European Union Decision-making Research Articles

Roll call votes in the committees of the European Parliament: A new dataset

This forum article presents a new dataset on roll call votes in the committees of the European Parliament in the 2014 to 2019 legislative term. Data on roll call votes in the plenary has greatly informed research on the functioning of the European Parliament, broader legislative politics and European Union decision-making. Responding to transparency concerns about legislative decisions increasingly taken at committee level, a change of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure introduced mandatory roll calls in committees from 2014. The article explains the context of the rule change, the data collection effort, and the data as such. A discussion of conflict across committees, party group cohesion and participation in roll call votes illustrates potential applications of the data.

From fringe to front? Assessing the voting influence of the radical right in the European Parliament

Scholars have long believed that the influence of radical right parties in the European Parliament was indirect due to their internal heterogeneity, limited involvement in parliamentary activities, and the existence of a cordon sanitaire. However, the consolidation of these parties, marked by the Identity and Democracy group becoming the fourth largest group in 2019, raises concerns about their impact on European Union decision-making. This article seeks to understand the extent and conditions under which the radical right group in the European Parliament can influence policymaking. By analysing roll-call votes from the 9th term (2019 to 2024), we introduce a measure of voting influence, operationalised as the ability of a party group to sway the outcome of a vote in plenary. Our analysis reveals that while the radical right group frequently joins winning majorities in the European Parliament, its voting influence remains limited because of the low levels of conflict in plenary.

Beyond the North–South divide: transnational coalitions in EU reforms

ABSTRACT The literature on fifteen years of European crises leaves the reader with a puzzle. Prominent accounts of the longest crisis – that of the euro area (EA) – assert that the EA is deeply divided between North and South, with Central Eastern European (CEE) member states being ignored. This makes it hard to explain how the union has managed to reform since 2008 and especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Scholars have started to talk of transnational coalitions, but they equate coalition-formation with bringing together the like-minded, typically over solidarity versus sovereignty and more or less integration. However, coalitions of the like-minded are typically too small to sustain reforms and compromise has to be sought with others who have different preferences. To establish empirically how stable or fluid transnational coalitions are, we exploit the EMU|Choices database (Wasserfallen, Leuffen, Kudrna, and Degner 2019) [Analysing European Union decision-making during the Eurozone crisis with new data. European Union Politics, 20 (1), 3–23] on EA reforms and our own original data on Covid-19 reforms. Our findings show a stable pattern but no geopolitical divide – coalitions have varying CEE members. These findings can provide a basis for developing a more plausible conceptualisation of transnational coalitions.

Reconceptualising the EU-member states relationship in the age of permanent emergency

AbstractSince 2008, the European Union (EU) has been engulfed in several crises. While distinct, these crises are feeding into each other and are testing the capacity and resilience of EU and member states, bringing forward common policy questions and new forms of cooperation. The permanent character of this state of crisis has made analysts talk about our times as the age of permacrisis. As a result, a trend towards a new mode of ‘coordinative Europeanization’ in EU decision-making has been observed since the Covid-19 crisis. In this paper we first define the new mode of coordinative Europeanization and outline its key features. We argue that the recent crises have altered the EU member states’ relationship in pursuit of fast policy responses. We analyse the reasons behind this changing relationship as well as the possible avenues it may take. We then discuss the challenges caused by coordinative Europeanization and how it relates to pre-existing de-Europeanization tendencies. We close the paper with an analysis of the significance of our findings and we propose new avenues for research.

How backsliding governments keep the European Union hospitable for autocracy: Evidence from intergovernmental negotiations

AbstractThe European Union (EU) is a democratic organization but faces severe cases of democratic backsliding. The literature deems the EU a hospitable environment for and reluctant to reign in backsliding. This study focuses on the tactics that backsliding governments employ to preserve this hospitable environment and the conditions under which they succeed. I argue that backsliding governments seek to repurpose the practice of accommodation that permeates EU decision-making for the protection of their backsliding projects. Doing so promises backsliders an escape from their precarious bargaining position in a democratic organization but comes with constraints. Backsliders must limit opposition carefully to a subset of EU competences, backsliding-inhibiting competences, that threaten their backsliding projects the most. Moreover, they can only rely on accommodation in the Council if the democratic member states perceive opposition as justified and remain insulated from political accountability by Europe’s parliaments. I present evidence based on quantitative and qualitative analyses of bargaining positions, processes, and outcomes in EU decision-making. The results have implications for understanding the EU’s autocratic predicament, the opportunities of backsliding governments, and the role of autocracies in regional and international organizations.

