规划政治欧洲:欧盟决策中的联盟模式

Michael Kaeding, T. Selck
{"title":"规划政治欧洲:欧盟决策中的联盟模式","authors":"Michael Kaeding, T. Selck","doi":"10.1177/0192512105053785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article evaluates member states’ and supranational institutions’ preference patterns in European Union decision-making. We present a research design that encompasses data on the policy profiles of the 15 member states, the Commission, and the European Parliament for 70 European legal acts that were negotiated just before the May 2004 enlargement. We apply principal-component analysis which results in reduction of the different policy issues into a three-dimensional solution. The Commission and the European Parliament are much more favorable toward increased integration than the Council members are. Thus, there appears to be a “north versus south” coalition pattern rather than a “Franco-German axis.” The positions of Ireland and Belgium indicate that the member states’ status as net contributors or net receivers of European Union subsidies are important. Our findings do not support the pro-less integrationist argument nor the left-right dimension that reconciles economic and sociopolitical issues.","PeriodicalId":93769,"journal":{"name":"International political science review : IPSR = Revue internationale de science politique = RISP","volume":"15 1","pages":"271 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"83","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mapping Out Political Europe: Coalition Patterns in EU Decision-Making\",\"authors\":\"Michael Kaeding, T. Selck\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0192512105053785\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article evaluates member states’ and supranational institutions’ preference patterns in European Union decision-making. We present a research design that encompasses data on the policy profiles of the 15 member states, the Commission, and the European Parliament for 70 European legal acts that were negotiated just before the May 2004 enlargement. We apply principal-component analysis which results in reduction of the different policy issues into a three-dimensional solution. The Commission and the European Parliament are much more favorable toward increased integration than the Council members are. Thus, there appears to be a “north versus south” coalition pattern rather than a “Franco-German axis.” The positions of Ireland and Belgium indicate that the member states’ status as net contributors or net receivers of European Union subsidies are important. Our findings do not support the pro-less integrationist argument nor the left-right dimension that reconciles economic and sociopolitical issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International political science review : IPSR = Revue internationale de science politique = RISP\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"271 - 290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"83\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International political science review : IPSR = Revue internationale de science politique = RISP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053785\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International political science review : IPSR = Revue internationale de science politique = RISP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105053785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 83

摘要

本文评估了成员国和超国家机构在欧盟决策中的偏好模式。我们提出了一项研究设计,其中包含了15个成员国、欧盟委员会和欧洲议会在2004年5月欧盟扩大之前谈判的70项欧洲法律法案的政策概况数据。我们运用主成分分析,将不同的政策问题简化为一个三维的解决方案。欧盟委员会和欧洲议会比理事会成员更倾向于加强一体化。因此,这似乎是一种“南北对抗”的联盟模式,而不是“法德轴心”。爱尔兰和比利时的立场表明,成员国作为欧盟补贴的净捐助国或净接受国的地位很重要。我们的研究结果不支持不支持一体化的观点,也不支持调和经济和社会政治问题的左右维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Mapping Out Political Europe: Coalition Patterns in EU Decision-Making
This article evaluates member states’ and supranational institutions’ preference patterns in European Union decision-making. We present a research design that encompasses data on the policy profiles of the 15 member states, the Commission, and the European Parliament for 70 European legal acts that were negotiated just before the May 2004 enlargement. We apply principal-component analysis which results in reduction of the different policy issues into a three-dimensional solution. The Commission and the European Parliament are much more favorable toward increased integration than the Council members are. Thus, there appears to be a “north versus south” coalition pattern rather than a “Franco-German axis.” The positions of Ireland and Belgium indicate that the member states’ status as net contributors or net receivers of European Union subsidies are important. Our findings do not support the pro-less integrationist argument nor the left-right dimension that reconciles economic and sociopolitical issues.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Marginalized, but not demobilized: Ethnic minority protest activity when facing discrimination. Attack politics from Albania to Zimbabwe: A large-scale comparative study on the drivers of negative campaigning. Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation Abstracts/Résumés Contentious Collective Action and the Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes
×
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