非正式三方谈判中的议价能力:制度内偏好凝聚与制度间议价成功

IF 2.9 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Maximilian Haag
{"title":"非正式三方谈判中的议价能力:制度内偏好凝聚与制度间议价成功","authors":"Maximilian Haag","doi":"10.1177/14651165211064485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Informal trilogue meetings are the main legislative bargaining forum in the European Union, yet their dynamics remain largely understudied in a quantitative context. This article builds on the assumption that the negotiating delegations of the European Parliament and the Council play a two-level game whereby these actors can use their intra-institutional constraint to extract inter-institutional bargaining success. Negotiators can credibly claim that their hands are tied if the members of their parent institutions hold similar preferences and do not accept alternative proposals or if their institution is divided and negotiators need to defend a fragile compromise. Employing a measure of document similarity (minimum edit distance) between an institution's negotiation mandate and the trilogue outcome to measure bargaining success, the analysis supports the hypothesis for the European Parliament, but not for the Council.","PeriodicalId":12077,"journal":{"name":"European Union Politics","volume":"23 1","pages":"330 - 350"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bargaining power in informal trilogues: Intra-institutional preference cohesion and inter-institutional bargaining success\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Haag\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14651165211064485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Informal trilogue meetings are the main legislative bargaining forum in the European Union, yet their dynamics remain largely understudied in a quantitative context. This article builds on the assumption that the negotiating delegations of the European Parliament and the Council play a two-level game whereby these actors can use their intra-institutional constraint to extract inter-institutional bargaining success. Negotiators can credibly claim that their hands are tied if the members of their parent institutions hold similar preferences and do not accept alternative proposals or if their institution is divided and negotiators need to defend a fragile compromise. Employing a measure of document similarity (minimum edit distance) between an institution's negotiation mandate and the trilogue outcome to measure bargaining success, the analysis supports the hypothesis for the European Parliament, but not for the Council.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Union Politics\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"330 - 350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Union Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165211064485\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Union Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165211064485","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

非正式的三语会议是欧盟主要的立法谈判论坛,但从数量角度来看,它们的动态在很大程度上仍未得到充分研究。这篇文章建立在这样一个假设的基础上,即欧洲议会和理事会的谈判代表团玩着一个两级游戏,通过这个游戏,这些参与者可以利用其机构内的约束来获得机构间谈判的成功。如果其母机构的成员持有类似的偏好,不接受替代方案,或者如果其机构存在分歧,谈判代表需要捍卫脆弱的妥协,谈判代表可以可信地声称他们的手被束缚了。该分析采用了一种衡量机构谈判授权与三语结果之间文件相似性(最小编辑距离)的方法来衡量谈判成功与否,支持欧洲议会的假设,但不支持理事会的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bargaining power in informal trilogues: Intra-institutional preference cohesion and inter-institutional bargaining success
Informal trilogue meetings are the main legislative bargaining forum in the European Union, yet their dynamics remain largely understudied in a quantitative context. This article builds on the assumption that the negotiating delegations of the European Parliament and the Council play a two-level game whereby these actors can use their intra-institutional constraint to extract inter-institutional bargaining success. Negotiators can credibly claim that their hands are tied if the members of their parent institutions hold similar preferences and do not accept alternative proposals or if their institution is divided and negotiators need to defend a fragile compromise. Employing a measure of document similarity (minimum edit distance) between an institution's negotiation mandate and the trilogue outcome to measure bargaining success, the analysis supports the hypothesis for the European Parliament, but not for the Council.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Union Politics
European Union Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
21.70%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: European Union Politics is an international academic journal for advanced peer-reviewed research and scholarship on all aspects of the process of government, politics and policy in the European Union. It aims to stimulate debate and provide a forum to bridge the theoretical and empirical analysis on the political unification of Europe. It represents no particular school or approach, nor is it wedded to any particular methodology. In particular it welcomes articles that offer a new theoretical argument, analyze original data in a novel fashion or present an innovative methodological approach. The Editors invite submissions from all sub-fields of contemporary political science, including international relations, comparative politics, public administration, public policy and political theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信