Expertise in Supranational Politics: the European Parliament Research Service, Policy-Making, and the Democratic Deficit
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Portsmouth
Department Name: Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences
Abstract
Specific research questions:
1. Can in-house scientific expertise enhance the quality of parliamentary policy-making, and how?
2. How does such expertise compare and relate to other input (e.g. Commission, interest groups) into policy-making in the particular case of the European Parliament (EP)?
3. Does strengthening the research resources of the EP significantly enhance MEPs' independence and role in policy-making, and to what extent can this help address the 'democratic deficit'?
Background and rationale: Contemporary parliamentary democracies have seen a significant shift in control over policy-making from parliaments to executives that have easy access to abundant expertise. In the EU, the loss of control by parliaments over executive policy-making has not been compensated fully by a corresponding strengthening of the EP. While the EP now has co-decision powers, it has weak support for its policy-making role. The recent reorganization and expansion of the EP Research Service (EPRS) has been designed to address this problem by giving individual MEPs access to in-house scientific expertise to strengthen their independence from other institutions like the Commission or interest groups. The EP hopes that these changes can contribute to bolstering the quality of parliamentary policy-making and help address the 'democratic deficit'. This project will investigate which national templates (e.g. US, Germany) the reform drew on, how the in-house expertise is provided, how it is used, and how its quality and importance is assessed by various stakeholders. To answer its research questions, it will utilize quantitative (EPRS data sets on number and types of requests, nationality and political group affiliation of MEPs using the service, speed and type of response etc.) and qualitative (e.g. document analysis of EPRS papers; c. 30 semi-structured interviews with MEPs, MEP assistants, EPRS officials, scientific advisers etc.) research methods. Drawing on constructivist/sociological concepts of politics and policy-making, the project will focus on how those who produce, channel and use in-house scientific expertise perceive its quality, relevance and impact.
1. Can in-house scientific expertise enhance the quality of parliamentary policy-making, and how?
2. How does such expertise compare and relate to other input (e.g. Commission, interest groups) into policy-making in the particular case of the European Parliament (EP)?
3. Does strengthening the research resources of the EP significantly enhance MEPs' independence and role in policy-making, and to what extent can this help address the 'democratic deficit'?
Background and rationale: Contemporary parliamentary democracies have seen a significant shift in control over policy-making from parliaments to executives that have easy access to abundant expertise. In the EU, the loss of control by parliaments over executive policy-making has not been compensated fully by a corresponding strengthening of the EP. While the EP now has co-decision powers, it has weak support for its policy-making role. The recent reorganization and expansion of the EP Research Service (EPRS) has been designed to address this problem by giving individual MEPs access to in-house scientific expertise to strengthen their independence from other institutions like the Commission or interest groups. The EP hopes that these changes can contribute to bolstering the quality of parliamentary policy-making and help address the 'democratic deficit'. This project will investigate which national templates (e.g. US, Germany) the reform drew on, how the in-house expertise is provided, how it is used, and how its quality and importance is assessed by various stakeholders. To answer its research questions, it will utilize quantitative (EPRS data sets on number and types of requests, nationality and political group affiliation of MEPs using the service, speed and type of response etc.) and qualitative (e.g. document analysis of EPRS papers; c. 30 semi-structured interviews with MEPs, MEP assistants, EPRS officials, scientific advisers etc.) research methods. Drawing on constructivist/sociological concepts of politics and policy-making, the project will focus on how those who produce, channel and use in-house scientific expertise perceive its quality, relevance and impact.
Organisations
Studentship Projects
| Project Reference | Relationship | Related To | Start | End | Student Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES/P000673/1 | 01/10/2017 | 30/09/2027 | |||
| 1956390 | Studentship | ES/P000673/1 | 01/10/2017 | 31/08/2021 | Nandor Revesz |