IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/erp/euirsc/p0180.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Codecision and Institutional Change

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Farrell
  • Adrienne Héritier

Abstract

We examine the sources and processes of institutional change in one important aspect of EU politics-the legislative procedure of codecision and show how interstitial change of institutions emerges between formal Treaty revisions and under specific conditions may be formalized in subsequent formal Treaty reforms. We develop two related models of Treaty change. First, in a 'simple' model, we argue that informal rules will be formalized in the Treaty text where all member states are in agreement, and will be rolled back when all member states oppose them; otherwise they will continue in existence at the informal level. Second, in a more complex framework, we argue that actors who have effective veto powers in a related arena may make credible threats that allow them to press member states into formalizing informal rules, provided that member states are not unanimously opposed to this formalization. We empirically assess our claims in the light of several instances of informal rules applied in the codecision procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Farrell & Adrienne Héritier, 2006. "Codecision and Institutional Change," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 41, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:euirsc:p0180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eui.eu/ERPA/RSCAS/../../RSCAS/WP-Texts/06_41.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.eui.eu/ERPA/RSCAS/../../RSCAS/WP-Texts/06_41.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Moravcsik & Kalypso Nicolaïdis, 1999. "Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 59-85, March.
    2. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1991. "Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 19-56, January.
    3. Jupille, Joseph, 1999. "The European Union and International Outcomes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 409-425, April.
    4. Geoffrey Garrett & George Tsebelis & Richard Corbett, 2001. "The EU Legislative Process," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(3), pages 353-366, October.
    5. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    6. Pollack, Mark A., 1999. "Delegation, Agency and Agenda Setting in the Treaty of Amsterdam," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 3, April.
    7. Milner, Helen V., 1998. "Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 759-786, October.
    8. Hix, Simon, 2002. "Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 259-280, April.
    9. Michael Shackleton, 2000. "The Politics of Codecision," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 325-342, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berthold Rittberger, 2003. "Removing conceptual blinders: Under what conditions does the ‘democratic deficit’ affect institutional design decisions?," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0023, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    2. Mark A. Pollack, 2007. "The New Institutionalisms and European Integration," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0031, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    3. Gijs Jan Brandsma, 2015. "Co-decision after Lisbon: The politics of informal trilogues in European Union lawmaking," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 300-319, June.
    4. Ripoll Servent, Ariadna and Amy Busby, 2013. "Introduction: Agency and influence inside the EU institutions," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 17, July.
    5. Charlotte Burns & Neil Carter, 2010. "Is Co‐decision Good for the Environment? An Analysis of the European Parliament's Green Credentials," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 123-142, February.
    6. Christophe Crombez & Pieterjan Vangerven, 2014. "Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 289-308, June.
    7. Thomas Konig & Jonathan Slapin, 2004. "Bringing Parliaments Back in," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 357-394, July.
    8. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Bonanno, Giacomo, 1997. "The Logic of Belief Persistence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 39-59, April.
    9. Szabó, György & Borsos, István & Szombati, Edit, 2019. "Games, graphs and Kirchhoff laws," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 416-423.
    10. Shi, Yi & Deng, Yawen & Wang, Guoan & Xu, Jiuping, 2020. "Stackelberg equilibrium-based eco-economic approach for sustainable development of kitchen waste disposal with subsidy policy: A case study from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    11. Marc Le Menestrel, 2003. "A one-shot Prisoners’ Dilemma with procedural utility," Economics Working Papers 819, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    12. Cheng‐Kuang Wu & Yi‐Ming Chen & Dachrahn Wu & Ching‐Lin Chi, 2020. "A Game Theory Approach for Assessment of Risk and Deployment of Police Patrols in Response to Criminal Activity in San Francisco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 534-549, March.
    13. Nasimeh Heydaribeni & Achilleas Anastasopoulos, 2019. "Linear Equilibria for Dynamic LQG Games with Asymmetric Information and Dependent Types," Papers 1909.04834, arXiv.org.
    14. Edoardo Bressanelli & Christel Koop & Christine Reh, 2016. "The impact of informalisation: Early agreements and voting cohesion in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 91-113, March.
    15. Müller, Christoph, 2020. "Robust implementation in weakly perfect Bayesian strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2019. "Implementation without expected utility: ex-post verifiability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 575-585, December.
    17. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:483-506 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Dasgupta Utteeyo, 2011. "Are Entry Threats Always Credible?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-41, December.
    19. Baran Han, 2018. "The role and welfare rationale of secondary sanctions: A theory and a case study of the US sanctions targeting Iran," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 474-502, September.
    20. Carlos Pimienta & Jianfei Shen, 2014. "On the equivalence between (quasi-)perfect and sequential equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(2), pages 395-402, May.
    21. Asheim, Geir & Søvik, Ylva, 2003. "The semantics of preference-based belief operators," Memorandum 05/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    democracy; European Parliament; European Parliament; co-decision procedure;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:erp:euirsc:p0180. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Valerio PAPPALARDO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsiueit.html .

    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.