Setting the political agenda is a critical and usually powerful aspect of policy making. However, the ability to set the agenda, without any significant decision-making powers, can undermine this influence, leaving a technical agenda setter without substantive political influence. This research examines the difference between technical and political agenda setting through an analysis of the policy impact of the Commission of the European Union (EU). Using two newly developed databases on Commission policy priorities and all adopted EU legislation, as well as the Decision Making in the European Union (DEU II) dataset, we investigate the ability of the Commission to shape EU legislative outcomes to reflect its policy preferences between 2000 and 2011. Our analyses highlight the comparative weakness of the Commission’s policy influence, despite its formal monopoly of legislative initiation. In this way, we argue for a need to carefully differentiate between technical and political agenda setters when evaluating the policy influence of different political actors.
AllerkampD. K. (2010). Who sets the agenda? How the European Council and the team presidencies are undermining the commission’s prerogative. In Standing Group on European Union Politics of the European Consortium for Political Research in Porto, Portugal (pp. 24-26). Porto, Portugal: European Consortia for Political Research Standing Group on the European Union.
2.
BachrachP.BaratzM. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
3.
BailerS. (2006). The dimensions of power in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 4, 355-378.
4.
BalintT.BauerM. W.KnillC. (2008). Bureaucratic change in the European administrative space: The case of the European Commission. West European Politics, 31, 677-700.
5.
BarrettA.Eshbaugh-SohaM. (2007). Presidential success on the substance of legislation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 100-112.
6.
BaumgartnerF. R.Green-PedersenC.JonesB. D. (2006). Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 959-974.
7.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Blom-HansenJ. (2008). The origins of the EU comitology system: A case of informal agenda-setting by the commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 208-226.
9.
BocquillonP.DobbelsM. (2013). An elephant on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont? European Council and commission relations in legislative agenda-setting. Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 1-19.
10.
BondJ.FleisherR. (1990). The president in the legislative arena. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
BrandsmaG. J. (2015). Co-decision after Lisbon: The politics of informal trilogues in European Union lawmaking. European Union Politics, 16, 300-319.
12.
BrauningerT.DebusM. (2009). Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 48, 804-839.
13.
BurleyA. M.MattliW. (1993). Europe before the court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization, 47, 41-76.
14.
CheibubJ. A.PrzeworskiA.SaieghS. M. (2004). Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 565-587.
15.
CoronaD.HermaninC.PonzanoP. (2012). The power of initiative of the European Commission: A progressive erosion (Studies and Research n.89). Paris, France: Notre Europe.
16.
CrombezC.GrosecloseT.KrehbielK. (2006). Gatekeeping. Journal of Politics, 68, 322-334.
17.
CrombezC.HixS. (2011). Treaty reform and the commission’s appointment and policy making role in the European Union. European Union Politics, 12, 291-314.
18.
CrombezC.SteunenbergB.CorbettR. (2000). Understanding the EU legislative process: Political scientists’ and practitioners’ perspectives. European Union Politics, 1, 363-381.
19.
CurtinD.EgebergM. (2008). Reforming the commission: Between modernization and bureaucratization. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 708-725.
20.
DaviterF. (2007). Policy framing in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 654-666.
21.
DiedrichsU.WesselsW. (2006). The commission and the council. In SpenceD.EdwardsG. (Eds.), The European commission (pp. 209-234). London, England: John Harper Publishing.
22.
DiermeierD.VlaicuR. (2011). Executive control and legislative success. Review of Economic Studies, 78, 846-871.
23.
DöringH. (1995). Time as a scarce resource: Government control of the agenda. In DöringH. (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 223-247). New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.
24.
DöringH. (2001). Parliamentary agenda control and legislative outcomes in Western Europe. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26, 145-165.
25.
DöringH.HallerbergM. (Eds.). (2004). Patterns of parliamentary behavior: Passage of legislation across Western Europe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
26.
EllinasA. A.SuleimanE. (2008). The European Commission and bureaucratic autonomy: Europe’s custodians. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
European Commission. (2010). Commission Work Programme 2010: Time to act communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (COM(2010) 135 final). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp2010_en.pdf
28.
GreenwoodJ. (2011). Interest representation in the European Union. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
HartlappM.MetzJ.RauhC. (2014). Which policy for Europe? Power and conflict inside the European Commission. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
HixS. (2008). Towards a partisan theory of EU politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 1254-1265.
31.
HoogheL. (2001). The European Commission and the integration of Europe: Images of governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HuberK.ShackletonM. (2013). Codecision: A practitioner’s view from inside the parliament. Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 1040-1055.
33.
KassimH.PetersonJ.BauerM. W.ConnolyS.DehousseR.HoogheL.ThompsonA. (2013). The European Commission of the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
35.
