Abstract
ABSTRACT European Parliament hearings are a core mechanism of oversight of EU agencies, largely understudied in extant literature. Drawing on a unique dataset of hand-coded minutes of 1314 meetings held by the 12 parliamentary parent committees of EU agencies, we investigate how the EP deploys hearings in its account-holding role. We are guided in our investigation by the influential framework of ‘police patrol’ vs. ‘fire alarm’ oversight. The framework suggests legislators should prefer cost-effective fire alarm (reactive and event-driven) oversight over police patrol (proactive and routine) oversight. However, the corollary of such preferences might be that mundane (yet potentially crucial) aspects of agencies’ operations fail to capture parliamentary attention. The topic is highly relevant from a democratic accountability perspective, especially as empirical literature on the EP’s use of its other oversight tools points to systematic underuse. Our findings indicate that although more police patrol hearings are executed, MEPs show higher interest in fire alarm hearings as these pertain to more salient issues. This constitutes both good and bad news. While the EP conducts more hearings than formally mandated, the salience-driven nature of MEP interest underscores the need for ongoing vigilance in ensuring that non-salient issues and agencies do not escape oversight.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call