Presentation on theme: "Our project on Representing Europeans is financed by a grant from the British Economic and Social Research Council ECPR 5 th Pan-European Conference on."— Presentation transcript:
Our project on Representing Europeans is financed by a grant from the British Economic and Social Research Council ECPR 5 th Pan-European Conference on EU Politics INEQUALITIES IN REPRESENTATION IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Prof. RICHARD ROSE & Dr PATRICK BERNHAGEN Porto, Portugal 23-26 June 2010
REPRESENTATION IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT One person, one vote: YES; all EU citizens can vote One vote, one value: NO; the value varies radically between countries
Figure 1.1 CROSS-NATIONAL INEQUALITY IN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2009 Index of inequality (100 = complete equality) Source: Calculated by dividing the population per MEP in each country by the number of electors per MEP in the whole EU, as reported in Table 1, and multiplying the result by 100. Under- represented Over- represented
Figure 1.2. DEGREES OF INEQUALITY IN REPRESENTATION Gini Index of Inequality Source: Calculated by the authors. Maximum inequality
Explanation PATH DEPENDENT INEQUALITIES IN REPRESENTATION The ECSC pact in the early 1950s Carried over into the Council of Ministers in 1957 And into the first elected Parliament 1979 Increasing inequality: Gini index 0.21 in 1979; 0.27 in 2010
MEPsVotes mn Votes per MEP % EP mean Euro. People's26554.0204,000101 Socials & Democrats18437.9206,000102 ALDE 8417.2204,000101 Greens 5512.3223,000110 Con & Reform 54 7.7142,000 70 Left-Nordic Green 35 6.4182,000 90 Freedom & Democ'y 32 7.7240,000119 Non-aligned27 5.6207,000102 European Parliament736149.0202,000100 Table 3.1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT PARTIES: VOTES PER MEP
Votes Seats Countries with seats N (000)%N% Diff Seats-vote EPP2654,04336.236.0265+0.2 SD2737,92425.425.0184+0.4 ALDE1917,24611.511.484+0.1 Greens1412,258 8.2 7.555+0.7 ECR8 7,779 5.2 7.354-2.1 Left13 6,433 4.3 4.835-0.5 EFD9 7,676 5.2 4.332+0.9 Non- aligned 95,6003.7 270.0 Totals27149,000100% 736 Table 3.2 PROPORTIONALITY OF REPRESENTATION OF EP PARTY GROUPS Seats, party groups as of EP 26 July 2009. Numbers to be double checked.
bs.e. Over-representation in EP5.68**2.05 Per capita GDP, 20070.02**0.01 Employment in agriculture %26.03**11.9 Unemployment63.2639.24 Outliers (Belgium, Luxembourg)656.88**303.17 ** p < 0.05 Table 3.3 EFFECT OF OVER-REPRESENTATION ON EU BENEFITS Dependent variable: Net benefit from contribution to EU budget, 2008 Variance accounted for: adjusted R 2 58% Source: Net benefit: Calculated from Potton (2010: Table 1). Representation index as in Figure 1.1. Per capita GDP: Eurostat. Percent employment in agriculture, unemployment 2007: World Bank.
RE-ALLOCATING MEPs LISBON TREATY CONSTRAINTS Minimum of 6 seats per party Maximum of 96 seats per country CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Gini Index of Inequality. 0 means no inequality Pareto optimal. No (or very few countries) lose an MEP Lamassoure-Severin definition of degressive proportionality
GiniParetoNon-ordinal Lam.Severin GainLose Status quo 4.1 Existing0.27n.a.9 Adaptive reforms 4.2 Add 18 seats0.271205 4.3 Enlargement to 290.2910110 4.4 Match EU Council0.352255 New design 4.5 Square root formula0.362060 4.6 Parabolic0.261192 4.7 Mixed methods0.2512145 Table 4.1 ALTERNATIVE FORMULA FOR ALLOCATING EP SEATS COMPARED Sources: As cited in the text.
IMPLICATIONS Party coalitions rather than national populations drive the EP Trans and inter-institutional politics drive EU outputs Inputs of voters remote or absent as well as unequal Majone and Scharpf now claim more popular input needed But the question is: HOW?