Slavkov Triangle as a Minilateral Grouping Within the European Union: A Quantitative Analysis

By taking the main aspirations of the minilateralism as a theoretical framework, this research aims to investigate the origins and prospects of the Slavkov Triangle, which was initiated as a new regional platform between Austria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia in 2015. The main motivation of the grouping has been to enhance the cooperation of these States in various areas, ranging from energy security, transport infrastructure, youth employment and cross-border relations to the social dimension of European integration. The regional platform was regarded as problematic as an alternative to the Visegrad cooperation, since it would imply the isolation of Hungary and Poland. Forming a response to these inquiries, this article aims to find out whether the Slavkov Triangle presents a new, sustainable and alternative central European format. In this respect, the focal point of the research is to answer the question whether the Slavkov Triangle fits theoretically to the traditional ‘minilateral’ grouping definition within the European Union (EU). To reveal whether the members of the Triangle have adopted a concrete joint position in EU decision-making, this paper examines the voting patterns of the members of the Triangle by conducting a quantitative analysis of the voting record of the members of the Triangle in the Council of the EU. The empirical analysis will show the degree to which these countries vote together as a minilateral group. The time frame is designated in two-time spans. The first time span focuses on the time between 2010 and 2015, while the second time span covers voting records from 2015 (the beginning of the initiative) until 2022 November (the most recent date of the voting data that is publicly available). This would help grasp the comparative case basis of voting records of these member states before and after the Triangle. In this way, the current study empirically contributes to the burgeoning scholarly literature on regional groupings within the EU.

Multi-Criteria-Based Optimization Model for Sustainable Mobility and Transport

This paper deals with problems of freight transport sustainability from the perspective of four key factors: greenhouse gas production, fossil fuel dependence, congestion, and accident rates. It is based on the results of the FreightVision project, in which the author participated as a researcher and member of the design team. The aim was to develop a set of 35 recommendations to serve as a tool for European Union decision-making in transport policy matters at the highest level. The developed measures were prioritized, and a list of individual recommendations was drawn up according to their potentials. Then, the set of measures was processed using multi-criteria analysis tools, and these results were compared with the original list using comparative analysis to identify differences between the two approaches. The contribution of this work is the development of a methodology for evaluating the traffic measures according to their priorities and, at the same time, the verification of the empirical results thus obtained with the results that were the output of the mathematical processing. This work fills a research gap in a similar problem area by working with specific measures systematically developed for the purposes of analysis; these results are used to formulate recommendations for the European Commission whose policy decisions should lead to an increased level of freight transport sustainability.

Designing successful agri-environmental schemes: A mechanistic analysis of a collective scheme for eco-system services in the Netherlands

In response to the challenges posed by the fragmentation of habitats and loss of native biodiversity, climate change adaptation and mitigation, diverse agri-environmental measures have been initiated across the European Union (EU) with the aim of fostering agricultural ecosystem service delivery. Previous studies adopting a governance perspective have identified various determinants of successful agri-environmental measures. However, the explanatory value of these studies is limited as the causal processes through which context and scheme design affect implementation success remain grey -boxed. This article uses a mechanism-based approach to uncover the causal processes that underlie actions and interactions within agri-environmental governance arrangements and provides insights into the role the interplay between context and scheme design plays in the successful implementation of agri-environmental measures. The empirical focus is the governance of a successful collective agri-environmental scheme in the Netherlands. In opening the grey box of the causal mechanisms that link contextual and scheme design with their results, the paper applies theory building process tracing methods. Results show that implementation success in the case is explained by the interplay between social learning and trust-building mechanisms. We argue that EU and domestic decision-makers aiming to improve the contribution of agri-environmental measures to climate change adaptation and mitigation must consider the contextual conditions that facilitate increased cooperation between stakeholders and, ultimately, successful implementation of measures.

