in the post-Lisbon era. This includes the 'classic' scrutiny of EU legislation, but also parliamentary involvement in EU foreign policy, the use of new parliamentary participations rights of the Lisbon Treaty (Early Warning System), their role regarding the EU's response to the eurozone crisis and the, so far under-researched, role of parliamentary administrators in scrutiny processes. In this introduction, we provide the guiding theoretical framework for the contributions. Based on neo-institutionalist approaches, we discuss institutional capacities and political motivation as the two key explanatory factors in the analysis of parliamentary involvement in EU affairs.Keywords: National Parliaments, EU, Scrutiny, Lisbon Treaty, Neo-Institutionalism, democratic legitimacy 'Maybe not formally speaking, but at least politically speaking, all national parliaments have become, in a way, European institutions' (Van Rompuy 2012). Whether it is indeed true -or 2 even desirable -that national parliaments have become 'European institutions' in a more narrow sense, is open to debate (Cygan 2013: 21). Yet the statement certainly suggests that the former 'losers' of the European integration process have come a long way. For a long time the role of national parliaments was not formally recognised at the European level, and in the domestic arena the integration process provided ample opportunities for the executive actors to bypass legislatures and strengthen their hold on policy-making. Concerns about a growing democratic deficit were addressed through repeated and substantial expansions of the powers of the European Parliament, whereas national parliaments remained on the margins.However, over time the 'victims' of integration have learned 'to fight back' and obtained new opportunities for participation in domestic European policy-making. It was a slow and uneven process through which in they improved their institutional position, but they gained increased rights to scrutinise European affairs and to control the way in which ministers and officials represented national interests in Brussels. Today, the Lisbon Treaty not only mentions the role of national parliaments explicitly (article 12 TEU), but it also gives them a role within the EU's legis...

show abstract

“…From the early 2000s onwards, scholarship focused on the Europeanisation of national parliaments, that is, the topdown impact of European integration on the functioning of parliaments 1 (e.g., Raunio and Hix, 2000;Dimitrakopoulos, 2001;Auel and Benz, 2005;Raunio and Wiberg, 2009). This literature has tended to emphasise parliaments' efforts and adaptation to combat the deparliamentarisation phenomenon, with Winzen, for example, arguing that the strength of national parliaments overall increased from 2000 to 2010 (Winzen, 2012: 663-65).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This literature has tended to emphasise parliaments' efforts and adaptation to combat the deparliamentarisation phenomenon, with Winzen, for example, arguing that the strength of national parliaments overall increased from 2000 to 2010 (Winzen, 2012: 663-65). 2 Many of these studies focused in particular on the role of European Affairs Committees (EACs) in empowering parliaments to scrutinise EU affairs (e.g., Dimitrakopoulos, 2001;Bergman et al, 2003;Auel, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

Gattermann

Högenauer

Huff³

2015

Eur Polit Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research note, we propose studying a new trend of Europeanisation in national parliaments within the European Union (EU). We argue that further integration, combined with the opportunities and challenges presented by the Lisbon Treaty and the financial crisis, created pressure on national parliaments to expand the scrutiny process beyond European Affairs Committees. In this new phase of Europeanisation, parliaments are increasingly 'mainstreaming' EU affairs scrutiny, blurring the distinction between national and European policies and involving larger numbers of MPs. Following a review of existing research on the Europeanisation of national parliaments in the post-Lisbon era, we propose studying four dimensions of mainstreaming: the rising involvement of sectoral committees in European affairs; the adaptation of parliamentary staff to EU policy-making; the growing salience of European affairs in plenary debates; and increasing inter-parliamentary cooperation beyond European affairs specialists. We argue that this trend has significant implications for research that studies the roles of national parliaments in the democratic functioning of the EU.

show abstract

Incrementalism and Path Dependence: European Integration and Institutional Change in National Parliaments

Cited by 72 publications

References 10 publications

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union

research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About