A Not So Technocratic Executive? Everyday Interaction between the European Parliament and the Commission

References

• Barroso, J.M. (2009). Political Guidelines for the Next Commission. Brussels: The European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, M.W., and J. Ege (2012). ‘Politicization within the European Commission’s bureaucracy’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78:3, 403–24.
   Google Scholar
• The Real World of EU Accountability. What Deficit? Bovens M. Curtin D. t’Hart P. Oxford University Press Oxford 2010
   Google Scholar
• Brandsma, G.J. (2012). ‘Hidden Parliamentary Power: Informal Information-sharing between EU Institutions from Agenda-setting to Execution’, unpublished paper, Utrecht School of Governance, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen, T. (2001). ‘Intra-institutional Politics and Inter-institutional Relations in the EU: towards Coherent Governance?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5:5, 747–769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cini, M. (2000). ‘Administrative Culture in the European Commission: The Case of Competition and Environment’, in N. Nugent (ed.), At the Heart of the Union. Studies of the European Commission. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 71–87.
   Google Scholar
• Corbett, R., F. Jacobs, and M. Shackleton (2011). The European Parliament. London: John Harper Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cram, L. (1994). ‘The European Commission as a Multi-organization: Social Policy and IT Policy in the EU’, Journal of European Public Policy, 1:2, 195–217.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrakopoulos, D.G., and A.G. Passas (2004). ‘Governing without Government?’, in D.D. Dimitrakopulos (ed.), The Changing European Commission. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 153–64.
   Google Scholar
• Döring, H. (2007). ‘The Composition of the College of Commissioners: Patterns of Delegation’, European Union Politics, 8, 207–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M. (2004). ‘An Organizational Approach to European Integration. Outline of a Complementary Perspective’, European Journal of Political Research, 43:1, 199–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M. (2006). ‘Executive Politics as Usual: Role Behaviour and Conflict Dimensions in the College of European Commissioners’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:1, 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeberg, M., Å. Gornitzka, J. Trondal, and M. Johannessen (2013). ‘Parliamentary Staff: Unpacking the Behaviour of Officials in the European Parliament’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20:4, 495–514.
   Google Scholar
• Farrel, H., and A. Heritier (2007). ‘Introduction: Contested Competencies in the European Union’, West European Politics, 30:2, 227–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Featherstone, K. (1994). ‘Jean Monnet and the “Democratic Deficit” in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32:2, 149–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, E. (2004). ‘The European Union in the Age of Accountability’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24:3, 495–515.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J. (2011). Interest Representation in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Gulick, L. (1937). ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization. With Special References to Government in the United States’, in L. Gulick and L.F. Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University, 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• Hix, S., A.G. Noury, and G. Roland (2007). Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L. (2000). ‘A House with Differing Views: The European Commission and Cohesion Policy’, in N. Nugent (ed.), At the Heart of the Union. Studies of the European Commission. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 89–108.
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B. (1994). ‘Changing Patterns of Interest Intermediation in the European Union’, Governance and Opposition, 29:2, 167–180.
   Google Scholar
• Kohler-Koch, B. (1997). ‘Organized Interests in European Integration. The Evolution of a New Type of Governance?’, in H. Wallace and A. Young (eds.), Participation and Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kurpas, S., C. Grøn, and P.M. Kaczynski (2008). The European Commission after Enlargement: Does More Add Up to Less?. Brussels: CEPS Special Report.
   Google Scholar
• MacMullen, A. (2000). ‘European Commissioners: National Routes to a European Elite’, in N. Nugent (ed.), At the Heart of the Union. Studies of the European Commission. Houndmills: Macmillan Press, 49–70.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (2005). Dilemmas of European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• March, J.G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moravcsik, A. (1999). ‘The New Statecraft? Supranational Entrepreneurship and International Cooperation’, International Organization, 53:2, 267–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moury, C. (2007). ‘Explaining the European Parliament’s Right to Appoint and Invest the Commission’, West European Politics, 30:2, 367–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, J.P. (1983). Organized Democracy. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, J.P. (forthcoming). ‘Accountability and Ambiguity’, in M. Bovens, R.E. Goodin, and T. Schillemans (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. (2006). ‘Conclusion: Where does the Commission Stand Today?’, in D. Spence (ed.), The European Commission. London: John Harper Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, M. (1997). ‘Delegation, Agency and Agenda Setting in the European Community’, International Organization, 51, 99–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proksch, S.-O., and J. Slapin (2011). ‘Parliamentary Questions and Oversight in the European Union’, European Journal of Political Research, 50:1, 53–79.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M. (1999). Technocracy in the European Union. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Rittberger, B. (2003). ‘The Creation and Empowerment of the European Parliament’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41:2, 203–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogelberg, S.G., and J.M. Stanton (2007). ‘Understanding and Dealing with Organizational Survey Nonresponse’, Organizational Research Methods, 10:2, 195–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A. (1965). Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stacey, J. (2012). ‘Informal Governance in the EU: The European Commission versus the European Parliament’, in T. Christiansen and C. Neuhold (eds.), International Handbook of Informal Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 395–411.
   Google Scholar
• Trondal, J., M. Marcussen, T. Larsson, and F. Veggeland (2010). Unpacking International Organisations. Manchester, NH: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Political Accountability and European Integration Verhey L. Kiiver P. Loeffen S. Europa Law Publishing Groningen 2009
   Google Scholar
• Vestlund, N.M. (2012). ‘Changing Policy Focus through Organizational Reform? The Case of the Pharmaceutical Unit in the European Commission’, paper presented at ARENA Workshop, Oslo, 14–15 June 2012, ‘The Transformation of the Executive Branch of Government in Europe: Centre Formation. Administrative Integration and Co-Existing Orders’.
   Google Scholar
• Wille, A. (2010). ‘The European Commission’s Accountability Paradox’, in M. Bovens, D. Curtin, and P. t’Hart (eds.), The Real World of EU Accountability. What Deficit? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63–86.
   Google Scholar
• Wille, A. (2012). ‘The Politicization of the EU Commission: Democratic Control and the Dynamics of Executive Selection’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78:3, 383–402.
   Google Scholar
• Wonka, A. (2008). ‘Decision-making Dynamics in the European Commission: Partisan, National or Sectoral?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15:8, 1145–1163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar