Anna-Lena Högenauer

All by themselves? Legislative regions and the use of unmediated access to the European level

Since the 1980s, the level of activism of regions in European Union policy-making has greatly increased, leading to the emergence of claims that regional governments can and do bypass national government in European negotiations. However, two decades after the emergence of the concept, the debate about the ability of regions to engage successfully in this process of continuous negotiation and to represent their interests on the European stage is ongoing. Due to the scarcity of research looking at regional interest representation in concrete cases of policy-making, it has been difficult to establish to what extent and under which circumstances regions do rely on unmediated channels of interest representation on the European level. This article examines these questions through the activities of seven legislative regions during two negotiations of European Directives, as legislative regions have a wider choice of channels of interest representation. Overall, extensive use of unmediated access in regulatory policy-making is rare and can best be explained with reference to domestic conflict and the level of influence of a region in domestic European policy-making. Differences in the size of a region also influence the ability of a region to represent its interests in the coordination of the national position and at the European level.

Legislative Regions after Lisbon: A New Role for Regional Assemblies?

The existence of regional parliaments with legislative competences is an important element of federal states. In addition, a number of regionalized states have devolved legislative competences to all or part of their regions to allow for expressions of regional diversity. Eight EU member states have regions with legislative competences: Germany, Austria, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Finland. In practice, however, many of the assemblies of these regions play only a weak legislative role compared to national parliaments. Busjager estimates that 85–90 per cent of all legislation was passed at the national level in Austria in 2005 (Busjager, 2010, p. 106). Sturm and Zimmermann-Steinhart estimate that this was the case for 75 per cent of all legislation in Germany (2005, p. 53, cited in Busjager, 2010, p. 106). In addition, the growing number of EU competences has further restricted this limited lawmaking function over time. Thus, Busjager estimates that about a quarter of laws passed by the Landtag of Vorarlberg between 2000 and 2004 were purely transposing European Union (EU) legislation, and that other laws were at least in part transposition laws.

Regional Parliaments in the EU Multilevel Parliamentary System

ABSTRACT European integration has created a multilevel political system that is dominated by executive actors. Despite the increasing competences of the European Parliament, a growing EU-awareness of national assemblies and an emerging attention of regional parliaments for EU affairs, the EU polity still lacks a sound parliamentary representation. As the EU presents itself as a representative democracy, the current set-up raises questions from the perspective of democratic legitimacy. The establishment of multilevel parliamentarianism may be part of the remedy. This introduction focuses on the position that regional parliaments take in such a European multilevel parliamentary system. The authors address three relevant questions: what roles do regional parliaments take up in terms of legislation, scrutiny and networking? To what extent are they empowered by the Lisbon Treaty? And what explains the variation in their activities? The authors develop hypotheses that are, to varying degree, addressed by the contributions in this special issue.

The Limits of Territorial Interest Representation in the European Union

Abstract According to the literature on lobbying, actors gain access to European policy-making in return for information and expertise. It is often assumed that territorial actors will be in a position to provide such information by virtue of being the implementing authorities. By contrast, this article argues that there is a need to examine further to what extent regions are able to use channels of interest representation and to supply information, what kind of channels they use and how they frame their message. For this purpose, it examines the strategies of seven legislative regions in two concrete policy cases. In particular, it argues that the seven regions rely predominantly on mediated channels of interest representation as their capacity and willingness to use unmediated channels of interest representation is limited. Secondly, it argues that regions tend to use technical language over politicised language in lobbying to avoid overt conflict, especially with national governments or other regions from the member state, but that their ability to produce extensive (technical) expertise is also very limited.

Parliamentary Administrations in the Scrutiny of EU Decision-Making

In liberal democracies, parliaments are generally perceived as the epitome of majoritarian politics. In the academic literature, as in the public debate, the focus is inevitably on the party political dimension of their work: the adoption of legislation or annual budgets, the election and scrutiny of the executive and their important role in the political system as a forum for debate on key issues. The study of parliaments is usually about either the work of individual members of parliament (MPs) or that of groups of parliamentarians, be it the factions of political parties or the broader concepts of a governing majority and the opposition, but parliaments are more than the collective sum of their elected members. In order to function as institutions and exercise their functions, they also rely on administrative structures and appointed officials. In fact, in all parliaments the non-elected staff probably significantly outnumber the elected members.

An information network of officials? Dissecting the role and nature of the network of parliamentary representatives in the European Parliament

ABSTRACT Enhancing the role of national parliaments in the European Union’s decision-making process has for some time been a popular way in which policy-makers have sought to address legitimacy problems in the European Union, the Early Warning Mechanism being only one example. In response to these developments, an increasing number of scholars have addressed the question of how parliaments make use of these powers in practice. An important dimension of the process – the role of parliamentary officials in parliamentary scrutiny and control – has so far been neglected in the literature. Against this background, this article examines the role of the representatives of national parliaments in the European Parliament with the aim of understanding the role and the nature of this ‘bureaucratic network’. While falling short of an epistemic community, these officials play an important role in enabling parliamentary scrutiny through the dissemination of information.

Conclusion: regional parliaments – a distinct role in the EU?

ABSTRACT Regional parliaments can shape EU policy-making via a range of domestic and European channels. In the context of a renewed interest in the subnational level, this article aims to address three core questions: have regional parliaments really been empowered by the early warning system provisions? Which factors explain differences in strength and mobilisation? Finally, what kind of a role do regional parliaments play in EU policy-making today, now that they have had several years to react to the trend towards multilevel parliamentarism? The authors argue that regional parliaments do indeed have the potential to contribute a distinct perspective to EU policy-making, even if their current level of activity is still low. Their distinctive territorial focus sets them apart from national parliaments. Their level of activity still varies greatly between parliaments depending on a number of factors.

Transnational Bureaucratic Networks in the EU: The Role of Parliamentary Officials in Inter-Parliamentary Coordination and Control

The pressure for national parliaments to cooperate systematically with one another and the need to develop a high level of technical and legal expertise (see Chapter 1) have led to the growth of a network of permanent representatives of national parliaments (NPRs) to the European Union. These are (unelected) officials that are dispatched by their respective national parliaments to Brussels for a certain period of time. Despite the fact that this network has rapidly expanded — it now encompasses representatives from almost all 28 national parliaments,1 with some bi-cameral parliaments sending two representatives — it has received little academic attention. The number of NPRs has not diminished, not even during the economic and financial crisis; in fact, the number has consistently expanded since 1991. Even the parliament of a non-EU member state, Norway, now has a representative in Brussels.

The Dutch Parliament and EU Affairs: Decentralizing Scrutiny

The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy with a moderate degree of decentralization.1 There are 12 provinces with their own regional parliaments on the European mainland and a number of overseas territories with special status.

Formal Rules and Informal Cooperation: Inter-governmental Relations in Domestic European Policy Making in Comparative Perspective

Abstract One of the key elements of the strategies of interest representation of strong legislative regions in EU policy making is active participation in the co-ordination processes within the member state. This article argues that Europeanization of inter-governmental relations leads to a greater emphasis on cooperation in the formal rules on inter-governmental cooperation in EU affairs. However, when informal practices are taken into account, some member states become more cooperative, others arguably less. This divergence can be explained by the circular interplay of formal and informal practices.