IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decisiveness and Inclusiveness: Intergovernmental Choice of European Decision Rules


  • König, Thomas
  • Bräuninger, Thomas


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.

Suggested Citation

  • König, Thomas & Bräuninger, Thomas, 1997. "Decisiveness and Inclusiveness: Intergovernmental Choice of European Decision Rules," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 1, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:eiopxx:p0023

    Download full text from publisher

    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

    References listed on IDEAS

    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)


    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: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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.