This article investigates the impact of policy complexity on the duration of legislative negotiations in the European Union employing survival analysis. We conceptualize policy complexity as a three-dimensional construct encompassing structural, linguistic and relational components. Building on this conceptual framework, we measure the complexity of 889 Commission proposals published under the ordinary legislative procedure between 2009 and 2018. Controlling for institutional and political drivers of legislative duration identified by previous studies, we show that different types of policy complexity influence the duration of the decision-making process in the European Union to varying degrees, at different points in time and partially in unexpected ways. On a general level, our study highlights that developing a better understanding of the origins and consequences of policy complexity in the European Union is a key task for scholars of European integration.
AdamCHurkaSKnillC, et al. (2019) Policy Accumulation and the Democratic Responsiveness Trap.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2.
BentzCAlikaniotisDCysouwM, et al. (2017)
The entropy of words—Learnability and expressivity across more than 1000 languages. Entropy19: 275.
3.
BischofD. (2017)
New graphic schemes for Stata: Plotplain and plottig.The Stata Journal17: 748–759.
4.
BølstadJCrossJP (2016)
Not all treaties are created equal: The effects of treaty changes on legislative efficiency in the EU.JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies54: 793–808.
5.
BommaritoII MJKatzDM (2010)
A mathematical approach to the study of the United States code.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications389: 4195–4200.
6.
BourcierDMazzegaP (2007) Toward measures of complexity in legal systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Palo Alto, CA, 4–8 June 2007, pp. 211–215.
7.
Box-SteffensmeierJMZornCJ (2001)
Duration models and proportional hazards in political science.American Journal of Political Science45: 972–988.
8.
BrandsmaGJBlom-HansenJ (2017) Controlling the EU Executive?: The Politics of Delegation in the European Union.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
9.
DrünerDKlüverHMastenbroekE, et al. (2018)
The core or the winset? Explaining decision-making duration and policy change in the European Union.Comparative European Politics16: 271–289.
10.
FleschR. (1948)
A new readability yardstick.Journal of Applied Psychology32: 221–233.
11.
GolubJ (2006) Did the Luxembourg compromise have any consequences? In: PalayretJ-MWallaceHWinandP (eds) Visions, Votes and Vetoes: The Empty Chair Crisis and the Luxembourg Compromise Forty Years On.
Brussels:
P.I.E.-Peter Lang, pp. 279–300.
12.
GolubJ (2007)
Survival analysis and European Union decision-making.European Union Politics8: 155–179.
13.
GolubJSteunenbergB (2007)
How time affects EU decision-making.European Union Politics8: 555–566.
14.
HertzRLeuffenD (2011)
Too big to run? Analysing the impact of enlargement on the speed of EU decision-making.European Union Politics12: 193–215.
15.
JungeDKönigTLuigB (2015)
Legislative gridlock and bureaucratic politics in the European Union.British Journal of Political Science45: 777–797.
16.
KaedingM (2006)
Determinants of transposition delay in the European Union.Journal of Public Policy26: 229–253.
17.
KaplowL (1996)
How tax complexity and enforcement affect the equity and efficiency of the income tax. National Tax Journal49: 135–150.
18.
KatzDMBommaritoII M (2014)
Measuring the complexity of the law: The United States code.Artificial Intelligence and Law22: 337–374.
19.
KlüverHSagarzazuI. (2013)
Ideological congruency and decision-making speed: The effect of partisanship across European Union institutions.European Union Politics14: 388–407.
20.
KönigT (2007)
Divergence or convergence? From ever-growing to ever-slowing European legislative decision making.European Journal of Political Research46: 417–444.
21.
KousserT (2006)
The limited impact of term limits: Contingent effects on the complexity and breadth of laws.State Politics & Policy Quarterly6: 410–429.
22.
KreppelAOztasB (2017)
Leading the band or just playing the tune? Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission.Comparative Political Studies50: 1118–1150.
23.
Linzen T and Jaeger F (2014) Investigating the role of entropy in sentence processing. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACL Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 26 June 2014, pp. 10–18.
24.
MazzegaPBourcierDBouletR (2009) The network of French legal codes. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, New York, NY, 8–12 June 2009, pp. 236–237.
25.
NorthDC (1990)
A transaction cost theory of politics.Journal of Theoretical Politics2: 355–367.
26.
OsnabrüggeM (2015)
The European Commission and the implementation of its legislative programme.European Union Politics16: 241–261.
27.
RasmussenAToshkovD (2011)
The inter-institutional division of power and time allocation in the European Parliament.West European Politics34: 71–96.
28.
RasmussenAToshkovD (2013)
The effect of stakeholder involvement on legislative duration: Consultation of external actors and legislative duration in the European Union.European Union Politics14: 366–387.
29.
RehCHéritierABressanelliE, et al. (2013)
The informal politics of legislation: Explaining secluded decision making in the European Union.Comparative Political Studies46: 1112–1142.
30.
RuheC (2016)
Estimating survival functions after stcox with time-varying coefficients.The Stata Journal16: 867–879.
31.
RuheC (2018)
Quantifying change over time: Interpreting time-varying effects in duration analyses.Political Analysis26: 90–111.
32.
SchuckPH (1992)
Legal complexity: Some causes, consequences, and cures.Duke Law Journal42: 1–52.
33.
SchulzHKönigT (2000)
Institutional reform and decision-making efficiency in the European Union.American Journal of Political Science44: 653–666.
34.
ShannonCE (1948)
A mathematical theory of communication.Bell System Technical Journal27: 379–423.
35.
SlootTVerschurenP (1990)
Decision‐making speed in the European community.JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies29: 75–85.
36.
SteunenbergBRhinardM (2010)
The transposition of European law in EU member states: Between process and politics.European Political Science Review2: 495–520.
37.
ThomsonRArreguiJLeuffenD, et al. (2012)
A new dataset on decision-making in the European Union before and after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements (DEUII).Journal of European Public Policy19: 604–622.
38.
ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCH, et al. (2006) The European Union Decides.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ToshkovD (2008)
Embracing European law: Compliance with EU directives in Central and Eastern Europe.European Union Politics9: 379–402.
41.
ToshkovD (2017)
The impact of the Eastern enlargement on the decision-making capacity of the European Union.Journal of European Public Policy24: 177–196.
42.
TsebelisGGarrettG (2000)
Legislative politics in the European Union.European Union Politics1: 9–36.
43.
TullockG (1995)
On the desirable degree of detail in the law.European Journal of Law and Economics2: 199–209.
44.
VolkensAKrauseWLehmannP, et al. (2018) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2018b.
Berlin:
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
45.
WaltlBMatthesF (2014) Towards measures of complexity: Applying structural and linguistic metrics to German laws. In: Jurix: International conference on legal knowledge and information systems, Krakow, Poland, 2014, pp. 153–162.
46.
Waltl B and Matthes F (2015) Comparison of law texts: An analysis of German and Austrian legislation regarding linguistic and structural metrics. In: 18. Internationales Rechtsinformatik Symposium (IRIS), Salzburg, Austria, 26–28 February 2015.
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.
