Bargaining and Distribution of Power in the EU's Conciliation Committee
AbstractThe European Union (EU) has moved towards bicameralism, making the codecision procedure its most important mechanism for decision making. To gauge if European Parliament (EP) and Council of Ministers (CM) are equally powerful ‘codecision makers’, understanding of the final stage of the procedure – bargaining in the Conciliation Committee – is crucial. Here, EP and CM are assumed to have spatial preferences determined by their respective internal decision mechanisms. Applying bargaining theory to predict inter-institutional agreements in the Conciliation Committee, it turns out that although institutionally the Council and the Parliament are seemingly in a symmetric position, CM has significantly greater influence on EU legislation.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 1029.
Date of creation: 2003
Date of revision:
European Union codecision procedure; Conciliation Committee; bargaining; spatial voting; decision procedures;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-05-02 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.
- Gary Bornstein & Ilan Yaniv, 1998. "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More â€œRationalâ€ Players?," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 101-108, June.
- Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2005.
"The decision maker matters: Individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty-contest games,"
Munich Reprints in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics
18213, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, 01.
- Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2004. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Papers on Strategic Interaction, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group 2004-09, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Guth, Werner, 1995. "On ultimatum bargaining experiments -- A personal review," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 329-344, August.
- Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475.
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982.
"Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model,"
Econometrica, Econometric Society,
Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
- D.D.B. van Bragt, E.H. Gerding, J.A. La Poutre, . "Equilibrium Selection in Alternating-Offers Bargaining Models - The Evolutionary Computing Approach," The Electronic Journal of Evolutionary Modeling and Economic Dynamics, IFReDE - Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV, IFReDE - Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
- Napel,S. & Widgren,M., 2002. "Power measurement as sensitivity analysis : a unified approach," Working Papers 345, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
- Roth, Alvin E. & Erev, Ido, 1995. "Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 164-212.
- Young H. P., 1993. "An Evolutionary Model of Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 145-168, February.
- Napel, Stefan, 2003. "Aspiration adaptation in the ultimatum minigame," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 86-106, April.
- Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
- Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
- Napel, Stefan & Widgrén, Mika, 2003. "EU Conciliation Committee: Council 56 versus Parliament 6," CEPR Discussion Papers, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers 4071, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Napel, Stefan & Widgren, Mika, 2004.
"The Inter-institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision,"
Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy
944, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2006. "The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 129-154, August.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2004. "The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision," CESifo Working Paper Series 1347, CESifo Group Munich.
- Luisa Giuriato, 2009.
"Reforming the EU Budgetary Procedure: Is Codecision a Step Forward?,"
CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo,
CESifo, vol. 55(1), pages 57-93, March.
- Luisa Giuriato, 2008. "Reforming the EU budgetary procedure: is Codecision a step forward?," Working Papers, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Public Economics 114, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Public Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.