KreppelA. (1999). What affects the European parliament’s legislative influence? An analysis of the success of EP amendments. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37, 521-537.
36.
KreppelA. (2002). Moving beyond procedure: An empirical analysis of European parliament legislative influence. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 784-813.
37.
MarksG.HoogheL.BlankK. (1996). European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 341-378.
38.
McCombsM.ShawD. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58-67.
39.
MoravcsikA. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
40.
OsnabrueggeM. (2015). The European Commission and the implementation of its legislative programme. European Union Politics, 16, 241-261.
41.
PollackM. A. (1997). Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European community. International Organization, 51, 99-134.
42.
PollackM. A. (2003). The engines of European integration: Delegation, agency and agenda-setting in the EU. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
PoptchevaE. M. (2013). Policy and legislative evaluation in the EU (Library Briefing). Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament.
44.
PriestleyJ.SchollgenG.Peñalver-GarciaN. (2015). The making of a European president. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
PrincenS. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 21-38.
46.
PrincenS.RhinardM. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1119-1132.
47.
RaschB. E.TsebelisG. (2011). The role of governments in legislative agenda-setting. New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
RasmussenA. (2007). Channeling the commission’s right of initiative? Conditions for institutional change and stability. West European Politics, 30, 244-264.
49.
RasmussenA.RehC. (2013). The consequences of concluding codecision early: Trilogues and intra-institutional bargaining success. Journal of European Public Policy, 20, 1006-1024.
50.
RehC.HeritierA.BressanelliE.KoopC. (2013). The informal politics of legislation: Explaining secluded decision making in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1112-1142.
51.
Roederer-RynningC.GreenwoodJ. (2015). The culture of trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy, 22, 1148-1165.
52.
RomerT.RosenthalH. (1978). Political resource allocation, controlled agendas and the status quo. Public Choice, 33, 27-43.
53.
SaieghS. (2009). Political prowess or lady luck? Evaluating chief executives’ legislative success rates. Journal of Politics, 71, 1342-1356.
54.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s guide to democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt.
55.
SchmidtS. (2000). Only an agenda-setter? The European Commission’s power over the council of ministers. European Union Politics, 1, 37-61.
56.
ShepsleK. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27-59.
57.
ShepsleK.WeingastB. (1984). Uncovered sets and sophisticated outcomes with implications for agenda institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 49-74.
58.
SherringtonP. (2000). Shaping the policy agenda: Think tank activity in the European Union. Global Society, 14, 173-189.
59.
SlapinJ. B. (2014). Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union. European Union Politics, 15, 24-42.
60.
TallbergJ. (2003). The agenda-shaping powers of the EU council presidency. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 1-19.
61.
TholoniatL. (2009). The temporal constitution of the European Commission: A timely investigation. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 221-238.
62.
ThomsonR. (2011). Resolving the controversy in the European Union: Decision-making before and after enlargement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
ThomsonR.ArreguiJ.LeuffenD.CostelloR.CrossJ.HertzR.JensenT. (2012). A new dataset on decision-making in the European Union before and after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements (DEUII). Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 604-622.
64.
TsebelisG. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289-325.
65.
TsebelisG. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
TsebelisG. (2008). Thinking about the recent past and the future of the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46, 265-292.
67.
TsebelisG.AlemanE. (2005). Presidential conditional agenda-setting in Latin America. World Politics, 57, 396-420.
68.
TsebelisG.GarrettG. (1997). Agenda setting, vetoes and the European Union’s co-decision procedure. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(3), 74-92.
69.
TsebelisG.GarrettG. (2001). The institutional foundations of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the European Union. International Organization, 55, 357-390.
70.
TsebelisG.KreppelA. (1998). The history of conditional agenda-setting in European institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 33(1), 41-71.
71.
VarelaD. (2009). Just a lobbyist?European Union Politics, 10, 7-34.
72.
WesselsW. (2008). The European Council: A bigger club, a similar role? In BestE.ChristiansenT.SettembriP. (Eds.), The institutions of the enlarged European Union: Continuity and change (pp. 16-33). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
73.
WesselsW.HöingO. (2013). The European Commission’s position in the post- Lisbon institutional balance: Secretariat or partner to the European Council? In ChangM.MonarJ. (Eds.), The European Commission in the post-Lisbon era of crises (pp. 123-146). Brussels, Belgium: P.I.E.-Peter Lang, College of Europe Studies.
74.
WilleA. (2013). The normalization of the European Commission: Politics and bureaucracy in the EU executive. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
75.
WonkaA. (2008). Decision-making dynamics in the European Commission: Partisan, national or sectoral?Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 1145-1163.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
