Abstract
Even though the territorial dimension of the European representative mandate may be a key element for European Union's legitimization, it remains overlooked in academic literature. This article explores this statement by analysing the EP's French delegation, which includes several interesting features with regard to territorial representation. The article is structured around three research questions: how do French Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) deal with the territorial dimension of their mandate? Why are there some variations regarding focus of representation? To what extent does their focus of representation affect their role orientation? Relying on the results of 37 interviews with French MEPs using both closed and open-ended questions, we demonstrate that the MEPs develop a composite view of representation and display some variations in terms of focus of representation. Those variations are explained mostly through the actor's political orientations and socio-biographic characteristics. We also understand that the focus of representation has some effect on how French MEPs conceive their mandate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
LEGIPAR research project: ‘Parliamentary Legitimation and democratic governance in France and in the EU’, funded by the French National Agency for Research (ANR), 2009–2012. http://legipar.sciencespobordeaux.fr/Index_anglais.htm.
In the sample, some national parties are slightly underrepresented (Les Verts, Front National and Mouvement démocrate), whereas the socialist party is slightly overrepresented. It must also be noted that some MEPs did not answer all the questions, which explains the varying ‘N’. Given the small size of N, statistical significance could not be achieved and the results are to be interpreted cautiously as indicating a trend rather than a definitive result of a direct relation.
The 2012 EP calendar officially provides 28 working days for ‘external parliamentary activities – constituency work’ whereas the 2000 calendar did not mention any.
A new report on a European-wide list for 25 seats (Duff report) was under discussion in the EP (April 2012), but the vote in plenary has been or postponed twice.
Organic law n 2003-327 on the election of the regional councilor and representatives to the European Parliament as well as to the public financing of political parties (Loi n°2003-327 du 11 avril 2003 relative à l’élection des conseillers régionaux et des représentants au parlement européen ainsi qu’à l’aide publique aux partis politiques, Journal officiel, n°87).
The original question was: For each of the following statements, could you give a score between 1, absolutely not agree, to 5, absolutely agree?1. The MEP represents first and foremost his constituency and territory 2. The MEP represents first and foremost his electors, in his constituency 3. The MEP represents first and foremost the French population 4. The MEP represents first and foremost his national party 5. The MEP represents first and foremost his political group in the EP 6. The MEP represents first and foremost the European citizens.
The answers were recoded according to three dimensions: local (score on answers one and two), national (score on answers three and four) and European (score on answers five and six). Only the primary focus of representation was selected for each MEP according to the scores on each dimension.
Although 39 MEPs were interviewed, only 38 answered this particular question (Q15).
The ‘local’ level can be interpreted in various ways by the MEPs. It might be the whole constituency, the région, the département (district, subdivision of an administrative region) or voters in the electoral district (see for instance Studlar and McAllister 1996; Nay, 2003). The aim here is not to define what MEPs mean by their ‘local territory’ but to highlight the variety of focus of representation among them.
The original question was: Some consider that the EU is already more powerful than necessary. Others think on the contrary that European integration should be reinforced. Could you place yourself on this scale, where 1 corresponds to the idea that the EU is already too powerful and 10 to the idea that integration should be reinforced? This relationship must be considered with care: an analysis of the variance (Anova) would be necessary, but given the small sample, the results would also be difficult to interpret.
The members of the Bureau, presidents and vice presidents of parliamentary committees and political groups have been considered as holding ‘responsibilities’ in the EP.
The indicator is not the actual seat safety, traditionally measured by the results of the previous elections, but the perceived safety measured by MEPs answers to two questions: (1) If you intend to be candidate for the next EU elections, do you think you will be re-nominated by your party? (2) In that case, do you think you will be reelected? MEPs had the choice between five answers: certainly, probably, as much chance to be re-nominated/re-elected than not to be, probably not and certainly not. The two first answers were recoded as ‘yes’, the two last as ‘no’.
During the interviews, most MEPs were quite aware that their activity record in the EP, their involvement in the chamber and the EU, is not included in the primary factors that determine their reselection by the party.
The original question was: Where does your mandate give you more satisfaction? Could you please give a note between 1 (no satisfaction) to 5 (great satisfaction) for both levels? (1) when you are exercising your mandate in the EP (2) when you are exercising your mandate in the constituency/at local level.
The original question was: In your opinion, what is the more important aspect of your mandate as an MEP? (1) the work in the EP (2) the work as an intermediary between your constituency and the EU institutions (3) both.
This role of intermediary was highlighted by Navarro (2009) in his comparative study of the representative mandate at the EU level.
MEPs were given the choice among 5 options: influence the action of the European Commission, help the voters in their relations with the administration, participate in the work of the EP, defend the constituency in the EP and solve the problems in the constituency.
References
Andeweg, R. and Thomassen, J. (2005) Modes of political representation: Toward a new typology. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (4): 507–528.
Beauvallet, W. and Michon, S. (2007) Eurodéputés et représentation des territoires. Les cahiers du CRESS 7: 129–134.
Beauvallet, W. and Michon, S. (2009) Les transformations sociologiques des parlementaires européens. Revue politique et parlementaire 1052: 83–89.
Beauvallet, W. and Michon, S. (2010) L’institutionnalisation inachevée du Parlement européen. Hétérogénéité nationale, spécialisation du recrutement et autonomisation. Politix 89 (1): 147–172.
