Suchergebnisse

Die Studie analysiert die Deliberations- und Verhandlungsprozesse im Europäischen Parlament. Der Band nimmt die Akteure der Entscheidung in den Blick: Wie gelangen Abgeordnete unterschiedlicher Nationen und Parteien zu einer gemeinsamen Entscheidung? Anhand ausgewählter Gesetzestexte untersucht der Band parlamentarische Verhandlungsprozesse vergleichend in Ausschussdebatten und in informellen Arenen. In einem Parlament ohne Mehrheit zählen überzeugende Argumente; am Ende der Verhandlungen steht ein Kompromiss.Die Stärke des EPs im Institutionensetting liegt in der Einigkeit seiner Akteure begründet – diese zu erzielen gelingt den Akteuren in deliberativen Verhandlungen. Die Studie konzeptualisiert Entscheidungsprozesse, indem sie deliberative Ansätze und Rollenkonzepte kombiniert. Die theoretischen Annahmen überprüft sie empirisch in einer vergleichenden Diskursanalyse der Ausschussdebatten und in Interviews mit den Entscheidungsträgern.Die Autorin forscht zu Parlamenten, Parteien und Öffentlichkeit in der Europäischen Union.

Cover -- 1 Why study deliberation in European Parliament committees? -- 2 Parliamentary deliberation -- 2.1 Legislating within the European Parliament -- 2.1.1 Parliamentary committees -- 2.1.2 Plenary session -- 2.1.3 Political group meetings & -- Informal forums of deliberation -- 2.2 Compromising within the European Parliament -- 3 Deliberative theory -- 3.1 The concept of deliberation -- 3.1.1 The foundations of deliberative democracy -- 3.1.2 The pluralistic challenge: criticism toward deliberation -- 3.2 Beyond deliberation: ideal types of parliamentary discourses -- 3.2.1 Extended deliberation: integratin -- 3.2.2 Avoiding concept-stretching: a typology of discourses -- 3.2.3 Adopting a sequentialized approach -- 4 Studying deliberation -- 4.1 Deliberation in parliamentary committees: the institutionalvariables -- 4.1.1 Impact on decision-making -- 4.1.2 Time constraints -- 4.1.3 Pressures for agreement -- 4.1.4 Ordinary legislative procedure: the impact of institutionalvariables -- 4.2 Stages of the deliberative process: the temporal variable -- 4.3 Deliberation under constraints: the situational var -- 4.3.1 Topic-related variables -- 4.3.2 Veto-Players -- 4.3.3 Publicity -- 4.3.4 External pressures -- 5 The actors of debate: their parliamentary roles -- 5.1 Parliamentary role orientations: a situational approach -- 5.1.1 Representational role orientations -- 5.1.2 Purposive role orientations -- 5.1.3 Role-choice of representatives -- 5.2 Role sets in the European Parliament -- 6 Research design -- 6.1 Assessing the situation of decision-making -- 6.2 Analyzing MEPs role orientations -- 6.3 Discourse analysis: the Discourse Quality Index -- 6.3.1 Analyzing deliberation - adopting a multidimensional approach -- 6.4 Case selection -- 7 Decision-making in European Parliament committees.

In our paper we try to answer two empirical research questions. First, we assess the deliberative quality of discussions in two committees of the EU Parliament. In order to do so, we use a slightly revised version of the DQI. Second, we identify and empirically measure those variables that systematically influence the quality of deliberation in interviews with debate actors. We argue that the quality of deliberation in EU committees is influenced by two normative values: deliberation (common good orientation) and responsiveness (particular interest orientation), with the guiding value determined by the particular situation. Using a multidimensional concept of deliberation, we empirically test the impact of situational variables on specific aspects of deliberative quality. In addition, we take into account the temporal dimension of deliberation.

In our paper we try to answer two empirical research questions. First, we assess the deliberative quality of discussions in two committees of the EU Parliament. In order to do so, we use a slightly revised version of the DQI. Second, we identify and empirically measure those variables that systematically influence the quality of deliberation in interviews with debate actors. We argue that the quality of deliberation in EU committees is influenced by two normative values: deliberation (common good orientation) and responsiveness (particular interest orientation), with the guiding value determined by the particular situation. Using a multidimensional concept of deliberation, we empirically test the impact of situational variables on specific aspects of deliberative quality. In addition, we take into account the temporal dimension of deliberation.

The left–right line of conflict has been the dominant dimension of decision-making in the European Parliament since 1979. A pro-/anti-European Union integration dimension is of secondary importance. Limited evidence exists on the conditions under which these different dimensions matter. This study examines parliamentary decision-making about the so-called Two-Pack, which moved responsibilities about budgetary decision-making to the European Commission. The article uses in-depth interviews, textual analysis of committee debates and roll call voting analysis in order to determine which lines of conflict matter at which stage of decision-making. The evidence indicates that left–right division is dominant in the informal stage preceding committee debates, while both the pro-/anti-European Union and the left/right dimensions matter during the committee stage, whereas for plenary votes, the pro-/anti-European Union dimension is crucial.