Utilizing a newly compiled data set, this article demonstrates that some election pledges made by the transnational Europarties are included among the European Commission priorities issued during the pre-legislative stage. The data set consists of 597 promises made by four transnational Europarties during the 2004 and 2009 European Parliament (EP) elections and of 698 subsequent Commission legislative intentions. Focusing on the time periods during the Barroso presidencies, the article’s findings suggest that (1) decision-making rules in the EP help us understand which transnational pledges are included in Commission priorities and (2) promises by two Europarties, such as the European People’s Party and the European Liberal and Democrat Party, are more likely to be considered by the Commission than those of other Europarties. Our results speak to scholarly debates on the place of the Europarties in the European Union inter-institutional relations and more broadly on the democratic legitimacy of the Union.
BacheI (2013) Measuring quality of life for public policy: an idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy20(1): 21–38.
2.
BailerS (2014) An agent dependent on the EU member states? The determinants of the European commission’s legislative success in the European Union. Journal of European Integration36(1): 37–53.
BastosF (2009) The role of European electoral programmes. In: GianniB (ed.) Democracy in the EU and the Role of European Parliament. Rome, Italy: Quaderni IAI, pp. 43–58.
5.
BocquillonPDobbelsM (2014) An elephant on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont? European council and commission relations in legislative agenda setting. Journal of European Public Policy21(1): 20–38.
6.
Boranbay-AkanSKönigTOsnabrüggeM (2017) The imperfect agenda-setter: Why do legislative proposals fail in the EU decision-making process?European Union Politics18(2): 168–187.
7.
BraunDMikhaylovSSchmittH (2010) European parliament election study 2009, manifesto study. GESIS data archive, cologne. ZA5057 Data file Version 1.0.0.
8.
ChristiansenT (2001) Intra-institutional politics and inter-institutional relations in the EU: Towards coherent governance?Journal of European Public Policy8(5): 747–769.
9.
CostelloRThomsonR (2013) The distribution of power among EU institutions: Who wins under codecision and why?Journal of European Public Policy20(7): 1025–1039.
10.
CrombezCHixS (2011) Treaty reform and the commission’s appointment and policy-making role in the European Union. European Union Politics12(3): 291–314.
11.
CrombezCSteunenbergBCorbettR (2000) Understanding the EU Legislative Process: political scientists’ and practioners’ perspectives. European Union Politics1(3): 363–381.
12.
DinanD (2014) Governance and institutions: the unrelenting rise of the European parliament. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies52: 109–124.
13.
EGP (2004) Europe can do better, you decide. Adopted 8 November 2003.
14.
EGP (2009) A green new deal for Europe. Adopted on 28–29 March, 2009.
15.
EgebergM (2006) Executive politics as usual: role behavior and conflict dimensions in the college of European commissioners. Journal of European Public Policy13(1): 1–15.
16.
EgebergMGornitzkaÅTrondalJ (2014) A Not so technocratic executive? Everyday interaction between the European parliament and the commission. West European Politics37(1): 1–18.
17.
ELDR (2004) European Parliament Elections Manifesto, Adopted 14 November 2013.
18.
ELDR (2009) European parliament elections manifesto, Adopted 31 October 2008.
19.
EPP (2004) Your majority in Europe. Adopted 4–5 February 2004.
20.
EPP (2009) EPP electoral manifesto. Adopted 29–30 April 2009.
21.
European Commission (2007) Legislative work programme: index of strategic and priority initiative roadmaps. Brussels: The European Commission.
22.
European Commission (2008) Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions.
23.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World Politics56(2): 194–223.
24.
HixSKreppelANouryA (2003) The party system in the European parliament: collusive or competitive?JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies41(2): 309–331.
25.
HixSNouryARolandG (2005) Power to the parties: cohesion and competition in the European parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science35(2): 209–234.
26.
JohanssonKM (2015) Europarties – a research note. ZEI (Center for European Integration Studies)Discussion Paper C231: 1–16.
27.
KardashevaR (2009) The power to delay: the European parliament’s influence in the consultation procedure. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies47(2): 385–409.
28.
KasackC (2004) The legislative impact of the European Parliament under the revised co-decision procedure: environmental, public health and consumer protection policies. European Union Politics5(2): 241–260.
29.
KassimHPetersonJBauerM, et al. (2013) The European Commission of the Twenty-First Century. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
KleineM (2018) Keeping tabs on your cooperating partners: a coalition perspective on international organizations. International Theory10(3): 350--373.
31.
KönigT (2008) Analysing the process of EU legislative decision-making: to make a long story short. European Union Politics9(1): 145–165.
32.
KostadinovaPGiurcanuM (2018) Capturing the legislative priorities of transnational Europarties and the European Commission: A pledge approach. European Union Politics19(2): 363–379.
33.
KreppelA (2002) The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
KreppelAOztasB (2017) Leading the band or just playing the tune? Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European commission. Comparative Political Studies50(8): 1118–1150.
35.
MarshallD (2015) Explaining interest group interactions with party group members in the European Parliament: dominant party groups and coalition formation. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies53(2): 311–329.
36.
MouryC (2011) Italian coalitions and electoral promises: assessing the democratic performance of the Prodi I and Berlusconi II governments. Modern Italy16(1): 35–50.
37.
NapelSWidgrenM (2007) The European Commission: Appointment, Preferences, and Institutional Relations. CESifo Working Paper Series 2120. CESifo Group Munich. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_2120.html (accessed 4 December 2017).
38.
OsnabrüggeM (2015) The European commission and the implementation of its legislative programme. European Union Politics16(2): 241–261.
39.
PES (2004) Growing stronger together. Adopted 24 April 2004.
40.
PES (2009) People first, a new direction for Europe.
41.
PollackM (1997) Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organization51(1): 99–134.
42.
RasmussenA (2007) Challenging the commission’s right of initiative? Conditions for institutional change and stability. West European Politics30(2): 244–264.
43.
RaunioT (2005) Towards an EU dominated by the centre-right? The European parliament after the 2004 elections. Representation41(4): 247–258.
44.
RingeN (2005) Government-opposition dynamics in the European Union: the Santer commission resignation crisis. European Journal of Political Research44(5): 671–696.
45.
RosénG (2016) A match made in heaven? Explaining patterns of cooperation between the commission and the European parliament. Journal of European Integration38(4): 409–424.
46.
SchmittH (2005) The European parliament elections of June 2004: still second order?West European Politics28(3): 650–679.
47.
SchmittHWüstA (2012) Euromanifestos Project (EMP) 1979 – 2004. GESIS data archive, cologne. ZA4457 Data file Version 1.0.0.
48.
SpenceD (2006) The president, the college and the cabinets. In: DavidSEdwardsG (eds) The European Commission. London: John Harper, pp. 25–74.
49.
ThomsonR (2008) National actors in international organizations: the case of the European commission. Comparative Political Studies41(2): 169–192.
50.
ThomsonRHosliM (2006) Who has power in the EU? The commission, council and parliament in legislative decision-making. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies44(2): 391–417.
51.
ThomsonRMouryCCostelloR, et al. (2017a) The conditional effect of ministerial portfolio allocation on the fulfillment of election pledges. In: Presented at the Midwest Political Science 75th Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, 6–9 April 2017.
52.
ThomsonRRoyedTNaurinE, et al. (2017b) The fulfillment of parties’ election pledges: a comparative study on the impact of power sharing. American Journal of Political Science61(3): 527–542.
53.
TsebelisGGarrettG (2000) Legislative politics in the European Union. European Union Politics1(1): 9–36.
54.
Van HeckeS (2010) Do transnational party federations matter? (…and why should we care?)Journal of European Contemporary Research6(3): 395–411.
55.
WilleA (2010) Political–bureaucratic accountability in the EU commission: modernising the executive. West European Politics33(5): 1093–1116.
56.
WilleA (2012) The politicization of the EU commission: democratic control and the dynamics of executive selection. International Review of Administrative Sciences78(3): 383–402.
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.