Bertoncini, Y. and Chopin, T. (2009) Les élections européennes en France: un triple choix. Questions d’Europe 135: 1–14.
Blomgren, M. and Rozenberg, O. (eds.) (2012) Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures. London: Routledge.
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J. and Fiorina, M. (1987) The Personal Vote. Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clarke, H., Price, R. and Krause, R. (1975) Constituency service among Canadian Provincial Legislators: Basic findings and a test of three hypotheses. Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 8 (4): 521–542.
Costa, O. (1999) L’utilisation des pouvoirs constituants et législatifs du Parlement européen: puissance tribunicienne, équilibres politiques et rationalisations. In: P. Delwit, J.-M. De Waele and P. Magnette (eds.) A quoi sert le Parlement européen? Stratégies et pouvoirs d’une Assemblée transnationale, Brussels: Complexe, pp. 77–107.
Costa, O. (2001) Le Parlement européen, assemblée délibérante? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Costa, O. (2002) Who do MEPs represent? Socialization and territorial representation in the European parliament. Paper presented at the ECPR Standing group on the European Union, Bordeaux.
Costa, O. and Kerrouche, E. (2009) Representative roles in the French national assembly: The case for a dual typology? French Politics 7 (3–4): 219–242.
Costa, O., Kerrouche, E. and Pélerin, J. (2007) Les députés européens en quête de ‘proximité’. Retour sur la réforme française du mode de scrutin aux élections européennes. In: O. Costa and P. Magnette (eds.) Une Europe des élites? Réflexions sur la fracture démocratique de l’Union européenne. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, pp. 116–137.
Costa, O. and Navarro, J. (2003) La représentation au Parlement européen Qui représentent les parlementaires européens? In: S. Saurugger (ed.) Les modes de représentation dans l’Union européenne. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 123–150.
Costa, O. and Saint-Martin, F. (2011) Le Parlement européen, 2nd edn. Paris: La Documentation française.
Costa, O., Schnatterer, T. and Kerrouche, E. (2011) French MPs between nation and constituencies. Paper presented at the APSA annual Conference; 1–4 September, Seattle, USA.
Davidson, R.H. (1969) The Role of the Congressman. New York: Pegasus.
Eulau, H., Wahlke, J.C., Buchanan, W. and Ferguson, L. (1959) The role of the representative: Some empirical observations on the theory of Edmund Burke. The American Political Science Review 53 (3): 742–756.
Farrell, D. and Scully, R. (2007) Representing Europe's Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the failure of Parliamentary Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, D. and Scully, R. (2010) The European parliament: One parliament, several modes of political representation on the ground? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1): 36–54.
Fenno, R. (1978) Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.
Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106.
Gross, D. (1978) Representative styles and legislative behaviour. The Western Political Quarterly 31 (3): 359–371.
Hix, S., Noury, A. and Roland, G. (2007) Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, UK.
Hix, S., Raunio, T. and Scully, R. (2003) Fifty years on: Research on the European parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (2): 191–202.
Kauppi, N. (1996) European union institutions and French political careers. Scandinavian Political Studies 19 (1): 1–24.
Marsh, M. (1998) Testing the second-order election model after four European elections. British Journal of Political Science 28 (4): 591–607.
Marsh, M. and Norris, P. (1997) Political Representation in the European parliament. European Journal of Political Research 32 (3-4): 153–164.
Marsh, M. and Wessels, B. (1997) Territorial representation. European Journal of Political Research 32 (3-4): 227–242.
Miller, W. and Stokes, D. (1963) Constituency influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review 57 (1): 45–56.
Navarro, J. (2009) Les députés européens et leur rôle. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Nay, O. (2002) Le jeu du compromis. Les élus régionaux entre territoire et pratiques d’assemblée. In: O. Nay and A. Smith (eds.) Le gouvernement du compromis, courtiers et généralistes de l’action politique. Paris: Economica, pp. 47–86.
Norris, P. and Franklin, M. (1997) Social representation. European Journal of Political Research 32 (2): 185–210.
Reif, K. and Schmitt, H. (1980) Nine second order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research 8 (1): 3–44.
Schmitt, H. and Thomassen, J. (1999) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scully, R. and Farrell, D.M. (2001) Understanding constituency representation in the European parliament. Paper presented at the ECSA Conference, Madison.
Scully, R., Hix, S. and Farrell, D.M. (2012) National or European Parliamentarians? Evidence from a new survey of the members of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (4): 670–683.
Searing, D. (1994) Westminster's World Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sigalas, E. (2011) When Quantity Matters. Activity Levels and Re-election Prospects of MEPs. RECON online working papers, 2011/7.
Studlar, D.T. and McAllister, I. (1996) Constituency activity and representational roles among Australian legislators. The Journal of Politics 58 (1): 69–90.
Thomassen, J. and Schmitt, H. (1997) Policy representation. European Journal of Political Research 32 (2): 165–184.
Wahlke, J., Eulau, H., Buchanan, W. and Ferguson, L. (1962) The Legislative System. Explorations in Legislative Behaviour. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Wessels, B. (1999) Whom to represent? Role orientations of Legislators in Europe. In: H. Schmitt and J. Thomassen (eds.) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209–234.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brack, N., Costa, O. The challenges of territorial representation at the supranational level: The case of French MEPs. Fr Polit 11, 1–23 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/fp.2012.23
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/fp.2012.23