Skip to main content

Conclusion. Opportunities and Challenges for the Principal–Agent Model in Studying the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Principal Agent Model and the European Union

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

Abstract

This chapter examines whether the principal–agent model will mature by accommodating the new empirical reality or whether it will become outdated as the practical challenges narrow the researcher’s focus to the simplest of hierarchical relations. We address this question by covering the three main components of the research process. We distinguish (1) the formulation of research questions; (2) the contribution one can deliver to the existing literature; and (3) the required methodology. Each section questions the opportunities that are to be gleaned from applying the principal–agent model to an ever-more complex setting, and confronts it with practical challenges that may emerge in the research process. In so doing, we derive guidelines that may help to ensure the contemporary relevance of the principal–agent model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, K., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2015). International organisations as orchestrators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blauberger, M., & Rittberger, B. (2015). Orchestrating policy implementation: EU governance through regulatory networks. In K. Abbott, P. Genschel, D. Snidal, & B. Zangl (Eds.), International organizations as orchestrators (pp. 39–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsma, G., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). The principal–agent model, accountability and democratic legitimacy. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.). The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 35–54). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, R., McCubbins, M., & Weingast, B. (1989). A theory of political control and agency discretion. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 588–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceicão-Heldt, E. (2017). Multiple principals’ preferences, types of control mechanisms, and agent’s discretion in trade negotiations. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 203–226). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coremans, E., & Kerremans, B. (2017). Agents as information asymmetry managers in EU trade policy-making. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 227–253). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damro, C. (2007). EU delegation and agency in international trade negotiations: A cautionary comparison. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(4), 883–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T. (2009). The EU negotiates multilateral environmental agreements: Explaining the agent’s discretion. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 719–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delreux, T., & Adriaensen, J. (2017). Introduction. Use and limitations of the principal–agent model in studying the European Union. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 1–34). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, H. (2017). Non-exclusive delegation to the European External Action Service. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 55–81). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsig, M., & Dupont, C. (2012). European Union meets South Korea: Bureaucratic interests exporter discrimination and the negotiations of trade agreements. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(3), 492–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franchino, F. (2005). A formal model of delegation in the European Union. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17(2), 217–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastinger, M. (2017). Effects of contestation within a collective agent in EU trade policy-making. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 181–202). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (2016). Process tracing: A laudable aim or a high-tariff methodology? New Political Economy, 3467, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helwig, N. (2017). Agent interaction as a source of discretion for the EU high representative. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 105–129). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Héritier, A. (2015). Covert integration in the European Union. In J. Richardson & S. Mazey (Eds.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 351–369). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, D. A. (2017). Manifest and latent control on the council by the European council. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 157–180). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laloux, T. (2017). Designing a collective agent for trilogues in the European parliament. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 83–103). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuffen, D., Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2012). Differentiated integration. Explaining variation in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menz, G. (2015). The promise of the principal–agent approach for studying EU migration policy: The case of external migration control. Comparative European Politics, 13(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (2005). The political evolution of principal–agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plank, F., & Niemann, A. (2017). Impact of the agent’s environment on discretion in the field of EU conflict resolution. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 131–155). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reykers, Y., & Beach, D. (2017). Process-tracing as a tool to analyse discretion. In T. Delreux & J. Adriaensen (Eds.), The principal–agent model and the European Union (pp. 255–281). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobol, M. (2016). Principal–agent analysis and pathological delegation: The (almost) untold story. Governance, 29(3), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B., & Moran, M. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the federal trade commission. The Journal of Political Economy, 91(5), 765–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adriaensen, J., Delreux, T. (2017). Conclusion. Opportunities and Challenges for the Principal–Agent Model in Studying the European Union. In: Delreux, T., Adriaensen, J. (eds) The Principal Agent Model and the European Union. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55137-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics