Strong bicameralism:Pressures for change in inter-institutional legislative negotiations in the EU, the USA, and Germany

In: Brandsma , G J & Roederer-Rynning , C 2022 , Strong bicameralism : Pressures for change in inter-institutional legislative negotiations in the EU, the USA, and Germany . European Parliament: Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services . https://doi.org/10.2861/269830

Abstract

The European Union, the United States, and Germany are characterised by what political scientists call strong bicameralism. These systems feature two legislative bodies (houses or chambers) of relative equality of standing and lack of political congruence, owing to their dissimilar political composition. In all three systems, laws cannot be passed unless they are approved by both chambers in identical form. Strong bicameralism invites discord between the chambers while making it necessary for them to accommodate their differences to exert power. These tensions make negotiations between the chambers (inter-cameral negotiations) an integral feature of legislative politics. Beyond these similarities, the three political systems display important differences in the specific legislative procedures and the composition of the chambers. In addition, they are embedded in very different political contexts. One basic contextual difference is that the European Union, unlike the United States and Germany, is not a state; and that EU Member States have retained more power than the US States and the German Länder. With this comparison, we hope to contribute to a broader and ongoing reflection about what is unique and not so unique about the EU, and what insights can be learned from other political systems. The United States and Germany were indeed a source of inspiration for drawing up the legislative procedure of the EU. We proceed case by case, starting briefly with the EU before turning our attention to the United States and Germany.2 For each case, we outline (1) the basic law-making institutions, (2) the process of inter-cameral conflict resolution, and (3),the political and public pressures for change.