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

具体研究问题：1。内部科学专家能否提高议会决策的质量？如何提高？在欧洲议会（EP）的特殊情况下，这些专业知识如何与其他投入（例如委员会、利益集团）进行比较和联系？加强欧洲议会的研究资源是否能显著提高欧洲议会议员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：当代议会制民主国家已经见证了政策制定控制权从议会向容易获得丰富专业知识的行政部门的重大转变。在欧盟，议会失去对行政决策的控制，并没有得到欧洲议会相应加强的充分补偿。虽然欧洲议会现在拥有共同决策权，但它的决策作用得到的支持却很弱。最近欧洲议会研究服务（EPRS）的重组和扩大就是为了解决这个问题，让欧洲议会议员个人获得内部的科学专业知识，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”。该项目将调查改革借鉴了哪些国家模板（如美国、德国），如何提供内部专业知识，如何使用，以及各利益相关者如何评估其质量和重要性。为了回答其研究问题，它将利用定量（EPRS数据集，包括请求的数量和类型、使用该服务的欧洲议会议员的国籍和政治团体所属关系、响应的速度和类型等）和定性（例如，对欧洲议会议员、欧洲议会议员助理、欧洲议会议员官员、科学顾问等进行30次半结构化访谈）研究方法。利用政治和政策制定的建构主义/社会学概念，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看待其质量、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.