Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paper keepers or policy shapers? The conditions under which EP officials impact on the EU policy process

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

The Lisbon Treaty has substantially extended the co-legislative rights of the European Parliament (EP). This raises the general question of how the EP organizes itself internally in order to be able to maximize its input into the legislative process. In the quest of information processing, it is likely that officials inside the EP gain in importance. The article thus aims to clarify the conditions under which these EP officials impact on the EU policy process and as such can influence policy outcomes. The analysis is based on case studies from five different policy domains. The observations reflect that under certain conditions EP officials play a steering role in the EU decision-making process. As such they can have a significant impact on the policymaking process, defying the dualistic Weberian approach according to which politicians take decisions and officials merely implement.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The respective context is the study of voting behaviour in the United States.

  2. All interviews are anonymous as requested by the interviewees. Some are referred to as officials or representatives of their institution, others – who insisted on absolute anonymity – are referred to as officials from one of the EU institutions.

  3. We thus selected dossiers where the EP had co-legislative rights prior to the Lisbon Treaty and where the OLP was introduced by way of Lisbon.

  4. For more detailed analysis of these negotiations, see f.e. Brandsma and Blom-Hansen (2012).

  5. Nanotechnology makes it possible to manipulate structures at nanometre scale (one-billionth of a metre). In practical terms, nanotechnology can for instance be used to change fat, sugar or salt levels while retaining the full taste (Mahoney, 2010).

  6. See Benedetto (2013) for an analysis that challenges the assumption that the EP and the Council are on an equal footing as regards the budget.

  7. The Committee has 21 days to negotiate a common text. If this fails, the Commission has to come up with a new draft budget. Once a text is agreed by the Conciliation committee both Council and Parliament have 14 days to approve or reject it. If by 1 January, the first day of the budgetary year, the budget has not been approved, the Union works with 1/12 each month of the budget of the year before.

References

  • Barberis, P. (2011) The Weberian legacy. In: A. Massey (ed.) International Handbook on Civil Service Systems. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, F. (2013) Civil servants: How to support the political level: The French Case. In: C. Neuhold, S. Vanhoonacker and L. Verhey (eds.) Civil Servants and Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2008) Reforming the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (5): 708–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2009) Impact of administrative reform of the European Commission: Results from a survey of heads of unit in policy-making directorates. International Review of Administrative Sciences 75 (3): 459–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetto, G. (2005) Rapporteurs as legislative entrepreneurs: The dynamics of the codecision procedure in Europe’s parliament. Journal of European Public Policy 12 (1): 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetto, G. (2013) The EU budget after Lisbon: Rigidity and reduced spending? Journal of Public Policy 33 (3): 345–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blischke, W. (1981) Parliamentary staffs in the German Bundestag. Legislative Studies Quarterly 6 (4): 533–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsma, G.-J. and Blom-Hansen, J. (2012) Negotiating the post-Lisbon comitology system: Institutional battles over delegated decision-making. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (6): 939–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. (2005) It’ s the Process Stupid! Process Tracing in the Study of European and International Politics Abstract. Oslo: ARENA, Working Papers, no. 26: pp. 1–29.

  • Collier, D. (2011) Understanding process-tracing. Political Science and Politics 44 (4): 823–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, R., Jacobs, F. and Shackleton, M. (2011) The European Parliament, 8th edn. London: John Harper Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D. and Egeberg, M. (2008) Tradition and innovation: Europe’s accumulated executive order. West European Politics 31 (4): 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbels, M. and Neuhold, C. (2013) ‘The roles bureaucrats play’: The input of European Parliament (EP) administrators into the Ordinary Legislative Procedure: A case study approach. Journal of European Integration 35 (4): 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGregorio, C. (1994) Professional committee staff as policy making partners in the U.S. Congress. Congress & the Presidency 21 (1): 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., Gornitzka, A., Trondal, J. and Johannessen, M. (2013) Parliament staff: Unpacking the behaviour of officials in the European Parliament. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (4): doi: 10.1080/13501763.2012.718885 495–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurofond. (2012) Working time, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/WORKINGTIME.htm, accessed 29 May 2013.

  • European Commission. (2008) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods and amending Regulation (EC) No 257/97. COM(2007) 872 final, Brussels, Belgium, 14 January.

  • European Communities. (2004) Staff regulations of officials of the European Communities, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/personnel_administration/statut/tocen100.pdf, accessed 29 May 2013.

  • Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. (2007) Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 873–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, T. and Knott, J. (1996) Who controls the bureaucracy?: Presidential power, congressional dominance, legal constraints, and bureaucratic autonomy in a model of multi-institutional policy-making. The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 12 (1): 119–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harfst, P. and Schnapp, K (2003) Instrumente parlamentarischer Kontrolle der Exekutive in westlichen Demokratien. Discussion Paper SP IV 2003-201, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).

