Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:22:42.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The politics of justification? Applying the ‘Discourse Quality Index’ to the study of the European Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Christopher Lord  and
Dionysia Tamvaki
Christopher Lord*
Affiliation:
ARENA – Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Dionysia Tamvaki
Affiliation:
Former Post-Doc Researcher on the Recon Programme, Co-ordinated from ARENA, The Centre for European Studies, The University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
*
*E-mail: Dtamva@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we apply a revised version of the Discourse Quality Index (DQI) developed by Steenbergen et al. to European Parliament (EP) debates. This updated measurement instrument, after the inclusion of new indicators, helps us identify not just the principles of European Union (EU) deliberation but most importantly the favourable contextual conditions of supranational deliberation. We illustrate the new DQI coding for selected debates over the last EU parliamentary term and discuss how the data can be employed to assess the overall quality of deliberation in the EP. At the same time we demonstrate that institutional issues matter for the quality of EP discourse, as do Members of the European Parliaments’ personal characteristics. Issue attributes on the other hand, influence supranational deliberation but not in the expected direction.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 27 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K. (1951), Individual Values and Social Choice, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Auerbach, C.F.Silverstein, L.S. (2003), Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Austin-Smith, D.Feddersen, T. (2006), ‘Deliberation, preference uncertainty and voting rules’, American Political Science Review 100(2): 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, A.Hangartner, D. (2010), ‘When deliberative theory meets empirical political science: theoretical and methodological challenges in political deliberation’, Political Studies 58: 609–629.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Rosenberg, S.W., Pedrini, S., Ryser, M., Patterson, M., Steenbergen, M.R. (2009), ‘Discourse Quality Index 2: an updated measurement instrument for deliberative processes’. Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference, 2–5 April 2009, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Steenbergen, M.R. (2004), ‘The real world of deliberation. A comparative study of its favorable conditions in legislatures’. EUI Working Paper SPS no. 2004/17.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. (2007), ‘New forms of accountability and EU-governance’, Comparative European Politics 5: 104–120.Google Scholar
Checkel, J.T. (2000), ‘Bridging the rational-choice/constructivist gap? Theorizing social interaction in European institutions’, ARENA Working Papers no. 00/11, Oslo.Google Scholar
Childs, S. (2004), ‘A feminised style of politics? Women MPs in the house of commons’, British Journal of Politics & International Relations 6(1): 3–19.Google Scholar
Costa, O. (2001), Le Parlement Européen Assemblée Déliberante, Bruxelles: Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Corbett, R., Jacobs, F.Shackleton, M. (2000), The European Parliament, London: John Harper Publishing.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1927), The Public and its Problems, New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Eriksen, E.O.Fossum, J.E. (2002), ‘Democracy through strong publics in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(3): 401–424.Google Scholar
Forst, R. (2007), Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Elemente einer Konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (1986), ‘Laundering preferences’, in J. Elster and A. Hylland (eds), 1986. Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (2005), Reflective Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grunenfelder, R., Bächtiger, A. (2007), ‘Gendered deliberation? How men and women deliberate in legislatures’. ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research), Joint Sessions, May 2007, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hagemann, S. (2009), Strength in numbers? An evaluation of the 2004–2009 European Parliament. European Policy Centre Issue Paper, 58.Google Scholar
Hix, S., Noury, A.Ronald, (2009), ‘Voting patterns and alliance formation in the European Parliament’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 821–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hix, S., Kreppel, A.Noury, A. (2003), ‘The party system in the European Parliament: collusive or competitive’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41(2): 309–331.Google Scholar
Hix, S.Lord, C. (1997), Political Parties in the European Union, London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K. (2001), ‘Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 8: 243–286.Google Scholar
Hönneth, A. (1995), The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hoyland, B., Godbout, J.F. (2008), ‘Debates and votes in the European Parliament’. Retrieved 29 June 2011 from http://sites.google.com/site/polgodbout/home/research.Google Scholar
Joerges, C. (2006), ‘Deliberative political processes revisited. What have we learned about the legitimacy of supranational decision-making?, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(4): 779–802.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, C.F.Mendelberg, T. (2007), ‘An experimental approach to citizen deliberation’, Swiss Political Science Review 134: 645–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleine, M., Risse, T. (2004), ‘Arguing and bargaining in the European convention’. Kick-off Meeting of NEWGOV Project, 10 December 2004, Brussels.Google Scholar
Klüver, H. (2009), ‘Measuring interest group influence using quantitative text analysis’, European Union Politics 10(4): 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Magnette, P.Nicolaïdis, K. (2004), ‘The European convention: bargaining in the shadow of rhetoric’, West European Politics 273: 381–404.Google Scholar
Manin, B. (1997), The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2003), ‘Rethinking representation’, American Political Science Review 974: 515–528.Google Scholar
March, J.Olsen, J. (1995), Democratic Governance, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. (1976), ‘Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda-control’, Journal of Economic Theory 123: 472–482.Google Scholar
McKeown, T.J. (1999), ‘Case studies and the statistical worldview: review of King Keohane, and Verba's designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research’, International Organization 53: 161–190.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1972) [1861]. Utilitarianism, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government, London: Dent.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1996), ‘Deliberative democracy and social choice’, in D. Held (ed.), Prospects for Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Naurin, D. (2009), ‘Most common when least important: deliberation in the European Union Council of Ministers’, British Journal of Political Science 40: 31–50.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, J. (1991), ‘The challenges of multiplicity’, Michigan Law Review 89: 1591–1609.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. (1986), The Art of Political Manipulation, Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2002), Rationality and Freedom, Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spinner, M. (2007), ‘Compulsory consensus? The sources of elite political culture and the consolidation of Central and East European democracies’. PhD thesis, Central European University. Retrieved 22 January 2011 from http://web.ceu.hu/polsci/dissertations/Max_Spinner.pdfGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M.Steiner, J. (2003), ‘Measuring political deliberation. A discourse quality index’, Comparative European Politics 11: 21–48.Google Scholar
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M.Steenbergen, M.R. (2004), Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stie, A. (2010), ‘Co-decision – the panacea for EU democracy?’ PhD thesis published as an ARENA Report 10/19. Available at: http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-publications/reports/2010/Report_01_10.PdfGoogle Scholar
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007), ‘Measuring deliberations content: a coding scheme’. Journal of Public Deliberation 3: 1–34.Google Scholar
Ulbert, C.Risse, T. (2005), ‘Deliberately changing the discourse: what does make arguing effective?’, Acta Politica 40: 351–367.Google Scholar
Weale, A. (1999), Democracy, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lord supplementary material

Lord supplementary material

Download Lord supplementary material(File)
File 714.5 KB