The decision-making procedures for the European Union's finances in the Constitutional debate
AbstractThe 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 Unionâ€™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.
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 University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Public Economics in its series Working Papers with number 96.
Date of creation: Nov 2006
Date of revision:
EU finances; EU budgetary procedure; Codecision procedures; Veto player analysis.;
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.:
- Henrik Enderlein & Johannes Lindner & Oscar Calvo-Gonzalez & Raymond Ritter, 2005.
"The EU budget – how much scope for institutional reform?,"
- Henrik Enderlein & Johannes Lindner & Oscar Calvo-Gonzalez & Raymond Ritter, 2005. "The EU budget – how much scope for institutional reform?," Occasional Paper Series 27, European Central Bank.
- Pierre Salmon, 2003. "The Assignment of Powers in an Open-ended European Union," CESifo Working Paper Series 993, CESifo Group Munich.
- Jonathan Klick & Francesco Parisi, 2003. "The Disunity of Unanimity," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 83-94, June.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2004.
"The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
1347, CESifo Group Munich.
- Stefan Napel & Mika Widgrén, 2006. "The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 129-154, August.
- Napel, Stefan & Widgren, Mika, 2004. "The Inter-institutional Distribution of Power in EU Codecision," Discussion Papers 944, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
- Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 269-299, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Luisa Giuriato).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.