Critical discourse analysis of hate speech from a linguistic perspective

The present study is concerned with the analysis of hate speech – an offensive discourse, which is harmful to democracy and to the members of targeted groups and/or individuals, whose inherent characteristics or public image is threatened. It seems reasonable to assume that the democratic and peace-loving world has been astounded by the offensive language often used by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a NATO leader and a representative of a European Union (EU) member state. Therefore, a speech by Hungarian Prime Minister V. Orbán (2022) delivered at the Bálványos Free Summer University and Student Camp on 23 July 2022, with an approximate research corpus of 9 000 words, has been selected as an object of the linguistic study. This speech has been referred to as a “racist tirade” (Coakley 2022), and European Parliament political group leaders have condemned his “openly racist declarations”, breaching the EU values (EU Parliament Press Room 2022), to mention but a few reactions to the speech. This is even more alarming at present in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, when Prime Minister V. Orbán’s pro-Russian stance subverts the EU’s fundamental values and hinders the EU decision-making process. The study employed InfraNodus and Wmatrix methodology for the thematic analysis, the analysis of keyness at the word, part of speech and semantic domain level focusing on the three aspects of discursive proximization that provide for the discussion on the ideological schism in the discourse space. The results of a micro-linguistic level study of the speech indicate that from the perspective of its form, the hate speech under analysis demonstrates Prime Minister V. Orbán’s rather uncompromising stance towards the events being referred to, as well as his attitude towards the prospective action, which might be taken by the target audience. As a result, the qualitative research findings demonstrate that the hate speech under analysis exhibits the features of offensive discourse, created by means of context-dependent linguistic realizations.

Disparities in the level of regional technical infrastructure development in Poland: multicriteria analysis

Research background: The development policy currently promoted by the European Union is focused on the use of the territory?s internal resources. Among the factors affecting regional development, by building its potential, infrastructure, being a basic necessity for developing activity in a given area, is of significant importance. Hence, investment in infrastructure is critical to stimulating economic dynamism, as it is the basis for supporting a variety of measures aimed at economic growth. Purpose of the article: This paper aims to evaluate the level of development of technical infrastructure and changes taking place in this field in Polish voivodeships in 2008 and 2020. Methods: The study was carried out using the Hellwig development pattern method and a comparative analysis of the technical infrastructure of Polish regions. The above approach makes it possible to measure the diversity of the state and availability of infrastructure for the communities of the regions. Findings & value added: While implementing the study aim, particular attention was paid to the spatial differences in the level of development of the technical infrastructure of Polish voivodeships. The analysis enabled to distinguish groups of voivodeships with the highest, high, low, and very low level of technical infrastructure development. From a long-term perspective, the conducted research can be seen as a contribution to existing research and serve to further compare the impact of technical infrastructure on the economic development of countries. The strength of the study is the adequately long time span of the analysis (2008 ? the period of the financial crisis and 2020 ? the COVID 2019 pandemic), which provides a basis for the formation of the infrastructure in question. The added value of the article is also a regional perspective on the level of development of technical infrastructure using multidimensional methods of statistical analysis. The results of the study can be used to make decisions at the national level regarding the retrofitting of infrastructure in regions with a low level of infrastructure development. For the European Union's decision-makers they can be a source of knowledge of where to direct EU funds the purpose of which is the infrastructural development of regions.

Spanish public image of the EU regional policy

The article is devoted to the analysis of the perception of European integration and the regional policy of the European Union (EU) among the citizens of modern Spain. Particular attention is paid to the comparison of periods before the COVID-19 pandemic (2019) and after it (October 2021). The purpose of this paper is to identify the opinion of Spanish society on the EU regional policy. The first part of the article presents the analytical framework of the study. The second part describes its methodology. The third part analyzes the opinion polls in Spain, conducted by Eurobarometer. According to the Eurobarometer database, on the one hand, the author notes despite the pandemic, citizens positively assess the impact of the European Union bodies on their everyday life. On the other hand, the pandemic has shown that the states are key actors in the EU decision-making process. The initiative to shape the development of the EU's regional policy still belongs to the Member States, but not to the regions and/or supranational bodies. The scientific significance of the article is that the results of Eurobarometer public opinion polls are generalized. This is the first time when this approach has been used in the study of this topic.

