Unanimous Constitutional Consent and the Immigration Problem
AbstractThis paper utilizes the cross-cutting cleavages approach to evaluate the probability of a unanimous constitutional consent and, based on these results, discusses the implications of immigration on an existing constitutional consent. It is shown that previous conclusions of beneficial effects stemming from a multitude of political dimensions for a unanimous constitutional consent crucially depend on the assumption of an extreme mode of intrapersonal compensation of constitutional majority and minority preferences. These conclusions are reversed once you consider more restrictive schemes of such intrapersonal compensation. Since, furthermore, the probability of constitutional consent unambiguously falls with a growing size of the collectivity, only a policy of selective and controlled immigration will be able to guarantee with regard to the existing cleavages of a society that the existing constitutional consent will not be damaged or destroyed, whereas uncontrolled immigration, possibly based on ethical norms, will risk the breakdown of any constitutional consent in a society.
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 Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg in its series Working Paper with number 31/2004.
Length: 38 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2004
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
- Stefan Josten & Klaus Zimmermann, 2005. "Unanimous constitutional consent and the immigration problem," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 151-170, July.
- H10 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - General
- H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
- K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
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.:
- Sutter, Matthias, 2000.
" Flexible Integration, EMU and Relative Voting Power in the EU,"
Springer, vol. 104(1-2), pages 41-62, July.
- Matthias Sutter, 2000. "Flexible Integration, EMU and Relative Voting Power in the EU," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 41-62, July.
- Laruelle, Annick & Widgren, Mika, 1998.
" Is the Allocation of Voting Power among EU States Fair?,"
Springer, vol. 94(3-4), pages 317-39, March.
- Annick Laruelle & Mika Widgrén, 1998. "Is the allocation of voting power among EU states fair?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 317-339, March.
- Laruelle, Annick & Widgren, Mika, 1996. "Is the allocation of voting power among EU states fair?," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 1996022, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Leech, Dennis, 2002. " Designing the Voting System for the Council of the European Union," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(3-4), pages 437-64, December.
- Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, October.
- Zimmermann, Klaus W. & Horgos, Daniel, 2008.
"Interest Groups and Economic Performance: Some New Evidence,"
84/2008, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
- Daniel Horgos & Klaus Zimmermann, 2009. "Interest groups and economic performance: some new evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 301-315, March.
- Benjamin Powell, 2012. "Coyote ugly: the deadweight cost of rent seeking for immigration policy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 195-208, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Max Steinhardt).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.