Policy entrepreneurship in the European Parliament: reconsidering the influence of rapporteurs

References

• Ackrill, R. and Kay, A. (2011) ‘Multiple streams in EU policy-making: the case of the 2005 sugar reform’, Journal of European Public Policy 18(1): 72–89. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2011.520879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackrill, R., Kay, A. and Zahariadis, N. (2013) ‘Ambiguity, multiple streams, and EU policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(6): 871–87. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.781824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agence France Presse (2003) ‘Umweltschützer: Neue Chemikalien-Vorschläge zu industriefreundlich’, 25 September.
   Google Scholar
• Agence France Presse (2005) ‘Große Koalitionen in Berlin und Straßburg sägen an REACH’, 14 November.
   Google Scholar
• Bache, I. (2013) ‘Measuring quality of life for public policy: an idea whose time has come? agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(1): 21–38. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2012.699658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedetto, G. (2005) ‘Rapporteurs as legislative entrepreneurs: the dynamics of the codecision procedure in Europe’s Parliament’, Journal of European Public Policy 12(1): 67–88. doi: 10.1080/1350176042000311916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CDU, CSU and SPD (2005) ‘Gemeinsam für Deutschland. Mit Mut und Mensch- lichkeit: Koalitionsvertrag von CDU, CSU und SPD vom 11. November 2005’, available at https://www.cdu.de/artikel/gemeinsam-f%C3%BCr-deutschland-mit-mut-und-menschlichkeit-koalitionsvertrag-2005 (accessed September 2017)
   Google Scholar
• Copeland, P. and James, S. (2014) ‘Policy windows, ambiguity and commission entrepreneurship: explaining the relaunch of the European Union’s economic reform agenda’, Journal of European Public Policy 21(1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.800789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costello, R. and Thomson, R. (2010) ‘The policy impact of leadership in committees: rapporteurs’ influence on the European Parliament’s opinions’, European Union Politics 11(2): 219–40. doi: 10.1177/1465116510353459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W. and McCubbins, M. D. (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel, W. T. (2013) ‘When the agent knows better than the principal: the effect of education and seniority on European Parliament rapporteur assignment’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 51(5): 832–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993) ‘Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (2003) ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) on Persistent Organic Pollutants’, COM(2003) 644 final, 23 October, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52003PC0644(01):EN:HTML (accessed 16 December 2016)
   Google Scholar
• Finke, D. (2012) ‘Proposal stage coalition-building in the European Parliament’, European Union Politics 13(4): 487–512. doi: 10.1177/1465116512447013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetz, K. H. (2009) ‘How does the EU tick? five propositions on political time’, Journal of European Public Policy 16(2): 202–20. doi: 10.1080/13501760802589214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2007) Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hurka, S., Kaeding, M. and Obholzer, L. (2015) ‘Learning on the Job? EU enlargement and the assignment of (shadow) rapporteurships in the European Parliament’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 53(6): 1230–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kafsack, H. (2005) ‘Gesundheit versus Wettbewerb’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 January.
   Google Scholar
• Kafsack, H. (2006) ‘Annäherung im Streit um die Chemikalienverordnung’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 November.
   Google Scholar
• Kingdon, J. W. (2003) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Köller, F. (2006) Die Reform des europäischen Chemikalienrechts REACH im Lichte des gemeinschaftlichen Vorsorgeprinzips. Zugleich eine Abhandlung der wesentlichen Problemstellungen der REACH-Verordnung nach dem Kommissionsvorschlag vom 29. Oktober 2003. Frankfurt a.M. et al.: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Knaggård, Å. (2015) ‘The multiple streams framework and the problem broker’, European Journal of Political Research 54(3): 450–65. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, D. (2010) ‘Who to lobby and when: institutional determinants of interest group strategies in European Parliament Committees’, European Union Politics 11(4): 553–75. doi: 10.1177/1465116510382462
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, J. P. (2001) ‘Garbage cans, new institutionalism, and the study of politics’, American Political Science Review 95(1): 191–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack, M. A. (1997) ‘Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community’, International Organization 51(1): 99–134. doi: 10.1162/002081897550311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Princen, S. (2011) ‘Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes’, Journal of European Public Policy 18(7): 927–43. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2011.599960
   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. doi: 10.1177/1465116510388675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridderbusch, K. (2003) ‘Berlin greift Brüssel wegen Chemikalienpolitik an’, Die Welt, 23 August.
   Google Scholar
• Ringe, N. (2010) Who Decides, and How? Preferences, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice in the European Parliament, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ripoll Servent, A. (2013) ‘Holding the European Parliament responsible: policy shift in the data retention directive from consultation to codecision’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(7): 972–87. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.795380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roger, L. and Winzen, T. (2015) ‘Party groups and committee negotiations in the European Parliament: outside attention and the anticipation of plenary conflict’, Journal of European Public Policy 22(3): 391–408. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2014.941379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacconi, G. (2007) ‘Reachstory: An Account of Political Achievement’, unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008) ‘Case selection techniques in case study Research’, Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294–308. doi: 10.1177/1065912907313077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Settembri, P. and Neuhold, C. (2009) ‘Achieving consensus through committees: does the European Parliament manage?’ JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 47(1): 127–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thierse, S. (2015) Governance und Opposition im Europäischen Parlament: Minderheitenrechte und Agendakontrolle im legislativen Entscheidungsprozess, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work, New York and Princeton: Russell Sage/Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. and Kahnemann, D. (1992) ‘Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323. doi: 10.1007/BF00122574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yordanova, N. (2013) Organising the European Parliament: The Role of com- Mittees and Their Legislative Influence, Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshinaka, A., McElroy, G. and Bowler, S. (2010) ‘The appointment of rapporteurs in the European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(4): 457–86. doi: 10.3162/036298010793322384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (2003) Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies, Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (2008) ‘Ambiguity and choice in European public policy’, Journal of European Public Policy 15(4): 514–30. doi: 10.1080/13501760801996717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahariadis, N. (2013) ‘Building better theoretical frameworks of the European Union’s policy process’, Journal of European Public Policy 20(6): 807–16. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.781815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar