Voting powers and the efficiency of the decision-making process in the european council of ministers

被引:0
|
作者
Fedeli S. [1 ]
Forte F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Facoltá di Economia, Dipartimento di Economia Pubblica, Universitá di Roma, “La Sapienza”, Roma, 00161, Via del Castro Laurenziano
关键词
Bloc formation; Blocking power; Decision-making fairness vs. efficiency; EU enlargement; Qualified majority; Simple majority; Voting power index; Voting rules; Voting weights;
D O I
10.1023/A:1011211225810
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
We analyse the efficiency effects in combination with some accepted "fairness" criteria for the voting games in the European Council of Ministers (ECM) under the qualified majority voting (QMV), before and after the Nice new scheme, in comparison with hypothetical simple majority voting rules (SMV), by jointly examining voting weights and voting powers. The differences between the voting weights and the voting powers increase considering the attitude of the Governments of the Member States of the ECM, to form voting-blocs' - historically that among France, Germany and Belgium and, more recently, the bloc between the United Kingdom and Spain. Their voting powers by blocking proposals result in stalemates and weak compromise with likely benefits for existing well organised interest groups. Unexpectedly, the enlargement of EU from 12 to 15 States, with the diminution of the voting weights of the member countries has not reduced the decisional deficit of QMV, basically because the incentive toward blocs' formation has been reinforced. And, while the power of getting a proposal approved has diminished, the veto-power has remained very high. The effects of the new dual QMV rule, based on a new distribution of votes and correcting the unbalance against the big countries with their demographic weights, for the enlargement to 27 States, seems to go in the same direction. The adoption of a dual SMV, would solve the problems of decision efficiency, with a fairness constraint to protect the major countries. To make this voting rule acceptable one might adopt the Buchanan and Tullock (1962) distinction between constitutional principles to whom the unanimity or QMV might be reserved and post constitutional rules suitable to SMV. Clubs of "enhanced co-operation" among countries with more homogeneous preferences could also ease the application of SMV. © 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 38
页数:33
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Discerning Decision-Making Process of Deep Neural Networks with Hierarchical Voting Transformation
    Sun, Ying
    Zhu, Hengshu
    Qin, Chuan
    Zhuang, Fuzhen
    He, Qing
    Xiong, Hui
    [J]. ADVANCES IN NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS 34 (NEURIPS 2021), 2021, 34
  • [42] The Role of Interest Groups in the European Union Decision-Making Process
    Antonio García Lorenzo
    [J]. European Journal of Law and Economics, 2003, 15 (3) : 251 - 261
  • [43] THE CONFLICT OVER VOTING POWER IN THE EUROPEAN-UNION-COUNCIL-OF-MINISTERS, MARCH 1994
    JOHNSTON, RJ
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, 1994, 26 (07) : 1001 - 1012
  • [44] The Confusion of Tasks in the Decision-Making Process of the European Economic Governance
    de Streel, Alexandre
    [J]. WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROZONE?, 2015, 54 : 79 - 93
  • [45] Roll call analysis of voting in the European Union Council of Ministers after the 2004 enlargement
    Mattila, Mikko
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL RESEARCH, 2009, 48 (06) : 840 - 857
  • [46] Voting and Collective Decision-Making: Bargaining and Power
    Loewen, Peter John
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE-REVUE CANADIENNE DE SCIENCE POLITIQUE, 2009, 42 (03): : 818 - 819
  • [47] A Voting Procedures Recommender System for Decision-Making
    Coulibaly, Adama
    Zarate, Pascale
    Camilleri, Guy
    Konate, Jacqueline
    Tangara, Fana
    [J]. GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION: BEHAVIOR, MODELS, AND SUPPORT, GDN 2019, 2019, 351 : 80 - 91
  • [48] A COMPARISON OF CONSENSUS AND VOTING IN PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING
    JONES, B
    [J]. NEGOTIATION JOURNAL-ON THE PROCESS OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, 1994, 10 (02): : 161 - 171
  • [49] Voting and collective decision-making: bargaining and power
    Josselin, Jean-Michel
    [J]. PUBLIC CHOICE, 2010, 143 (1-2) : 259 - 261
  • [50] TIME EFFICIENCY IN THE REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF ORPHAN DRUGS
    Ferreira, C.
    Vandewalle, B.
    Andreozzi, V
    Falix, J.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 : S166 - S166