The origins of EU legislation: agenda-setting, intra-institutional decision-making or interinstitutional negotiations?

References

• Baumgartner, F. R., and B. D. Jones (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, K. (2019). ‘Text as Data: An Overview’, in C. Luigi and R. Franzese (eds.), SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations. London: SAGE Publishing, 461–97.
   Google Scholar
• Bunea, A. (2017). ‘Designing Stakeholder Consultations: Reinforcing or Alleviating Bias in the European Union System of Governance?’, European Journal of Political Research, 56:1, 46–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunea, A., and R. Thomson (2015). ‘Consultations with Interest Groups and the Empowerment of Executives: Evidence from the European Union’, Governance, 28:4, 517–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costello, R., and R. Thomson (2013). ‘The Distribution of Power among EU Institutions: Who Wins under Codecision and Why?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20:7, 1025–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, J. P., and H. Hermansson (2017). ‘Legislative Amendments and Informal Politics in the European Union: A Text Reuse Approach’, European Union Politics, 18:4, 581–602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtin, D., and P. Leino (2017). ‘In Search of Transparency for EU Law-Making: Trilogues on the Cusp of Dawn’, Common Market Law Review, 54:6, 1673–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• den Heijer, M., T. Abeelen, and A. Maslyka (2019). ‘On the Use and Misuse of Recitals in European Union Law’, Amsterdam Law School Research, Paper: 2019–2031, Amsterdam Center for International Law.
   Google Scholar
• Douma, J. C., and J. T. Weedon (2019). ‘Analysing Continuous Proportions in Ecology and Evolution: A Practical Introduction to Beta and Dirichlet Regression’, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10:9, 1412–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elgström, O., and C. Jönsson (2000). ‘Negotiation in the European Union: Bargaining or Problem-Solving?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:5, 684–704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franchino, F., and C. Mariotto (2013). ‘Explaining Negotiations in the Conciliation Committee’, European Union Politics, 14:3, 345–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuglsang, N., and K. Olsen (2009). ‘Staying in the Loop: The Commission’s Role in First Reading Agreements’, Working paper 2009/25, September, Brussels: European Policy Institutes Network.
   Google Scholar
• Gentzkow, M., B. Kelly, and M. Taddy (2019). ‘Text as Data’, Journal of Economic Literature, 57:3, 535–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., and B. M. Stewart (2013). ‘Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts’, Political Analysis, 21:3, 267–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häge, F. M. (2019). The Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Häge, F. M., and D. Toshkov (2011). ‘Anticipating Resistance: The Effect of Member State Preferences on the European Commission’s Agenda-Setting Activity’, Limerick Papers in Politics and Public Administration, 4:1, 24.
   Google Scholar
• Hartlapp, M., J. Metz, and C. Rauh (2013). ‘Linking Agenda Setting to Coordination Structures: Bureaucratic Politics inside the European Commission’, Journal of European Integration, 35:4, 425–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (2013). ‘The Little Engine That Wouldn’t: Supranational Entrepreneurship and the Barroso Commission’, Journal of European Integration, 35:3, 301–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollibaugh, G. E. (2019). ‘The Use of Text as Data Methods in Public Administration: A Review and an Application to Agency Priorities’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29:3, 474–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopmann, P. T. (1995). ‘Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solving’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 542:1, 24–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, L., et al. (2015). ‘Mapping Recitals to Normative Provisions in EU Legislation to Assist Legal Interpretation’, in A. Rotolo (ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2015: the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference, Vol. 279. Fairfax: IOS Press, 41–9.