The importance that MEPs attach to Constituency Work OFFLINE

In line with the null hypothesis that expected for the great majority MEPs to have low pro-constituency orientations, MEPs were expected not to have a pro-constituency office (H0a), or if they had one they would spend less than 0.5 days being present in their constituencies (H0b), would employ proportionally less staff in their constituency office than in their Brussels office (H0c) and would proportionally spend less time on constituency work than on other activities (H0d). In addition to the above four indicators, MEPs were also asked (Table 5.4) to what extent they attach importance to being active in their constituencies.

With respect to (H0a) results, 94 per cent MEP survey respondents stated that they have a physical office in their constituencies or home countries while only 6 per cent reported that they do no have one at all. This leads to the conclusion that having a constituency office is a standard feature among the greatest majority of MEP respondents.

Starting with the more general question, maintaining citizen relations and educating the public about EU issues top the charts as the perceived ‘most important’ activity in MEPs’ mandates.

Moreover, 78 per cent MEP respondents considered maintaining an active presence in their countries as important or very important (Table 5.4). All three activities comprise constituency outreach activities. At the same time, the results also show that MEPs still find parliamentary and committee work as more important while pursuing pork – advantages for their constituencies (also a constituency related activity) – scores the lowest in terms of importance.

Table 5.4 Attitudinal importance attached to various activities pursued by MEPs (%)

Not Somewhat Moderate Important Very Important (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean N

Parliamentary and committee work 1 1 9 25 64 4.5 140

Public education about EU 0 1 6 32 60 4.5 139

Active presence in home country 0 3 19 34 44 4.2 137

Active media relations 0 10 21 40 29 3.9 126

Advancing EU policies 6 6 19 40 29 3.8 139

Porc-barrel politics 11 25 24 18 22 3.2 139

Time Allocated to Constituency Work

As mentioned in Chapter 3, while EP’s Rules of Conduct do not stipulate any constituency obligations for MEPs, the EP’s official calendar formally assigns 28 days, or 0.5 days per week for constituency presence. The (H0b) therefore expected that a great majority of MEPs will on average spend 0.5 days per week in their constituencies. While the results (Table 5.5) are consistent and confirm that on average MEPs spend more time on parliamentary work than on communicating with citizens, casework or media relations, 85 per cent of MEP respondents reported to spend between 1 to 3 working days²⁸, an average of 2 days in their constituencies. Only 4 per cent MEPs admitted to spend less than one working day per week in their constituencies while 11 per cent showed to spend more than 3 days per week. These indications thus suggest that MEPs are showing to be spending significantly more time in constituencies than expected. With the response rate being statistically significant, leads to the rejection of the H0b.

Table 5.5 Number of days spent in the constituency

On average, as MEP how much time do you spend on political work in your home country? (N=139)

1 day per month or less 0%

More than 1 day / month but less than 1 day / week 4%

1 day per week 24%

2 days per week 43%

3 day per week 18%

More than 3 days per week 11%

28 The ‘working days’ specification is important as most surveys (including the EPRG MEP survey) merely state ‘days’ which can include weekends (spent with family) hence inaccurately reflect ‘working time’.

In addition to the number of days spent in the constituency, another time related indicator asked MEPs to estimate on a scale 0-100 (%) how much time they allocate to different activities. This was a slightly different measure than the previous since it tries to establish the relative importance of constituency work vis-a-vis other activities that MEPs pursue in their mandate.

Table 5.6 results show that when looking at single activities, MEPs spend most time (on average 40%) on parliamentary work while citizen relations come closely second (at 30%). On other constituency outreach activities such as casework and media relations, MEPs show to spend approximately 20 per cent of their time while attending to interest group activities and website management appear to be lowest on MEPs’ priority list.

Given these results, at first glance, the null hypothesis (H0c) where MEPs were expected to spend more time on parliamentary and other activities than on constituency outreach, was accepted. At the same time, while the results show that parliamentary activities do dominate MEPs’ schedules and attention, in effect, when the different constituency work and outreach related activities (e.g.

communication with citizens + casework + media relations) are added together, the survey responses also show that MEPs do end up spending, on average, 50 per cent or more time on these activities. This would lead us to reject the H0c hypothesis. While more refined analysis would be beneficial in teasing out the exact proportions and even when acknowledging potential sources of pro-constituency (survey) bias, this is an important finding as it reinforces the fact that unlike what was expected, MEPs do end up spending a significant proportion of their time on constituency and citizen outreach activities.

Table 5.6 Time spent by MEPs on various activities

In your overall workload, about what proportion of time do you personally dedicate to the following activities? (tick one box per line, the total value in boxes ticked should not exceed 100%)

Type of activity 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% <70% Avg. N

Parliamentary work 4.5 51 27 7 15 15 2 4.5 40% 135

Website Management 3 52 8 15 4 15 1.5 1.5 10% 131

Citizen relations 15 21 24 33 6 15 2 8 30% 135

Media relations 4 51 27 7 1.5 1.5 2 6 20% 135

Interest group relations 11 55 17 8.5 1.5 1 2 4 15% 130

Casework 10 47 19 10 3 2 1.5 7 20% 131

Values in the table represent % of total MEP respondents.

