Skip to main content Accessibility help

Improving Rookies’ Performance: An Assessment of the Romanian MEPs’ Activity

  • Sergiu Gherghina (a1) and Doru Frantescu (a2)


General figures indicate stark differences between both cross-country and cross-party groups in MEPs’ activity. Our attempt to explain this variation accounts for five variables (plus age for control): (1) the background of the MEPs, (2) their political experience, (3) belonging to a European party group, (4) the duration of their mandate, and (5) their status (i.e. elected versus appointed). Using statistical techniques and original data, we focus on the representatives coming from the most recent EU member state (i.e. Romania) as activity differences are most likely to occur at their level. Results indicate that, in essence, the socialization with the EP workings (duration of term in office) considerably shapes newcomers’ performance.



Hide All
1. R. Corbett, F. Jacobs and M. Shackleton (2000) The European Parliament, 4th edition (London: John Harper).
2.Hix, S., Noury, A. G. and Roland, G. (2007) Democratic Politics in the European Parliament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
3. K. Featherstone (1979) Labour in Europe: the work of a National Party delegation to the European Parliament. In: V. Herman and R. van Schendelen (eds) The European Parliament and the National Parliaments (Saxon House, Farnborough), pp. 81110.
4.Westlake, M. (1994) A Modern Guide to the European Parliament (London, New York: Pinter).
5.Franklin, M. and Scarrow, S. (1999) Making Europeans? The socialising power of the European Parliament. In: R. Katz and B. Wessels (eds) The European Parliament, the National Parliaments, and European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
6.Scully, R. (2005) Becoming Europeans? Attitudes, Behaviour and Socialization in the European Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
7.Hix, S., Raunio, T. and Scully, R. (2003) Fifty years on: research on the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(2), 191202.
8. A. Kreppel and G. Gugnor (2005) Politics and power: the partisan dynamics of EU enlargement in the EP. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference 2005 in Budapest.
9. G. Benedetto (2005) Enlargement, institutional change and the pervasiveness of consensus in the European Parliament. Paper presented at the workshop ‘The European Parliament after enlargement’, Leicester.
10.Muller, W. C. and Strom, K. (1999) Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
11.Norris, P. (1997) Introduction: theories of recruitment. In: P. Norris (ed.) Passages to Power. Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 114.
12.Gallagher, M. (1988) Introduction. In: M. Gallagher and M. Marsh (eds) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics (London: Sage).
13.Wahlke, J. C., Eulau, H., Buchanan, W. and Ferguson, L. C. (1962) The Legislative System. Explorations in Legislative Behavior (New York: Wiley).
14.Budge, I., Robertson, D. and Hearl, D. (eds) (1987) Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
15.Budge, I. and Laver, M. J. (eds) (1992) Party Polica and Government Coalitions (New York: St Martin’s Press).
16.Denzau, A., Riker, W. H. and Shepsle, K. A. (1985) Farquharson and Fenno: sophisticated voting and home style. American Political Science Review, 79, 11171134.
17.Corbett, R. (1997) The European Parliament’s Role in Closer EU Integration (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
18.Grabbe, H. (2003) Europeanization goes east: power and uncertainty in the EU accession process. In: K. Featherstone and C. M. Radaelli (eds) The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
19.Kirchner, E. J. (1984) The European Parliament: Performance and Prospects (Aldershot: Gower).
20.Miller, A. H. and Wattenberg, M. P. (1985) Throwing the rascals out: policy and performance evaluations of presidential candidates, 1952–1980. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 359372.
21.Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield).
22.Marks, G. (1993) Structural policy after Maastricht. In: A. Cafruny and G. Rosenthal (eds) The State of the European Community (New York: Lynne Rienner).
23.Hooghe, L. (1996) Building a Europe with the regions. the changing role of the European Commission”. In: L. Hooghe (ed.) Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
24. To keep it simple and easy to follow, each hypothesis refers to activity as a general concept. As mentioned in the introduction and clearly specified in the methodological section, we work with four components of activity, thus generating four models. Each hypothesis will assume a similar logic for these components. For example, hypothesis 1 should be read as ‘MEPs with political background attend more often the meetings, write and amend more reports, and give more speeches compared with the rest of the MEPs’.
25.Strøm, K. (1997) Rules, reasons and routines: legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 155174.
26.Bellier, I. (1997) The commission as an actor: an anthropologist’s view. In: H. Wallace and A. Young (eds) Participation and Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
27.Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
28.Trondal, J. (2001) Is there any social constructivist-institutionalist divide? Unpacking social mechanisms affecting representational roles among EU decision-makers. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(1), 123.
29.Hooghe, L. (1999) Supranational activists or intergovernmental agents? Explaining the orientations of senior commission officials toward European integration. Comparative Political Studies, 32(4), 435463.
30. J. Brzinski, H. Gunning, M. Haspel and K. Saunders (1998) Understanding defection in the European Parliament. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
31.Kreppel, A. (2002) The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
32.Katz, R. (1999) Representation, the locus of democratic legitimation, and the role of the national parliament in the European Union. In: R. Katz and B. Wessels (eds) The European Parliament, the National Parliaments, and European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
33.Scully, R. (2002) Going native? Institutional and partisan loyalty in the European Parliament. In: B. Steunenberg and J. Thomassen (eds) The European Parliament: Moving Towards Democracy in the EU (London: Rowman & Littlefield).
34.Raunio, T. (2002) Beneficial cooperation or mutual ignorance? Contacts between MEPs and National Parties. In: B. Steunenberg and J. Thomassen (eds) The European Parliament: Moving Towards Democracy in the EU (London: Rowman & Littlefield).
35.Hix, S. (2005) The Political System of the European Union, 2nd edn (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
36.Hix, S. and Lord, C. (1997) Political Parties in the European Union (Basingstoke: Macmillan).

Improving Rookies’ Performance: An Assessment of the Romanian MEPs’ Activity

  • Sergiu Gherghina (a1) and Doru Frantescu (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed