Time choices are a neglected aspect of the bicameral bargaining literature, even though they may both affect the efficiency of decision-making and have broader democratic implications. An analytical framework is developed to explain when early conclusion occurs in the legislative process. Testing the main implications of this model on the co-decision procedure of the European Union, the results offer a more positive view of early agreements in this system than the existing literature. The findings show that these deals are unlikely to occur when the European Parliament is represented by agents with biased views of the overall legislature. The conventional wisdom that the character of the negotiated files plays a role in explaining whether legislative files are concluded early is also rejected. Instead, bargaining uncertainty and the impatience of the co-legislators matter.
Becker R. and Saalfeld T. ( 2004) The life and times of bills. In: Döring H and Hallerberg M (eds) Patterns of Parliamentary Behaviour. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 57-90.
2.
Brambor T., Clark WR and Golder M. ( 2006) Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis14(1): 63-82.
3.
Broscheid A. and Coen D. ( 2006) Lobbying systems in the European Union: a quantitative survey. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung , working paper 06/3.
4.
Carruba CJ, Gabel M., Murrah L., Clugh R., Montgomery E. and Schamback R. ( 2006) Off the record: Unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias, and roll-call vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science36(4): 691-704.
5.
Corbett R., Jacobs F. and Shackleton M. ( 2003) The European Parliament, 5th edn. London: John Harper.
6.
Corbett R., Jacobs F. and Shackleton M. ( 2005) The European Parliament, 6th edn. London: John Harper.
7.
Cortes C. ( 2000) Codecision: the recent developments. Unpublished manuscript, Brussels, General Secretariat of the Council.
8.
Crombez C. ( 2000) Codecision: Towards a bicameralEuropean Union. European Union Politics1(3): 363-381.
9.
Döring H. ( 1995) Institutions and policies: Why we need cross-national analysis. In: Doring H (ed.) Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. New York : St. Martin’s, 27-50.
10.
European Commission (1999a) Communication on the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The co-decision procedure, article251 CE. SEC(99)1083.
11.
European Commission (1999b) Codecision procedure, article 251, Guide to internal rules for the codecision procedure. SEC(99)1684.
12.
European Council (2004) Codecision guide. Unpublished internal Council document.
13.
European Parliament (2000) Delegations to the Conciliation Committee: Activity Report 1 May 1999 to 31 July 2000 .
14.
European Parliament (2002) Press statement from Joint conference European Parliament - Council - Commission on the operation of the codecision procedure, 4 and 5 November. European Parliament, Brussels, 8 November. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+PRESS+BI-20021108-1+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN .
15.
European Parliament (2003) Delegations to the Conciliation Committee: Activity Report 1 August 2002 to 31 July 2003 . PE 287.628.
16.
European Parliament (2004) Conciliations and codecision. A guide to how Parliament co-legislates. Unpublished internal EP document.
17.
Farrell H. and Héritier A. ( 2003) The invisible transformation of codecision: Problems of democratic legitimacy. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Report 2003, No. 7.
18.
Farrell H. and Héritier A. ( 2004) Interorganizational negotiation and intraorganizational power in shared decision making. Early agreements under codecision and their impact on the European Parliament and the Council. Comparative Political Studies37(10): 1184-1212.
19.
Golub J. ( 2007) Survival analysis and European Union decision-making. European Union Politics8(2): 155-179.
20.
Golub J. ( 2008) The study of decision-making speed in the European Union: Methods, data and theory. European Union Politics9(1): 167-179.
21.
Golub J. and Steunenberg B. ( 2007) How time affects EU decision-making. European Union Politics8(4): 555-566.
22.
Hausemer P. ( 2006) Participation and political competition in committee report allocation: Under what conditions do MEPs represent their constituents? European Union Politics7(4): 505-530.
23.
Hix S., Noury A. and Roland G. ( 2006) Dimensions of politics in theEuropean Parliament. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 494-511.
24.
Horn MJ ( 1995) The Political Economy of Public Administration: Institutional Choice in the Public Sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Hoyland B. ( 2006a) Government-opposition in bicameral negotiations: Decision-making in the European Union’s codecision procedure. European Parliament Research Group Working Paper No. 12.
26.
Hoyland B. ( 2006b) Allocation of codecision reports in the fifth European Parliament. European Union Politics7(1): 30-50.
27.
Jordan A., Brouwer R. and Noble E. ( 1999) Innovative and responsive? A longitudinal analysis of the speed of EU environmental policy making, 1967-97. Journal of European Public Policy6(3): 376-398.
28.
König T. ( 2007) Divergence or convergence? From ever-growing to ever-slowing European legislative decision-making. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 417-444.
29.
König T. ( 2008) Analysing the process of EU legislative decision-making: To make a long story short. European Union Politics9(1): 145-165.
30.
McElroy G. ( 2006) Committee representation in theEuropean Parliament. European Union Politics7(1): 5-29.
31.
Moe TM ( 1984) The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science28(4): 739-777.
32.
Norton EC, Wang H. and Ai C. ( 2004) Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal4(2): 154-167.
33.
Nugent N. ( 2006) The Government and Politics of the European Union. London: Macmillan.
34.
Nunyan T. ( 2007) Secret trilogues and the democratic deficit. Statewatch Viewpoint, September.
35.
Rasmussen A. ( 2005) EU conciliation delegates: Responsible or runaway agents ? West European Politics28(5): 1015-1034.
36.
Rasmussen A. and Shackleton M. ( 2005) The scope for action of European Parliament negotiators in the legislative process: Lessons of the past and for the future. Paper presented at the Ninth Biennial International Conference of the European Union Studies Association, Austin, TX, 31 March- 2 April 2005.
37.
Schulz H. and König T. ( 2000) Institutional reform and decision-making efficiency in theEuropean Union. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 653-666.
38.
Shackleton M. ( 2000) The politics of codecision. Journal of Common Market Studies38(2): 325-342.
39.
Shackleton M. ( 2004) The interinstitutional balance in the EU: What has happened since 1999? EUSA Review Forum17: 2-3.
40.
Shackleton M. and Raunio T. ( 2003) Co-decision since Amsterdam: A laboratory for institutional innovation and change. Journal of European Public Policy10(2): 171-187.
41.
Sloot M. and Verschuren P. ( 1990) Decision-making speed in theEuropean Community. Journal of Common Market Studies29(1): 75-85.
42.
Strom K. ( 2000) Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies . European Journal of Political Research37(3): 261-289.
43.
Tsebelis G. and Money J. ( 1997) Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Tsebelis G. and Rasch BE ( 2004) Patterns of bicameralism. In: Döring H and Hallerberg M (eds) Patterns of Parliamentary Behaviour. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 365-390.
45.
Yordanova N.(2009) The rationale behind committee assignment in the European Parliament: Distributive, informational and partisan perspectives. European Union Politics10(2): 253-280.
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.
