IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v43y2013i03p481-504_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coalition Building and Consensus in the Council of the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Häge, Frank M.

Abstract

Although qualified-majority voting is possible, member states in the Council of the European Union (EU) still adopt most policies by consensus. The agent-based model of coalition building in multilateral negotiations presented here addresses this puzzle. The model demonstrates that consensual decisions may emerge as an unintended by-product of government representatives’ desire to form blocking coalitions. A qualitative case study demonstrates the plausibility of the model's assumptions and resulting coalition-building dynamics. Moreover, a quantitative test shows that the model's predictions correspond closely to the observed consensus rates. Finally, computational experiments predict a positive effect of the voting threshold but no effect of increases in membership on winning coalition size, which has important practical implications for institutional design and enlargement policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Häge, Frank M., 2013. "Coalition Building and Consensus in the Council of the European Union," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 481-504, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:43:y:2013:i:03:p:481-504_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123412000439/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Federica Genovese & Richard J. McAlexander & Johannes Urpelainen, 2023. "Institutional roots of international alliances: Party groupings and position similarity at global climate negotiations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 329-359, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:43:y:2013:i:03:p:481-504_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.