Expertise in Supranational Politics: the European Parliament Research Service, Policy-Making, and the Democratic Deficit

具体的研究问题：1.内部科学专门知识能否提高议会决策的质量，以及如何提高？2.在欧洲议会(EP)的具体案例中，这种专门知识与其他决策投入(如委员会、利益集团)相比和联系如何？3.加强欧洲议会(EP)的研究资源是否显著提高了欧洲议会的独立性和在决策中的作用，这在多大程度上有助于解决“民主赤字”？背景和理由：当代议会民主国家对决策的控制发生了重大转变，从议会转向易于获得丰富专业知识的高管。在欧盟，议会失去对行政决策的控制并没有得到相应加强的欧洲议会的充分补偿。虽然欧洲议会现在拥有共同决策权，但它对其政策制定角色的支持力度很小。欧洲议会研究服务处最近的重组和扩大旨在通过让个别欧洲议会议员获得内部科学专业知识来解决这一问题，以加强他们独立于委员会或利益集团等其他机构的独立性。欧洲议会希望这些变化能够有助于提高议会决策的质量，并有助于解决“民主赤字”问题。该项目将调查改革借鉴了哪些国家模板(例如美国、德国)，如何提供内部专门知识，如何使用内部专门知识，以及各利益攸关方如何评估内部专门知识的质量和重要性。为回答其研究问题，它将利用定量数据(关于请求的数量和类型、使用服务的欧洲议会议员的国籍和政治团体从属关系、答复速度和类型等方面的EPRS数据集)。和定性(例如，对环境影响报告书的文件分析；c.对欧洲议会议员、环境保护局助理、环境保护局官员、科学顾问等进行了30次半结构化访谈)。研究方法。利用建构主义/社会学的政治和政策制定概念，该项目将侧重于那些生产、引导和使用内部科学专门知识的人如何认识其质量、相关性和影响。

Specific research questions:1. Can in-house scientific expertise enhance the quality of parliamentary policy-making, and how?2. How does such expertise compare and relate to other input (e.g. Commission, interest groups) into policy-making in the particular case of the European Parliament (EP)?3. Does strengthening the research resources of the EP significantly enhance MEPs' independence and role in policy-making, and to what extent can this help address the 'democratic deficit'?Background and rationale: Contemporary parliamentary democracies have seen a significant shift in control over policy-making from parliaments to executives that have easy access to abundant expertise. In the EU, the loss of control by parliaments over executive policy-making has not been compensated fully by a corresponding strengthening of the EP. While the EP now has co-decision powers, it has weak support for its policy-making role. The recent reorganization and expansion of the EP Research Service (EPRS) has been designed to address this problem by giving individual MEPs access to in-house scientific expertise to strengthen their independence from other institutions like the Commission or interest groups. The EP hopes that these changes can contribute to bolstering the quality of parliamentary policy-making and help address the 'democratic deficit'. This project will investigate which national templates (e.g. US, Germany) the reform drew on, how the in-house expertise is provided, how it is used, and how its quality and importance is assessed by various stakeholders. To answer its research questions, it will utilize quantitative (EPRS data sets on number and types of requests, nationality and political group affiliation of MEPs using the service, speed and type of response etc.) and qualitative (e.g. document analysis of EPRS papers; c. 30 semi-structured interviews with MEPs, MEP assistants, EPRS officials, scientific advisers etc.) research methods. Drawing on constructivist/sociological concepts of politics and policy-making, the project will focus on how those who produce, channel and use in-house scientific expertise perceive its quality, relevance and impact.