Influencing EU Politics? The Case of the Austrian Parliament

Pollak, Johannes; Slominski, Peter

doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00442

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although formal prerogatives in EU affairs do not necessarily equate actual activities (see for instance Auel 2007;Pollak and Slominski 2003), they must be regarded as an important precondition for activity. They define instruments and establish procedures, which can also impact executive legislative relations more indirectly (Winzen 2012: 662) Second, in line with the literature outlined above, we expect the overall balance of power between government and parliament to affect the level of parliamentary activities.…”

Section: Parliamentary Capacities -Institutional Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

Auel¹,

Höing²

2015

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The eurozone crisis suggests a significant reinforcement of the executive dominance in EU policy-making. Opaque emergency decisions taken at European summits as well as treaties established outside of the EU legal framework facilitate the side-lining of democratically elected chambers. This development entails the risk of a new wave of deparliamentarisation in EU policy-making. An effective scrutiny of the crisis management by national parliaments is, however, indispensable to take national ownership of the reforms in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). This paper therefore investigates national parliaments' involvement in the development of instruments to combat the crisis. Based on a quantitative data set of crisis-related parliamentary activities in 2010-2012, we observe a very uneven engagement in the scrutiny of the crisis management. Institutional prerogatives in EU affairs as well as macro-economic factors can partly explain the observed variation. Surprisingly, however, crisis-related parliamentary activity is not a reaction to Eurosceptic attitudes either in parliament or the public.

show abstract

Section: Parliamentary Capacities -Institutional Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

Auel¹,

Höing²

2015

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, as will be further discussed below, the understanding of information, as originally voiced by Moravcsik (1994), is again more inclusive in the case of sceptical contributions. Thus, what matters is not just access to information, but also to the ability to process the information (Auel 2005;Pollak and Slominski 2003).…”

Section: A) Institutional Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Austria, the mandate is traced to the need of the then governing grand coalition to secure a qualified majority for the constitutional changes associated with EU accession. The mandate was a way to buy off the opposition parties (Pollak and Slominski 2003). In Denmark, the mandate was the result of the early post-accession period, when the then Agriculture Minister failed to secure a beneficial deal for Denmark, leading MPs to demand a binding voting instruction for the next negotiations in Brussels (Raunio 2005a).…”

Section: Determinants Of Parliamentary Responses To Eu Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both Pollak and Slominski (2003) and Hegeland and Neuhold (2002) emphasise domestic political constellations. They argue, for instance, that by the time the Austrian government no longer needed a two-thirds majority for constitutional changes in the context of accession and especially after the end of the grand coalition, the Austrian parliament went into an inter-party mode and EU affairs were effectively absorbed into the domestic political game.…”

Section: Determinants Of Parliamentary Responses To Eu Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Europeanisation of national political systems: Parliaments and executives

Goetz¹,

Meyer‐Sahling²

2008

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the by now extensive literature on the Europeanisation of the political systems of the EU-15, with an emphasis on parliaments and executives (i.e., governments and ministerial administrations). The Living Review highlights apparently contradictory effects of integration: de-parlamentarisation vs. re-parlamentarisation; bureaucratisation vs. politicisation; and centralisation vs. diffusion. These diverging assessments of the effects of integration do, in part, reflect diversity in the EU-15; in part, they are, however, also a result of differences in the specification of variables, research designs and theoretical approaches. Work that inquires into patterns of Europeanisation -across institutional domains, countries, regions and time -and which seeks to tackle the 'methodological nationalism' of the Europeanisation literature promises a clearer picture of the institutional consequences of European integration than we possess at present.This review is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Austria License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/at/

show abstract

“…More recent studies draw our attention to the behavioral and attitudinal dimensions of Europeanization and invite us to take a closer look at what political parties and national MPs really do and how they behave (e.g. Auel 2006, Auel and Benz 2005, Auel and Raunio 2014, Benz 2004, Pollak and Slominski 2003, Navarro and Brouard 2014, Palau 2012, Raunio 2009. We join this second stream of research by looking at the Europeanization of parliamentary activities in Switzerland.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Europeanises parliamentary attention, on which issues and how? A policy agenda perspective

Gava

Sciarini

Varone

2017

The Journal of Legislative Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the literature on the Europeanization of national parliaments by looking at the behavioral dimension of Europeanization in the Swiss Parliament. We examine the differences in parliamentary interventions on EU-related issues over time, between types of instruments (agendasetting versus control) and across parties. Moreover, we measure the attention devoted to various policy issues and the tone of parliamentary interventions. Empirically, we analyze with descriptive statistical tools EU-related parliamentary interventions introduced in the Swiss parliament over 30 years . Results show that parliamentary attention to the EU is strongly influenced by the activism of the Swiss People's Party, a Eurosceptic party member of the Swiss governing "coalition".

show abstract

Influencing EU Politics? The Case of the Austrian Parliament

Cited by 43 publications

References 12 publications

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

The Europeanisation of national political systems: Parliaments and executives

Who Europeanises parliamentary attention, on which issues and how? A policy agenda perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About