Constituency Office and Staff Allocations

When it comes to constituency versus Brussels office allocations, all MEPs receive ‘general (office) expenditure allowance’ of EUR 4202 per month (2009 figure)²⁹ and EUR 17 540 maximum for staff.

But similarly as in the case of time allocation, there are no set rules as to how many assistants or offices MEP can have. How MEPs spend allocate their office and staff allowance is therefore entirely up to them and has been a source of controversy in the past³⁰. Still, because MEPs receive the same amounts for office and staff, the distribution of staff between MEPs’ Brussels office versus their constituency office is a good proxy for the level of priority they attached to each. In line with the low pro-constituency orientation and outreach (H0d) expected that the great majority of MEPs will allocate more staff to their Brussels offices than to their constituency office.

The first observation with respect to this dimension is that majority of MEPs tends to hire more staff in Brussels than in their constituency office, yet the (survey sample) mean suggests that MEPs employ the same number of staff in Brussels as in their home constituencies; two in each office.

Proportionality in hiring similar numbers of staff for both offices was also consistent among both, low and higher ends of the sample. MEPs employing below average number of employees in Brussels were also likely to employ below average number of staff in their (CO) while the same was true for those hiring staff above the sample’s mean. This leads this thesis to conjecture that MEPs’

work at home in their constituencies as well as in Brussels occupies similar amount of staff time.

At the same time, it was also observed that MEP respondents were less likely to have no staff in their Brussels office than in their constituency office, and more MEPs tend to employ an above average number – three or more staff - in their constituency office (see Graph 5.7) than those employing the same amount in Brussels, a trend present among one third of MEPs. Assuming that MEPs hire staff in proportion to the degree of their political engagement and activities they pursue, it is conceivable that the one-third MEPs who have more staff in their constituencies will engage in more constituency outreach activities.

29 This allowance officially covers expenditure in the Member State of election, such as Members’ office management costs, phone and postal charges, the purchase and maintenance of computer and telematics equipment, and the cost of travel. The allowance is halved in the case of Members who, without due justification, do not attend half the number of plenary sittings in one parliamentary year (www. europarl.eu).

30‘MEP expenses row taints Tory Election’ (April 30, 2004) www.timesonline.co.uk; ‘How to make a million in five years (become a Euro MP)’ 22 February 2009, www.timesonline.co.uk MEPs award themselves £91,000 tax free expenses a year’ (13

December 2010).www.telegraph.co.uk.

Graph 5.7 Staff Allocations: Brussels/ Constituency

Interviews with MEPs exposed another interesting and somewhat unexpected insight with respect to what determines MEPs’ staff allocation. While the general assumption would be that constituency office staff size and MEPs’ pro-constituency outreach are strongly positively correlated, where MEPs with higher number of constituency staff would be expected to conduct more constituency outreach and take on more casework, MEPs explained that there maybe other factors at play that determine MEPs’ staff allocations. For MEPs from CEE, it is a question of cost advantage. It is more affordable for MEPs from CEE to hire staff in their home countries than in Brussels where staff salary expectations are higher. Given that all MEPs receive the same allowance budget, lower salary costs act as incentives for CEE MEPs to hire more staff in their constituencies.

In contrast, MEPs from other EU countries even if they would want to hire more staff in their constituencies they are more disadvantaged to do so. As it will be discussed in the next section, another explanation for CEE MEPs hiring more CO staff is that they pursue different types of constituency activities than their Western counterparts. Though they reach out to and solicit less casework from individual citizens, they take on more pork barrel cases.

In brief summary, with respect to MEPs’ offline constituency orientations based on a set of four attitudinal indicators including personal perceptions, time and staff allocations, it can be concluded that MEPs attach a fair degree of importance to their constituency work and to maintaining their linkage with citizens between elections alive. As summarized in Table 5.8, three out of the four

(null) sub-hypotheses that expected low pro-constituency orientations among MEPs were rejected where MEPs showed to be more pro-constituency oriented than originally anticipated.

Table 5.8 Summary of Findings on MEPs’ OFFLINE Constituency Orientations

Hypotheses OFFLINE Constituency Orientations Findings

(H0a) Great majority MEPs do not to have a constituency office Rejected (H0b) Spend less than 0.5 days being present in their

constituencies would

Rejected

(H0c) Proportionally spend less time on constituency work than on other activities

Rejected/

Accepted

(H0d) Employ proportionally less staff in their constituency office than in their Brussels office

Accepted

 Accepted under qualification, see above.

Regression analysis corroborated the descriptive results where pro-constituency attitudes were positively correlated with MEPs’ time spend in the constituency. MEPs who spend more time in their constituencies are also more likely schedule more appointments with individual citizens and use public events rather than TV or newspapers as a means of constituency outreach. This leads to suggest that those MEPs who spend more time in their constituencies engage in more direct, face-to-face constituency activities. MEPs from regional constituencies, European Peoples’ Party and those who are younger (25 to 35 year olds cohort) was also positively correlated with the more time spent in the constituency. Ballot structure or other demographic factors such as gender or education did not play a role. Incumbency, which theoretically should be negatively associated with pro-constituency orientations, more political responsibility (committee and delegation work in Brussels), distance to constituency and MEP-constituent ratio also showed to be insignificant.