This article analyzes how uncertainty about the location of the pivotal actor influences the outcome of Commission proposals. We argue that the Commission is an imperfect agenda-setter and expect that Commission proposals are more likely to fail when uncertainty increases in the bicameral legislature of the Council and the European Parliament. Considering all legislative acts decided under the co-decision procedure proposed in the period from November 1993 until December 2009, we focus on withdrawal of Commission proposals as failures. In the empirical analysis we distinguish between electoral and procedural uncertainty and provide evidence that both types of uncertainty explain withdrawal of Commission proposals.
Advocate General (2014) Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jääskinen delivered on 18 December 2014, Case C-409/13.
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.
3.
BølstadJCrossJP (2016) Not all treaties are created equal: The effects of treaty changes on legislative efficiency in the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies54(4): 793–808.
4.
BorghettoEMäderL (2014) EU law revisions and legislative drift. European Union Politics15(2): 171–191.
5.
BrandsmaGJ (2015) Co-decision after Lisbon: The politics of informal trilogues in European Union lawmaking. European Union Politics16(2): 300–319.
6.
CameronCM (2000) Veto bargaining. Presidents and the politics of negative power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CoombesD (1970) Politics and bureaucracy in the European Community, London: Allen & Urwin.
8.
CostelloRThomsonR (2013) The distribution of power among EU institutions: Who wins under codecision and why?Journal of European Public Policy20(7): 1025–1039.
9.
CrombezC (1996) Legislative procedures in the European Community. British Journal of Political Science26(2): 199–228.
10.
CrombezC (1997) The co-decision procedure in the European Union. Legislative Studies Quarterly22(1): 97–119.
11.
CrombezC (2000) Institutional reform and co-decision in the European Union. Constitutional Political Economy11(1): 41–57.
12.
CrombezCGrosecloseTKrehbielK (2006) Gatekeeping. Journal of Politics68(2): 322–334.
13.
CrombezCHixS (2011) Treaty reform and the Commission’s appointment and policy-making role in the European Union. European Union Politics12(3): 291–314.
14.
CrombezCHixS (2015) Legislative activity and gridlock in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science45(3): 477–499.
15.
CrombezCVangervenP (2014) Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement. European Union Politics15(2): 289–308.
16.
DenzauAMackayR (1983) Gatekeeping and monopoly power of committees: An analysis of sincere and sophisticated behavior. American Journal of Political Science27(4): 740–761.
17.
DöringH (1995) Time as a scarce resource: Government control of the agenda. In: DöringH (ed.) Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, pp. 223–246.
18.
Döring H and Manow P (2012) Parliament and government compositions database (ParlGov): An infrastructure for empirical information on parties, elections and governments in modern democracies.
19.
DrünerDKlüverHMastenbroekESchneiderG (2016) The core or the winset? Explaining decision-making duration and policy change in the European Union. Comparative European Politics. Epub ahead of print 11 January 2016. DOI: 10.1057/cep.2015.26.
20.
European Court of Justice (2015) Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber), 14 April 2015, Case C409/13.
21.
European Parliament and European Commission (2010) Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission. Official Journal of the European UnionL304: 47–62.
22.
FortunatoDKönigTProkschSO (2013) Government agenda-setting and bicameral conflict resolution. Political Research Quarterly66(4): 938–951.
23.
FranchinoFMariottoC (2013) Explaining negotiations in the conciliation committee. European Union Politics14(3): 345–365.
24.
GarrettGTsebelisG (1996) An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism. International Organization50(2): 269–299.
25.
GilliganTWKrehbielK (1989) Asymmetric information and legislative rules with a heterogeneous committee. American Journal of Political Science33(2): 459–490.
26.
GolubJ (2007) Survival analysis and the European Union decision-making. European Union Politics8(2): 155–179.
27.
HägeFM (2011) The European Union policy-making dataset. European Union Politics12(3): 455–477.
28.
Häge FM and Toshkov D (2011) Anticipating resistance: The effect of member state preferences on the European Commission’s agenda-setting activity. Working paper, Limerick Papers in Politics and Public Administration. Available at: http://www.ul.ie/ppa/content/files/working-papers/772182972.pdf (accessed 5 August 2016).
