Search

Scholars interested in the role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process hardly paid attention to the differences in scrutiny between Upper Houses of EU member states. It is hypothesized in this article that structural differences between bicameral systems can explain differences between Upper Houses in scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. The hypotheses are assessed with a qualitative content analysis of parliamentary debates in the Dutch and British Upper Houses on the scrutiny of EU directives agreed upon through the ordinary legislative procedure in the period 2000–2010. The empirical findings indicate that differences in the set-up of bicameral systems can only in part explain the variation in ex ante scrutiny. Moreover, in both the British and Dutch bicameral systems, MPs of the Upper and Lower Houses most of the time do not contradict each other on substantive grounds when the same EU legislative acts are scrutinized. The results also show that the scrutiny by Upper Houses imp...

This article focuses on one of the more elaborate new modes of governance in function in the EU context — the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) — and examines its varying degree of institutionalization on policy fields. Three explanations for differences in institutionalization of OMCs are tested through a comparative study of two OMCs adopted in policy fields related with the knowledge-based society theme. The empirical findings indicate that the institutionalization of an OMC can be best explained by a particular constellation of member-state preferences, in combination with a catalytic role of the European Commission.