IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v14y2013i3p458-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A more balanced composition of the European Parliament with degressive proportionality

Author

Listed:
  • Blanca L Delgado-Márquez
  • Michael Kaeding
  • Antonio Palomares

Abstract

Degressive proportionality constitutes the main conceptual criterion to determine the composition of the European Parliament (EP). In reality, however, this concept entails serious practical problems as exemplified by the current distribution of seats in the EP. This article takes up the call and presents a new method for a better balanced seat allocation in the EP after the 2014 elections. Comparing with recent methods in the field, our results reveal that the method proposed yields a more balanced and juster parliamentary seat distribution among all European member states by joining the strengths of the existing methods and avoiding their weaknesses. In light of upcoming rounds of enlargement and possible amendments to the EP's internal rules of procedure and existing EU Treaties, we contend that our results are not only of interest to the academic world.

Suggested Citation

  • Blanca L Delgado-Márquez & Michael Kaeding & Antonio Palomares, 2013. "A more balanced composition of the European Parliament with degressive proportionality," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 458-471, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:14:y:2013:i:3:p:458-471
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116513485470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116513485470
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116513485470?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmett, G.R. & Oelbermann, K.-F. & Pukelsheim, F., 2012. "A power-weighted variant of the EU27 Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 136-140.
    2. Laslier, Jean-François, 2012. "Why not proportional?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 90-93.
    3. Grimmett, Geoffrey R., 2012. "European apportionment via the Cambridge Compromise," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 68-73.
    4. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    5. Ramírez González, V. & Martínez Aroza, J. & Márquez García, A., 2012. "Spline methods for degressive proportionality in the composition of the European Parliament," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 114-120.
    6. Victoriano Ramírez & Antonio Palomares & Maria L. Márquez, 2006. "Degressively Proportional Methods for the Allotment of the European Parliament Seats Amongst the EU Member States," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Bruno Simeone & Friedrich Pukelsheim (ed.), Mathematics and Democracy, pages 205-220, Springer.
    7. Bowler, Shaun & Farrell, David M., 1995. "The Organizing of the European Parliament: Committees, Specialization and Co-ordination," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 219-243, April.
    8. McElroy, Gail & Benoit, Kenneth, 2010. "Party Policy and Group Affiliation in the European Parliament," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 377-398, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Piotr Dniestrzański & Janusz Łyko, 2015. "The Disproportion Of Allocation Under The Given Boundary Conditions," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 9(1), pages 118-126.

    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. Katarzyna Cegiełka & Piotr Dniestrzański & Janusz Łyko & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczeciński, 2021. "A neutral core of degressively proportional allocations under lexicographic preferences of agents," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(4), pages 667-685, December.
    2. Słomczyński, Wojciech & Życzkowski, Karol, 2012. "Mathematical aspects of degressive proportionality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 94-101.
    3. Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2017. "Operations research methods in political decisions: a case study on the European Parliament composition," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 572-586, December.
    4. Yukio Koriyama & Jean-François Laslier & Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2013. "Optimal Apportionment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(3), pages 584-608.
    5. Antonin Macé & Rafael Treibich, 2021. "Inducing Cooperation through Weighted Voting and Veto Power," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 70-111, August.
    6. René Lindstädt & Jonathan B Slapin & Ryan J Vander Wielen, 2012. "Adaptive behaviour in the European Parliament: Learning to balance competing demands," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 465-486, December.
    7. Macé, Antonin & Treibich, Rafael, 2012. "Computing the optimal weights in a utilitarian model of apportionment," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 141-151.
    8. Steffen Hurka, 2013. "Changing the output: The logic of amendment success in the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 273-296, June.
    9. Biró, Péter & Kóczy, László Á. & Sziklai, Balázs, 2015. "Fair apportionment in the view of the Venice Commission’s recommendation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 32-41.
    10. Allen, Trevor J. & Taagepera, Rein, 2017. "Seat allocation in federal second chambers: Logical models in Canada and Germany," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 22-30.
    11. Daniel Finke, 2012. "Proposal stage coalition-building in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 487-512, December.
    12. Katarzyna Cegiełka & Janusz Łyko & Radosław Rudek, 2019. "Beyond the Cambridge Compromise algorithm towards degressively proportional allocations," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 317-332, June.
    13. Katarzyna Cegielka & Piotr Dniestrzanski & Arkadiusz Maciuk & Maciej Szczecinski, 2022. "The Implications of Possible Enlargements of the European Union for the Configuration of Power in the European Parliament," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 145-159.
    14. Miriam Sorace, 2018. "Legislative Participation in the EU: An analysis of questions, speeches, motions and declarations in the 7th European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 299-320, June.
    15. Wenruo Lyu & Liang Zhao, 2023. "Axioms and Divisor Methods for a Generalized Apportionment Problem with Relative Equality," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Thomas Jensen & Thomas Winzen, 2012. "Legislative negotiations in the European Parliament," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(1), pages 118-149, March.
    17. Ramírez-González, Victoriano, 2012. "Seat distribution in the European Parliament according to the Treaty of Lisbon," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 130-135.
    18. 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.
    19. Răzvan V. BALABAN, 2021. "Case study: The impact on the Romanian State Budget in the case of EU adoption of the CCCTB Directive," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania - AGER, vol. 0(2(627), S), pages 135-154, Summer.
    20. Heike Klüver & Iñaki Sagarzazu, 2013. "Ideological congruency and decision-making speed: The effect of partisanship across European Union institutions," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 388-407, September.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:14:y:2013:i:3:p:458-471. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.