  • Heritier, A. (2012) Institutional change in Europe: Co-decision and comitology transformed. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (1): 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2009) Voting patterns and alliance formation in the European parliament. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364 (1518): 821–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Högenauer, A.-L. and Neuhold, C. (2013) National Parliaments after Lisbon: Administrations on the rise. OPAL Online Paper Series, 12.

  • Huber, J. (2000) Delegation to civil servants in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 397–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H., Peterson, J., Bauer, M and Connolly, S. (2013) The European Commission of the Twenty-first Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kreppel, A. (2001) The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. (1979) The End of Liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, H. (2010) European Council seen as winner under Lisbon Treaty. EU Observer 27 May.

  • Marshall, D. (2012) Do rapporteurs receive independent expert policy advice? Indirect lobbying via the European Parliament’s committee secretariat. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (9): 1377–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCubbins, M.D., Noll, R.G. and Weingast, B.R. (1987) Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 3 (2): 243–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neunreither, K. (2006) Elected legislators and their unelected assistants in the European Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies 8 (4): 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. (2006) Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. and Jenkins, B. (2005) Policy Bureaucracy: Government with a Cast of Thousands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, S.C. (1970) The professional staffs of congressional committees. Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (1): 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pegan, A. (2011) European Parliament and its administration: What do we know and where do we go next? Paper presented at the EGPA Annual Conference, Bucharest, Romania.

  • Peters, G. (1998) Comparative Politics – Theory and Methods. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. and Pierre, J. (2004) (eds.) Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative Perspective -The Quest for Control. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A. (2012) Time to decide: The effect of early agreements on legislative duration in the EU. European Integration online Papers 16 (11): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, M.T. (1981) The legislative staff of the British House of Commons. Legislative Studies Quarterly 6 (4): 497–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scully, R., Hix, S. and Farrell, D.M. (2012) National or European Parliamentarians? Evidence from a New Survey of the members of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (4): 670–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton, M. (2000) The politics of co-decision. Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (2): 325–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trondal, J. and Peters, G. (2013) The rise of European administrative space: Lessons learned. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (2): 295–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winzen, T. (2011) Technical or political? An exploration of the work of officials in the committees of the European parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (1): 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wlezien, C. (2005) On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem’. Electoral Studies 24: 555–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Interviews

  • Interview 1 with a representative of one of the Member States, Brussels, 7 February 2012.

  • Interview 2 with a representative of one of the Member States, Brussels, 22 February 2012.

  • Interview 3 with an official from one of the EU institutions, Brussels, 16 March 2012.

  • Interview 4 with an MEP, Brussels, 13 April 2012.

  • Interview 5 with an MEP, Brussels, 16 May 2012.

  • Interview 6 with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 03 May 2012.

  • Interview 7 with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 16 May 2012.

  • Interview 8 with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 17 May 2012.

  • Interview 9 with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 24 May 2012.

  • Interview 10, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 25 May 2012.

  • Interview 11, with an official from one of the institutions, Brussels, 12 April 2011.

  • Interview 12, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 27 May 2011.

  • Interview 13, with a representative of one of the Member States, Brussels, 14 April 2011.

  • Interview 14, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 02 May 2011.

  • Interview 15, with an official from one of the institutions, Brussels, 10 June 2011.

  • Interview 16, with an official from one of the institutions, Brussels, 24 June 2011.

  • Interview 17, with a representative of one of the Member States, Brussels, 13 March 2012.

  • Interview 18, with a representative of one of the Member States, Brussels, 17 April 2012.

  • Interview 19, with an official from one of the institutions, Brussels, 12 December 2011.

  • Interview 20, with an official from one of the institutions, Brussels, 06 August 2012.

  • Interview 21, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 26 July 2012.

  • Interview 22, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 31 October 2012.

  • Interview 23, with an official from one of the institutions, Brussels, 25 April 2012.

  • Interview 24, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 31 October 2012

  • Interview 25, with an official of the European Parliament, Brussels, 19 October 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EU Democratic Governance,

    Christine Neuhold

  2. Department of Political Science, Maastricht University, Grote Gracht 90-92, Maastricht, 6211, SZ, The Netherlands

    Christine Neuhold

  3. Handelskaai 29 bus 3, Brussels, 1000, Belgium

    Mathias Dobbels

Authors
  1. Christine Neuhold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Dobbels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Neuhold.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neuhold, C., Dobbels, M. Paper keepers or policy shapers? The conditions under which EP officials impact on the EU policy process. Comp Eur Polit 13, 577–595 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2014.7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2014.7

Keywords

Search

Navigation