The Council, the European Parliament, and the Paradox of Inter-Institutional Cooperation

M. Mühlböck, Berthold Rittberger
{"title":"The Council, the European Parliament, and the Paradox of Inter-Institutional Cooperation","authors":"M. Mühlböck, Berthold Rittberger","doi":"10.1695/2015004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decision-making between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament is characterized by a paradox. On the one hand, there is a high potential for inter-institutional conflict. Historically, the EP and the Council have been opponents in the struggle for power. In addition, both institutions can be said to fulfill different representational roles within the political system of the EU, with the Council representing the member states and the Parliament representing the citizens. Furthermore, agreement between the two is complicated by decision rules posing high thresholds for agreement and actors with often diverging preferences. On the other hand, in day-to-day policy-making, the Council and the European Parliament display a high level of consensus and decision-making efficiency. Most legislation is decided in first reading, and early agreements provide a shortcut for cumbersome inter-institutional negotiations. To shed light on this paradox, we conceptualize the mechanisms and dynamics underlying inter-institutional cooperation and conflict by taking recourse to factors derived from historical, sociological and rational choice institutionalisms. We argue that the same logics which account for conflict also contain the explanation for cooperation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that each of the theoretical approaches is particularly well suited to highlight a certain aspect of the paradox.","PeriodicalId":296326,"journal":{"name":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Institutions: European Union eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1695/2015004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Decision-making between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament is characterized by a paradox. On the one hand, there is a high potential for inter-institutional conflict. Historically, the EP and the Council have been opponents in the struggle for power. In addition, both institutions can be said to fulfill different representational roles within the political system of the EU, with the Council representing the member states and the Parliament representing the citizens. Furthermore, agreement between the two is complicated by decision rules posing high thresholds for agreement and actors with often diverging preferences. On the other hand, in day-to-day policy-making, the Council and the European Parliament display a high level of consensus and decision-making efficiency. Most legislation is decided in first reading, and early agreements provide a shortcut for cumbersome inter-institutional negotiations. To shed light on this paradox, we conceptualize the mechanisms and dynamics underlying inter-institutional cooperation and conflict by taking recourse to factors derived from historical, sociological and rational choice institutionalisms. We argue that the same logics which account for conflict also contain the explanation for cooperation. Furthermore, we demonstrate that each of the theoretical approaches is particularly well suited to highlight a certain aspect of the paradox.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理事会、欧洲议会和机构间合作的悖论
部长理事会和欧洲议会之间的决策具有自相矛盾的特点。一方面,机构间冲突的可能性很大。从历史上看,欧洲议会和理事会在权力斗争中一直是对手。此外,可以说这两个机构在欧盟的政治体系中扮演着不同的代表角色,理事会代表成员国,议会代表公民。此外,由于决策规则对协议和往往具有不同偏好的行为者提出了很高的门槛,两者之间的协议变得复杂。另一方面,在日常决策中,理事会和欧洲议会表现出高度的共识和决策效率。大多数立法是在一读时决定的,早期协议为繁琐的机构间谈判提供了一条捷径。为了阐明这一悖论,我们通过求助于历史、社会学和理性选择制度主义的因素,将机构间合作和冲突的机制和动力概念化。我们认为,解释冲突的相同逻辑也包含对合作的解释。此外,我们证明了每种理论方法都特别适合于突出悖论的某个方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mind the (trade) gap! How costly is erecting barriers to trade? LA UNIÓN EUROPEA Y LA SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA AD EXTRA (The European Union and Ad Extra Food Security) How Global Jihad Relocalises and Where it Leads. The Case of HTS, the Former AQ Franchise in Syria Responding to Hybridity in an Unstable Neighborhood: The Efficiency of the EU State-centric Approach to the Crisis in Libya and Ukraine Report on the Dynamics of Differentiated Integration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1