IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sap/wpaper/wp96.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The decision-making procedures for the European Union's finances in the Constitutional debate

Author

Listed:
  • Luisa Giuriato

Abstract

The paper accounts for the veto player system that dominates the decisions on the medium-term expenditure ceilings (the Financial Perspectives) and on the revenues (the Own Resources Decision) and for the joint decision-making mode that has been gradually introduced for the European Union’s annual budgetary process. This two-tier system has been confirmed by the new Constitutional Treaty, which does not substantially innovate the intergovernmental procedures governing the medium term programming and financing. With respect to the annual budgetary process, the Constitutional Treaty institutionalises the rules which have been necessitated by practical constraints outside the Treaty machinery: the new process is modelled on a modified version of legislative Codecision and provides for incentives to the parties to agree on the budget draft decided by the Conciliation Committee.

Suggested Citation

  • Luisa Giuriato, 2006. "The decision-making procedures for the European Union's finances in the Constitutional debate," Working Papers in Public Economics 96, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
    • Handle: RePEc:sap:wpaper:wp96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.uniroma1.it/dip_ecodir/sites/default/files/wpapers/wp96.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 269-299, April.
    2. Guido Tabellini, 2003. "Principles of Policymaking in the European Union: An Economic Perspective," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 49(1), pages 75-102.
    3. Henrik Enderlein & Johannes Lindner & Oscar Calvo-Gonzales & Raymond Ritter, 2006. "The EU Budget: How much Scope for Institutional Reform?," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Designing the New European Union, pages 129-159, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. Pierre Salmon, 2003. "The assignment of powers in an open-ended European Union," Post-Print hal-00445601, HAL.
    5. Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2006. "The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(1), pages 129-154, August.
    6. Jonathan Klick & Francesco Parisi, 2003. "The Disunity of Unanimity," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 83-94, June.
    7. Johannes Lindner & Berthold Rittberger, 2003. "The Creation, Interpretation and Contestation of Institutions — Revisiting Historical Institutionalism," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 445-473, June.
    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. Pollack, Mark A., 1997. "Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 99-134, January.
    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. Fabio Franchino & Camilla Mariotto, 2013. "Explaining negotiations in the conciliation committee," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 345-365, September.
    2. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:483-506 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10059 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Brian Efird & Gaspare M. Genna, 2002. "Structural Conditions and the Propensity for Regional Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 267-295, September.
    5. Henrik Enderlein & Johannes Lindner & Oscar Calvo-Gonzales & Raymond Ritter, 2006. "The EU Budget: How much Scope for Institutional Reform?," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Designing the New European Union, pages 129-159, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    6. Paul Schure & Amy Verdun, 2008. "Legislative Bargaining in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(4), pages 459-486, December.
    7. Madeleine O. Hosli & Běla Plechanovová & Serguei Kaniovski, 2018. "Vote Probabilities, Thresholds and Actor Preferences: Decision Capacity and the Council of the European Union," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 31-52, June.
    8. Mareike Kleine, 2013. "Trading Control: National Chiefdoms within International Organizations," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 59, European Institute, LSE.
    9. Susanne K. Schmidt, 2000. "Only an Agenda Setter?," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 37-61, February.
    10. Luisa Giuriato, 2009. "Reforming the EU Budgetary Procedure: Is Codecision a Step Forward?," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 55(1), pages 57-93, March.
    11. Manuele Citi & Mads Dagnis Jensen, 2022. "The Effects of Supranational Delegation on Policy Development," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 337-354, March.
    12. Thomas Doleys, 2009. "Incomplete Contracting, Commission Discretion and the Origins of EU Merger Control," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 483-506, June.
    13. Iain Begg & Henrik Enderlein & Jacques Le Cacheux & Mojmir Mrak, 2008. "Financing of the European Union Budget," Working Papers hal-03459814, HAL.
    14. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/10059 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/10059 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/10059 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Serra Boranbay-Akan & Thomas König & Moritz Osnabrügge, 2017. "The imperfect agenda-setter: Why do legislative proposals fail in the EU decision-making process?," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 168-187, June.
    19. Mareike Kleine, 2013. "Trading Control: National Chiefdoms within International Organizations," Europe in Question Discussion Paper Series of the London School of Economics (LEQs) 9, London School of Economics / European Institute.
    20. 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.
    21. Diego Varela, 2009. "Just a Lobbyist?," European Union Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 7-34, March.
    22. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Voting Power In The Governance Of The International Monetary Fund," Economic Research Papers 269354, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    23. Sapir, Andre & Aghion, Philippe & Bertola, Giuseppe & Hellwig, Martin & Pisani-Ferry, Jean & Rosati, Dariusz & Vinals, Jose & Wallace, Helen, 2004. "An Agenda for a Growing Europe: The Sapir Report," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199271498.
    24. Adela Toscano-Valle & Antonio Sianes & Francisco Santos-Carrillo & Luis A. Fernández-Portillo, 2022. "Can the Rational Design of International Institutions Solve Cooperation Problems? Insights from a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-22, June.
    25. Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito & Jonas Tallberg & Magnus Lundgren, 2022. "Decision-making in international organizations: institutional design and performance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 815-845, October.

    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:sap:wpaper:wp96. 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: Luisa Giuriato (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dprosit.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.