Restrictive or expansive? European Investment Bank's challenge to equipoise climate finance with post-pandemic boost

PurposeUnique among European Union (EU) economic governance entities and multilateral banks, the European Investment Bank (EIB) possesses a dual nature, as an EU body and a bank. The EIB has been ever evolving to adapt to policy and market developments and to reflect the geo-economic landscape. In 2019, in association with the EU's Green Deal, the bank announced its metamorphosis into a “Climate Bank,” ending its fossil fuel lending after 2021. Additionaly, upon the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its attendant health and economy crisis, EU decision-makers have solicited the bank to support both urgent needs for tackling and countering the spread of the disease and the post-pandemic economic recovery. Nevertheless, devastated economic actors in need of assistance fall within many sectors, including some less green ones.Design/methodology/approachThis article is grounded on agency theory for developing a generic stakeholder framework, which is then subsequently applied in investigating the EIB, in interaction with its main stakeholders.FindingsThis article investigates the EIB stakeholders in pursuing these two seemingly contradictory objectives of exclusively restricting its activity to green funding and expanding its action for achieving a broad impact in the real economy. By exploring this tension, the article argues that by prioritizing the post-COVID restart, the EIB risks to deviate from its strict green commitment.Practical implicationsThe analysis of the EIB's divergent stakeholder stances demonstrates some ambivalence in future EIB activity in an effort to equipoise climate finance with a post-pandemic boost. The same ambivalence might equally occur with other major economic governance actors. The stakeholder framework developed and applied in the case of the EIB can be useful for studying also the stakeholder dynamics of other organizations.Social implicationsThe analysis demonstrates a tension between selective climate-related funding for “building back better” and the need for a wide broaching of countercyclical stimulus, with implications for economic and social actors alike.Originality/valueThe approach is novel, as it develops a new analytical framework for understanding stakeholder dynamics and tests it empirically on the EIB. This constitutes the first study of EIB stakeholder management.

A scoping review of the EU's impact on access to medicines in low- and middle-income countries

The European Union (EU) has a potential major influence on patients' global access to medicines. Historically, this influence most notably came through the EU's trade and aid agendas that intentionally targeted foreign markets. Now, the EU's own internal pharmaceutical policy appears to indirectly shape global access to medicines (ex. EU's large-scale Covid-19 vaccine procurement and export bans). To understand the ways the EU's internal and external policies impact on global access to medicines, this Scoping Review synthesises evidence of the EU's global regulatory influence and its impacts on access to medicines in non-EU low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). By searching 8 databases and grey literature, documents published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or Russian between 1995-2021 that addressed an EU law, regulation, or policy in relation to access to medicines in LMICs were included. This review identifies three mechanisms through which EU action impacts on medicines in LMICs. One, the EU's external, treaty-based agreements with LMICs can affect their pharmaceutical trade, sales, and use. Two, EU's internal market regulation, standards, and methods are used as models or sources of inspiration for pharmaceutical governance in LMICs. Three, ‘soft' forms of EU influence manifest through the EU's technical assistance, its research and development (aid) funding, and its ‘capacity building' activities towards LMIC actors in the field of pharmaceuticals. Examples of impacts of EU action ranged from the development of new medicines primarily for LMICs, to changes in the availability of generics and on medicines spending in LMICs, and the potential for a more efficient yet less autonomous local market approval process. Most evidence of impact was not peer reviewed. This study raises the question of how to support resilient and efficient global pathways for drug development and regulation while still being responsive and accountable to the local public interest.Key messages There are 3 mechanisms through which EU action impacts on medicines in LMICs: treaty-based agreements, EU internal market regulation, and ‘soft' EU influence.EU decision makers need a reliable understanding of how the EU’s internal and external policies impact on pharmaceuticals globally.