29.
HansenVW (2014) Incomplete information and bargaining in the EU: An explanation of first-reading non-agreements. European Union Politics15(4): 472–495.
30.
HartlappMMetzJRauhC (2014) Which policy for Europe? Power and conflict inside the European Commission, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
HertzRLeuffenD (2011) Too big to run? Analysing the impact of enlargement on the speed of EU decision-making. European Union Politics12(2): 193–215.
32.
HixS (2002) Constitutional agenda-setting through discretion in rule interpretation: Why the European Parliament won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 259–280.
33.
HixSHøylandB (2011) The political system of the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
JungeDKönigTLuigB (2015) Legislative gridlock and bureaucratic politics in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science45(4): 777–797.
35.
KalandrakisT (2006) Proposal rights and political power. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 441–448.
36.
KassimHPetersonJBauerMW (2013) The European Commission of the twenty-first century, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
Kleine M and Thomson R (2014) Domestic elections and the timing of international decisions. Working Paper.
38.
KlüverHSagarzazuI (2013) Ideological congruency and decision-making speed: The effect of partisanship across European Union institutions. European Union Politics14(3): 388–407.
39.
KönigTLuigB (2012) Party ideology and legislative agendas: Estimating contextual policy positions for the study of EU decision-making. European Union Politics13(4): 604–625.
40.
KönigTMarbachMOsnabrüggeM (2013) Estimating party positions across countries and time - A dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis21(4): 468–491.
41.
KreppelAOztasB (2016) Leading the band or just playing the tune? Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission. Comparative Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 20 September 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0010414016666839..
42.
McCartyN (1997) Presidential reputation and the veto. Economics and Politics9(1): 1–26.
43.
MoserP (1996) The European Parliament as a conditional agenda setter: What are the conditions? A critique of Tsebelis (1994). American Political Science Review90(4): 834–838.
44.
NugentN (2001) The European Commission, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
OsnabrüggeM (2015) The European Commission and the implementation of its legislative programme. European Union Politics16(2): 241–261.
46.
PonzanoPHermaninCCoronaD (2012) The power of initiative of the European Commission: A progressive erosion?Notre Europe Studies & Research89.
47.
R Core Team (2007) logit: Logistic regression for dichotomous dependent variables. In: Choirat C, Honaker J, Imai K, King G and Lau O, Zelig: “Everyone’s Statistical Software”. Available at: http://zeligproject.org/.
48.
RehCHéritierABressanelliEKoopC (2013) The informal politics of legislation. Explaining secluded decision making in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies46(9): 1112–1142.
49.
RomerRRosenthalH (1978) Political resource allocation, controlled agendas and the status quo. Public Choice33(4): 27–43.
50.
RomerRRosenthalH (1979) Bureaucrats versus voters: On the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics93(4): 563–587.
51.
SaieghSM (2011) Ruling by statute: How uncertainty and vote buying shape lawmaking, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SchmidtSK (2000) Only an agenda setter? The European Commission’s power over the Council of Ministers. European Union Politics1(1): 37–61.
53.
SchulzTKönigT (2000) Institutional reform and decision-making efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 653–666.
54.
SteunenbergB (1994) Decision making under different institutional arrangements: Legislation by the European Community. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics150(4): 642–669.
55.
SteunenbergB (1997) Codecision and its reform. A comparative analysis of decision making rules in the European Union. In: SteunenbergBvan VughtF (eds) Political institutions and public policy. Perspectives on European decision making, New York: Springer, pp. 205–229.
56.
ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCHKönigT (2006) The European Union decides, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
TsebelisG (1994) The power of the European Parliament as a conditional agenda setter. American Political Science Review88(1): 128–142.
58.
TsebelisG (1996) More on the European Parliament as a conditional agenda setter: Response to Moser. American Political Science Review90(4): 839–844.
59.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto players: How political institutions work, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
TsebelisGGarrettG (2000) Legislative politics in the European Union. European Union Politics1(1): 9–36.
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.
