Expertise in Supranational Politics: the European Parliament Research Service, Policy-Making, and the Democratic Deficit

超国家政治专业知识：欧洲议会研究服务、政策制定和民主赤字

• 批准号: 1956390
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Portsmouth
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2017 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1956390
• 关键词: Expertise; Supranational; Politics; European; Parliament

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.

具体研究问题：1。内部科学专业知识可以提高议会决策的质量，以及如何？2。在欧洲议会（EP）的特定情况下，这种专业知识与其他意见（例如委员会，利益集团）与其他意见（例如委员会，利益集团）的关系如何进行比较。增强EP的研究资源是否可以显着增强欧洲议会议员在决策中的独立性和作用，在多大程度上可以解决“民主赤字”？背景和理由：当代议会民主国家在控制政策方面发生了重大转变 - 从议会到容易获得丰富专业知识的高管。在欧盟，议会对执行决策的控制损失并未通过相应的EP加强得到充分弥补。尽管EP现在具有共同决定权，但对其决策角色的支持却很弱。 EP研究服务（EPRS）的最新重组和扩展旨在通过使单个MEP访问内部科学专业知识来加强其与委员会或利益集团（例如委员会或利益集团）的独立性，以解决这一问题。 EP希望这些变化可以促进议会政策制定的质量并帮助解决“民主赤字”。该项目将调查哪些国家模板（例如美国，德国）进行了改革，如何提供内部专业知识，如何使用以及如何评估各种利益相关者评估其质量和重要性。为了回答其研究问题，它将利用定量（EPRS数据集，使用服务，速度和响应的速度和类型等的请求数量和类型，国籍和政治群体隶属关系）和定性（例如，EPRS论文的文档分析； c。对MEP，MEP助手，EPR官员，科学顾问等的30个半结构化访谈。该项目利用政治和政策制定的建构主义/社会学概念，将重点关注那些生产，渠道和使用内部科学专业知识的人如何看待其质量，相关性和影响力。