Emotions in the European Union's decision-making: the reform of the Dublin System in the context of the refugee crisis

The European Union's decision-making process has mostly been pictured as a technocratic and consensual process with little or no place for the logics of passion. The reform of the Dublin System in the wake of the refugee crisis (2015–16) has been analyzed from different angles but not from a political psychology perspective in which emotions are fully taken into account. Crises are often seen as a window of opportunity because key players engage in a strategic process of sense-making. This article explores the role of emotions in this process: to what extent do emotions – seen via crisis-framing processes – contribute to the understanding of the reform of the Dublin System? To this purpose, I show first how emotions are related to crisis-framing efforts. Second, I discuss how the study of emotions contributes to the understanding of decision-making processes. I carry out a critical-frame analysis illustrated by a systematic qualitative content analysis of primary documentation. Data include European Parliament debates on the topic of the refugee crisis (covering also the points of view of the Commission and the Council), and policy documents and speeches by the main actors in the decision-making process, including relevant member states and non-governmental organizations.

Resilient Institutions: The Impact of Rule Change on Policy Outputs in European Union Decision-Making Processes

The evolution of the inter-institutional balance of powers has been a constant feature of the European integration process. Therefore, this thematic issue reopens these theoretical and empirical discussions by looking at an underexploited angle of research, namely the impact of rule change on policy outputs. We offer a discussion on how to theorise rule change, actors’ behaviour, and their impact on policy outputs. We also examine the links between theory and methods, noting the strengths and weaknesses of different methods for the study of institutional and policy change. We draw on the contributions of this thematic issue to delineate further paths to push forward the current frontiers in EU decision-making research.

Socio-economic Governance in the EU

This paper focuses on the complexity of socio-economic governance in the European Union. We define socio-economic governance as the process of governing societies in a situation where no single actor can claim absolute dominance thus socio-economic governance is the outcome of the interaction between European Union institutions (European Union decision-makers) and member states (national policy-makers). Since the onset of the global financial crisis and the euro crisis a decade ago, social issues have become substantially prominent in EU governance and policy debate. Furthermore, the Covid-19 crisis brought again social issues to the fore. There is no dedicated social governance framework in the European Union but there are several mechanisms (strategies, initiatives and regulations) through which social governance is practiced. At the same time, the framework for European economic governance has substantially been strengthened as a consequence of the global financial crisis and the euro crisis and can be characterised by a matured but incomplete framework. On the one hand, this paper aims to collect and investigate all governance tools related to economic and social issues in the European Union, and on the other hand, this research examines the impacts of those governance tools on member states.

Speaking on Europe’s behalf: EU discourses of representation during the refugee crisis

ABSTRACT This article aims to understand the lack of consensus at the European Union (EU) level during the refugee crisis based on the discursive polarization of the main governmental and institutional actors involved in decision-making. Drawing on de Wilde’s representative claims analysis, the goal is to trace competing claims of representation made on ‘Europe’s behalf’ by multiple actors claiming to defend EU values or the interests of citizens. The analysis covers Politico Europe articles published during 2015–16, capturing the height of the crisis. The findings illustrate the self-understandings of actors on a humanitarian-communitarian axis that became intertwined with concerns for internal EU solidarity and the survival of the Schengen Area. The analysis contributes to the literature on EU politicization and discursive framing during the refugee crisis, showing how the actors involved in EU decision-making had very different conceptions of what was at stake in the episode.

Thinking about Brexit with Cristina Lafont

In this comment on Cristina Lafont’s new book Democracy without Shortcuts, I apply some of her ideas to the Brexit case in order to show that her identification of problematic shortcuts has significant analytical potential when it comes to understanding contemporary challenges to democracy. I argue that the push for Brexit can be viewed as a response to ‘expertocratic’ shortcuts in European Union decision-making, while David Cameron’s attempt to resolve the conflict once and for all by referendum constituted a ‘proceduralist’ shortcut. I conclude by asking whether Lafont’s suggestion to ‘constitutionalize’ discourses and decisions could also imply seeking a meta-deliberative assessment of democratic institutions.

