European Affiliations or National Interests? Analyses of Voting Patterns on Trade Policy in European Parliament

Kang, Yoo-Duk

doi:10.1515/bjes-2019-0036

Abstract

This article examines the determinants of voting patterns within the European Parliament for EU trade legislations including EU trade agreements. Given that trade is a very sensitive issue for particular Member States, our question is to verify whether members of European Parliament (MEP) tend to vote in line with their political affiliation or national identity prevails in voting for trade-related issues. Our results from EU trade agreements with Korea and Columbia/Peru show that MEPs tend to vote with others in their political groups in trade legislations and their voting pattern is not very different from the overall voting pattern observed in other policy areas. This trend is confirmed by both the comparison of intra-voting cohesion index and the empirical test based on the probit model. Country-specific variables do not explain well the voting behavior of MEPs in trade issues. However, it is noteworthy that some MEPs voted in line with their national interests in case of EU-Korea FTA.

References

ACEA (2009), ‘European automobile industry requests EU to suspend trade negotiations with South Korea,’ ACEA Press Release, 5 February.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Attinà, F. (1990), ‘The voting behaviour of the European Parliament members and the problem of Europarties,’ European Journal of Political Research, no. 18. pp. 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1990.tb00248.x10.1111/j.1475-6765.1990.tb00248.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baldwin, R. E. & Magee, C. S. (2000), Congressional Trade Votes: From NAFTA Approval to Fast-Track Defeat, Policy Analyses in International Economics no. 59, Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brzinski, J. B. (1995), ‘Political group cohesion in the European Parliament, 1989–1994,’ in C. Rhodes & S. Mazey (eds.) The State of the European Union, vol. 3, London: Longman.10.1515/9781685857943-008
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
European Commission (2006), Global Europe: Competing in the World, COM(2006) 567 final, 4.10.2006.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
European Parliament (2013), The European Parliament: Electoral Procedures, Fact Sheets on the European Union - 2013, Brussels: European Parliament.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Héritier, A.; Moury, C.; Schoeller, M.; Meissner, K. & Mota, I. (2015), The European Parliament as a Driving Force of Constitutionalisation, Brussels: European Parliament.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hiscox, M. J. (2002), ‘Commerce, coalition, and factor mobility: evidence from congressional votes on trade legislation,’ The American Political Science Review, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540200035710.1017/S0003055402000357
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. (2000), How MEPs Vote, ESRC One Europe or Several? Programme Briefing Note 1/00, Falmer: University of Sussex.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. (2001), ‘Legislative behaviour and party competition in the European Parliament: an application of nominate to the EU,’ Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.0032610.1111/1468-5965.00326
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. (2002), ‘Parliamentary behavior with two principals: preferences, parties and voting in the European Parliament,’ American Journal of Political Science, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 688–698. https://doi.org/10.2307/308840810.2307/3088408
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. & Høyland, B. (2013), ‘Empowerment of the European Parliament,’ Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 16, pp. 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpolisci-032311-11073510.1146/annurevpolisci-032311-110735
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. & Lord, C. (1997), Political Parties in the European Union, London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25560-310.1007/978-1-349-25560-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. & Noury, A. (2009a), ‘After enlargement: voting patterns in the Sixth European Parliament,’ Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 159–174. https://doi.org/10.3162/03629800978831428210.3162/036298009788314282
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S. & Noury, A. (2009b), ‘Voting patterns and alliance formation in the European Parliament,’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, no. 364, pp. 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.026310.1098/rstb.2008.0263268971419073477
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hix, S.; Noury, A. & Roland, G. (2007), Democratic Politics in the European Parliament, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051149195510.1017/CBO9780511491955
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krajewski, M. (2005), ‘External trade law and the Constitution Treaty: towards a federal and more democratic common commercial policy?’ Common Market Law Review, no. 1, pp. 91–127.10.54648/COLA2004070
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lim, H. & Sung, H. (2011), ‘Empirical analyses of U.S. congressional voting on recent FTA,’ The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.236310.2202/1935-1682.2363
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Noury, A. G. & Roland, G. (2002), ‘European Parliament: Should it have more power?’ Economy Policy, vol. 17, no. 35, pp. 279–319.10.1111/1468-0327.t01-1-00090
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van den Putte, L.; De Ville, F. & Orbie, J. (2014), The European Parliament’s New Role in Trade Policy: Turning Power into Impact, CEPS Special Report, no. 89. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/51025/1/CEPS_SR_89_EP_New_Role_in_EU_Trade_Policy.pdf [accessed Sep 2019]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Raunio, T. (1997), The European Perspective: Transnational Party Groups in the 1989–1994 European Parliament, London: Ashgate.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reichert, T. (2004), ‘EU trade policy decision making and WWF’s trade policy work in Brussels,’ Paper presented at seminar ‘The Relationship between MEAs and WTO Rules’, Szentendre (10 May 2004).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ringe, N. (2010), Who Decides, and How? Preferences, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice in the European Parliament, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572557.003.000110.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572557.003.0001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
VoteWatch (2010), Voting Behaviour in the New European Parliament: The First Year, Annual Report 2010.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wolfstädter, L.; Becker, S. & Kreilinger, V. (2018), Rights and Role of the European Parliament in Common Commercial Policy, Policy Paper no. 215, Jacques Delors Institut.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Woolcock, S. (2007), European Union Policy towards Free Trade Agreements, ECIPE Working Paper no. 03/2007.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Xie, T. (2006), ‘Congressional roll call voting on China trade policy,’ American Politics Research, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 732–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X0628916210.1177/1532673X06289162
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

European Affiliations or National Interests? Analyses of Voting Patterns on Trade Policy in European Parliament

Abstract

Paradigm

My account