This study tests three hypotheses on factors driving the success and failure of amendments in the European Parliament’s ENVI committee. The hypotheses, which are derived from different theories of legislative organization, are tested with an original dataset containing 550 amendments from 55 ENVI members. Contrary to existing empirical evidence on the structure of political conflict in plenary, the results suggest that a committee member’s general ideological orientation on the left-right dimension is not decisive for his prospects to change the committee output. Instead, it seems like ENVI members with ties to green interest groups play a greater role in the formulation of environmental policies than committee members without comparable affiliations. Finally, the empirical evidence indicates that rapporteurs are only rarely challenged successfully by competing amendments. However, they are often willing to accept compromises.
AttináF (1990) The voting behaviour of the European Parliament members and the problem of the Europarties. European Journal of Political Research18(5): 557–579.
2.
BenedettoG (2005) Rapporteurs as legislative entrepreneurs: The dynamics of the codecision procedure in Europe’s Parliament. Journal of European Public Policy12(1): 67–88.
3.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies, London: Routledge.
4.
BouwenP (2004) The logic of access to the European Parliament: Business lobbying in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Journal of Common Market Studies42(3): 473–495.
5.
BowlerSFarrellDM (1995) The organizing of the European Parliament: Committees, specialization and co-ordination. British Journal of Political Science25(2): 219–243.
6.
BurnsCCarterNWorsfoldN (2012) Enlargement and the environment: The changing behaviour of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies50(1): 54–70.
7.
CarrubbaCJGabelMMurrahL (2006) Off the record: Unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias and roll-call vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science36(4): 691–704.
8.
CostelloRThomsonR (2010) The policy impact of leadership in committees: Rapporteurs’ influence on the European Parliament’s opinions. European Union Politics11(2): 219–240.
FarrellHHéritierA (2004) Interorganizational negotiation and intraorganizational power in shared decision making – early agreements under co-decision and their impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies37(10): 1184–1212.
11.
Finke D (2012) Proposal stage coalition-building in the European Parliament. European Union Politics 13(4): 487–512.
12.
GilliganTWKrehbielK (1990) Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 531–564.
13.
HausemerP (2006) Participation and political competition in committee report allocation. European Union Politics7(4): 505–530.
14.
HixS (2002) Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 688–698.
15.
HixSKreppelANouryA (2003) The party system in the European Parliament: Collusive or competitive?Journal of Common Market Studies41(2): 309–331.
16.
HixSNouryA (2009) After enlargement: Voting patterns in the sixth European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(2): 159–174.
17.
HixSNouryARolandG (2007) Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichA (2010) Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 687–703.
19.
HoylandB (2006) Allocation of codecision reports in the fifth European Parliament. European Union Politics7(1): 30–50.
20.
Hurka S (2012) Changing the Output – Determinants of Legislative Influence in the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee. Saarbrücken: Akademikerverlag.
21.
HurkaSKaedingM (2012) Report allocation in the European Parliament after eastern enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy19(4): 512–529.
22.
KaedingM (2004) Rapporteurship allocation in the European Parliament – information or distribution?European Union Politics5(3): 353–371.
23.
KaedingM (2005) The world of committee reports: Rapporteurship assignment in the European Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies11(1): 82–104.
24.
KrehbielK (1990) Are congressional committees composed of preference outliers?The American Political Science Review84(1): 149–163.
25.
KrehbielK (1991) Information and Legislative Organization, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
KreppelA (1999) What affects the European Parliament’s legislative influence? An analysis of the success of EP amendments. Journal of Common Market Studies37(3): 521–538.
27.
KreppelATsebelisG (1999) Coalition formation in the European Parliament. Comparative Political Studies32(8): 933–966.
28.
LandisJRKochGG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33(1): 159–174.
29.
LindgrenKOPerssonT (2008) The structure of conflict over EU chemicals policy. European Union Politics9(1): 31–58.
30.
LongSFreeseJ (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
31.
MamadouhVRaunioT (2003) The committee system: Powers, appointments and report allocation. Journal of Common Market Studies41(2): 333–351.
32.
MarshallD (2010) Who to lobby and when: Institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament committees. European Union Politics11(4): 553–575.
33.
MayhewDR (1975) Congress: The electoral connection, Yale: Yale University Press.
34.
McElroyG (2006) Committee representation in the European Parliament. European Union Politics7(1): 5–29.
35.
McElroyGBenoitK (2010) Party policy and group affiliation in the European Parliament. British Journal of Political Science40(2): 377–398.
36.
Neuhold C (2001) The “legislative backbone” keeping the institution upright? The role of European Parliament committees in the EU policy-making process. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 5(10). Available at: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2001-010.pdf (accessed May 2012).
37.
NortonECWangHAiC (2004) Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal4(2): 154–167.
38.
ProkschSOLoJ (2012) Reflections on the European integration dimension. European Union Politics13(2): 317–333.
39.
PutnamRD (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization42(3): 427–460.
40.
RasmussenA (2008) The EU Conciliation Committee: One or several principals?European Union Politics9(1): 87–113.
41.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–45.
42.
SchellingTC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
43.
ScullyRM (1998) MEPs and the building of a ‘Parliamentary Europe’. The Journal of Legislative Studies4(3): 92–108.
44.
SettembriPNeuholdC (2009) Achieving consensus through committees: Does the European Parliament manage?Journal of Common Market Studies47(1): 127–151.
45.
ShepsleKAWeingastBR (1987) Why are congressional committees powerful?American Political Science Review81(4): 935–945.
46.
SlapinJProkschS (2010) Look who’s talking: Parliamentary debate in the European Union. European Union Politics11(3): 333–357.
47.
ThiemJ (2009) Nationale Parteien im Europäischen Parlament – Delegation, Kontrolle und politischer Einfluss, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
48.
TsebelisGKalandrakisA (1999) The European Parliament and environmental legislation: The case of chemicals. European Journal of Political Research36(1): 119–154.
49.
WhitakerR (2001) Party control in a committee-based legislature? The case of the European Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies7(4): 63–88.
50.
WhitakerR (2005) National parties in the European Parliament: An influence in the committee system?European Union Politics6(1): 5–28.
51.
YoshinakaAMcElroyGBowlerS (2010) The appointment of rapporteurs in the European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly35(4): 457–486.
52.
YordanovaN (2009) The rationale behind committee assignment in the European Parliament – distributive, informational, and partisan perspectives. European Union Politics10(2): 253–280.
53.
YordanovaN (2013) Organizing the European Parliament: Committees' Role and Legislative Influence, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester: ECPR Press.
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.