‘Regulatory Gaming’ – A Look Into the European Union’s Attempts to Engage Citizens With Playful Design

What will democratic systems in the European Union (EU) look like in the next decade and beyond? Will tech-savvy policy-makers respond to the demands of citizens in an effective and timely manner? Or will the much-celebrated ‘co-creation’ of public policies via digital tools continue to remain an empty slogan? In this Chapter, we move from a broad reflection on the impact that technology is having on all levels of society, and particularly on human relations, to an analysis of the role of technology in the policy cycle. We claim that technology has dramatically changed both the number of ‘connections’ between citizens and public regulators, and their quality. We also argue that the outcomes of this enhanced interconnectivity have been uneven, and the results not always positive. Overall, citizens (and corporations) have benefited from the enhanced ‘access’ they have gained vis-a-vis public authorities through new communication channels. These benefits, however, have not been mirrored by equally significant progresses in design and implementation of public policy. Public authorities have struggled with the impact of new technologies on policy-making. Communities and citizens now expect public regulators to respond both immediately and effectively to their demands. However, for the most part public regulators have been unable or unwilling to effectively harness new technologies to foster participatory and inclusive governance. As a result, the legitimacy of public regulators has been politically and legally challenged by dissatisfied communities and stakeholders. The chapter focuses on the EU, which is often accused of not being inclusive or democratic. As EU institutional responsibilities have expanded over time, calls for greater openness have increased. Conventional narratives of the EU’s democratic deficit paint a picture of a dysfunctional decision-making system run by elites located in Brussels. In reality, we claim in this chapter, EU institutions continually seek to enhance and increase interactions with stakeholders, with experimental efforts having intensified over the last decade. This Chapter makes two contributions toward improving our understanding of experimental approaches to the democratisation of EU policy-making. First, it identifies and critically examines two models of experimentalism of EU policy-making. “Exploratory experimentalism” focuses on exploration and discovery. Over the last two decades, most of the EU’s efforts to foster participation have been this type. “Evaluative experimentalism”, instead, explores the feasibility and potential of a new policy intervention. We argue that design-thinking – i.e. the approach to policy-making from a design perspective – is one promising form of evaluative experimentalism currently tested in EU policy-making. We maintain that design-thinking might deliver the right solutions for building more inclusive, engaging, and interactive channels of cooperation between citizens and EU institutions. Second, this Chapter develops a new regulatory model, which it calls the “regulatory gaming” model. Regulatory gaming makes use of design-thinking, and more precisely of playful design, to foster civic engagement. A few examples are discussed in this Chapter. These include prize challenges, scenario simulations, and online serious games. The outcomes of regulatory gaming are still uncertain. Some observers believe fun-design enables EU administrations to adapt to contemporary societal, political and legal challenges. Critics, however, describe playful policy-making as a mere institutional make-up, incapable of successfully addressing the challenge of democracy. They raise ethical, legal, and political concerns, The conclusive section of this Chapter will discuss five challenges for regulatory-gaming, and will speculate on possible solutions from EU decision-makers.

Does Politicization Matter? Small States in East-Central Europe and the Brexit Negotiations

The integration process is increasingly politicized across the member states of the European Union (EU). While this phenomenon has been analyzed from many perspectives, this article aims to look at a so far neglected aspect—how increased levels of politicization of the EU might have impacted on the role small states play in the EU decision-making process. Using the case of Brexit negotiations, the article starts from the hypothesis that higher levels of politicization could increase the influencing capacity of smaller states. As national sovereignty concerns may become more relevant due to politicization, it can be expected that small states become more active in EU-level negotiations, especially in cases where the future of the integration is also at stake. However, looking at the cases of Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the article concludes that the behavior of these countries is still determined by their small-state character. Interestingly, different levels of EU politicization did not determine their bargaining strategies in Brexit negotiations. Consequently, while we see a slight variation in the level of engagement, the article argues that the influencing capacity of the member states under scrutiny was mainly driven by their small state characteristics.