In the last years, the European Parliament has become one of the most studied parliamentary assemblies in the word. Among other things, researchers have analyzed the voting stage, plenary debates, the committee system and EPs impact on the European decision-making process. However, little attention has been paid to the role local and national interests play in the parliamentary decision-making process.
The paper analyzes the decision-making process in parliamentary committees, and especially focuses on the impact national and regional interests have on the parliamentary debates. It is claimed that role orientations influence the behavior of parliamentarians and – via their communicative behavior – strongly impacts parliamentary debates. A situational approach is adopted, arguing that MEPs adapt their role orientations to the context of decision-making.
Empirical evidence is provided from a comparative case study, contrasting legislative proposals involving dominant national (case 1), regional (case 2), and European (case 3) interests. The study combines both interviews with Committee members and EP officials, and a quantitative discourse analysis of selected Committee debates. In a first step, the data permits to identify the interests at stake, and to analyze how MEPs react to these interests. In a second step, the discourse analysis focuses on the way MEPs refer to particular interests in their committee speeches, and on the implications these references have for the outcome of debate.
Such a case study approach is warranted because the impact of local interests on the EP negotiation process is still only weakly understood. Linking data on the role orientations of MEPs with the interests they represent in the parliament gives thoughtful insights both in the relationship between MEPs and their voters, and in the parliamentary decision-making process.
