IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Decisiveness and Inclusiveness: Intergovernmental Choice of European Decision Rules

Listed author(s):
  • König, Thomas
  • Bräuninger, Thomas
Registered author(s):

    Studying the member states' constitutional choice of European decision rules most power index analyses concentrate on the relative decisiveness of member states in the Council of Minister. However, this emphasis has two shortcomings: First, it ignores the interaction between the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament which provides multi-cameral decision making for European legislation. Second, although relative decisiveness is applied to the measurement of the member states' (expected) distribution of legislative gains, it does not take into account the member states' expectation of the extent of gains depending on their absolute inclusiveness. In this article we present a model of member states' constitutional choice of European decision rules with regard to the two notions of power: actors' relative decisiveness and their absolute inclusiveness in decision making. We present an index to measure inclusiveness and we apply our concept to European multi-cameral procedures. Hereby, we give an account for the member states' recent reforms of legislative procedures.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A) in its journal European Integration online Papers (EIoP).

    Volume (Year): 1 (1997)
    Issue (Month): (December)

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0023
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    in new window

    1. Garrett, Geoffrey M. & McLean, Iain & Machover, Moshé, 1995. "Power, Power Indices and Blocking Power: A Comment on Johnston," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(04), pages 563-568, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0023. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Editorial Assistant)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.