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. D., and D. Martinsen (2015). ‘Out of Time? National Parliaments and Early Decision-Making in the European Union’, Government and Opposition, 50:2, 240–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleine, M., and C. Minaudier (2019). ‘Negotiating under Political Uncertainty: National Elections and the Dynamics of International Co-Operation’, British Journal of Political Science, 49:1, 315–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluger Dionigi, M., and C. Koop (2017). Investigation of Informal Trilogue Negotiations since the Lisbon Treaty – Added Value, Lack of Transparency and Possible Democratic Deficit. Brussels: European Economic and Social Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, V. B., S. T. Mol, H. A. Berkers, G. Kismihók, and D. N. Den Hartog (2018). ‘Text Mining in Organizational Research’, Organizational Research Methods, 21:3, 733–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König, T., B. Lindberg, S. Lechner, and W. Pohlmeier (2007). ‘Bicameral Conflict Resolution in the European Union: An Empirical Analysis of Conciliation Committee Bargains’, British Journal of Political Science, 37:2, 281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreppel, A. (2018). ‘Bicameralism and the Balance of Power in EU Legislative Politics’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 24:1, 11–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreppel, A., and B. Oztas (2017). ‘Leading the Band or Just Playing the Tune? Reassessing the Agenda-Setting Powers of the European Commission’, Comparative Political Studies, 50:8, 1118–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laloux, T. (2020). ‘Informal Negotiations in EU Legislative Decision-Making: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda’, European Political Science, 19:3, 443–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laloux, T., and T. Delreux (2018). ‘How Much Do Agents in Trilogues Deviate from Their Principals’ Instructions? Introducing a Deviation Index’, Journal of European Public Policy, 25:7, 1049–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson, T., and J. Trondal (2006). ‘Agenda Setting in the European Commission: How the European Commission Structure and Influence the EU Agenda’, in Hoffmann, H. C. H. and A. H. Turk (eds.), EU Administrative Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 11–43.
   Google Scholar
• Lax, D. A., and J. K. Sebenius (1987). Manager as Negotiator. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki, R. J., B. Barry, and D. M. Saunders (2016). Essentials of Negotiation. Boston: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. (2010). ‘How Institutional Environments Facilitate Co-operative Negotiation Styles in EU Decision-Making’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17:5, 648–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, C. (2013). ‘The Democratic Legitimacy of Codecision’, Journal of European Public Policy, 20:7, 1056–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, M. J. (2014). ‘DirichletReg: Dirichlet Regression for Compositional Data in R’. Research Report Series / Department of Statistics and Mathematics. Vienna: WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, 125.
   Google Scholar
• Menkel-Meadow, C. (1983). ‘Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving’, UCLA Law Review, 31, 754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, D., K. Hornik, and I. Feinerer (2008). ‘Text Mining Infrastructure in R’, Journal of Statistical Software, 25:5, 1–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nugent, N., and M. Rhinard (2016). ‘Is the European Commission Really in Decline?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54:5, 1199–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nugent, N., and M. Rhinard (2019). ‘The ‘Political’ Roles of the European Commission’, Journal of European Integration, 41:2, 203–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odell, J. S. (2010). ‘Three Islands of Knowledge about Negotiation in International Organizations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 17:5, 619–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papke, L. E., and J. M. Wooldridge (1996). ‘Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(k) Plan Participation Rates’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11:6, 619–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Princen, S. (2011). ‘Agenda-Setting Strategies in EU Policy Processes’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18:7, 927–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaglia, L., F. De Francesco, and C. M. Radaelli (2008). ‘Committee Governance and Socialization in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 15:1, 155–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, A. (2011). ‘Early Conclusion in Bicameral Bargaining: Evidence from the co-Decision Legislative Procedure of the European Union’, European Union Politics, 12:1, 41–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ripoll Servent, A., and L. Panning (2019). ‘Preparatory Bodies as Mediators of Political Conflict in Trilogues: The European Parliament’s Shadows Meetings’, Politics and Goverance, 7:3, 13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roederer-Rynning, C., and J. Greenwood (2015). ‘The Culture of Trilogues’, Journal of European Public Policy, 22:8, 1148–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roederer-Rynning, C., and J. Greenwood (2020). ‘Black Boxes and Open Secrets: trilogues as ‘Politicised Diplomacy’, West European Politics, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1716526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, D. (2012). ‘Bringing People with us: Legislative Writing as Political Rhetoric’, Text and Talk, 32:1, 83–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar