IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ejlwec/v32y2011i3p357-375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The right of withdrawal in the treaty of Lisbon: a game theoretic reflection on different decision processes in the EU

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Lechner
  • Renate Ohr

Abstract

The ways of decision making within the EU have significantly changed in the last decades: the rule of unanimity has been more and more substituted by majority voting in order to speed up decision-making processes in a Union of 27 heterogeneous member states. A third possibility is now offered by the Lisbon Treaty including a constitutional right of withdrawal: A member state encountering a loss in its benefits caused by a decision made by majority voting may now demand compensating transfers by using the right of withdrawal: It might threaten to leave the EU if the compensation is denied. Are member states becoming as powerful as they are under the rule of unanimity because they use the right of withdrawal as a threat point? Using a game theoretic approach we show that normally compensating transfers will be lower under majority decisions with exit option compared to decisions requiring unanimity; under certain conditions however transfers could also be as high as in the case of unanimity. In practise, the EU will offer compensating transfers depending on how credible a member state threatens to leave the Union. By using cheap talk a member state may increase the credibility of its outside option and therefore receive higher transfers.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Lechner & Renate Ohr, 2011. "The right of withdrawal in the treaty of Lisbon: a game theoretic reflection on different decision processes in the EU," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 357-375, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:ejlwec:v:32:y:2011:i:3:p:357-375
    DOI: 10.1007/s10657-009-9139-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10657-009-9139-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10657-009-9139-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornelius Bähr, 2008. "How does Sub‐National Autonomy Affect the Effectiveness of Structural Funds?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 3-18, February.
    2. Eerola Essi & Määttänen Niku & Poutvaara Panu, 2004. "Citizens Should Vote on Secession," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    4. Knez Marc J. & Camerer Colin F., 1995. "Outside Options and Social Comparison in Three-Player Ultimatum Game Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 65-94, July.
    5. Euler, Markus, 2005. "EU-Finanzverhandlungen gescheitert: Chance zum Nachdenken," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 85(7), pages 455-459.
    6. Joseph Farrell & Matthew Rabin, 1996. "Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 103-118, Summer.
    7. Pamela Schmitt, 2004. "On Perceptions of Fairness: The Role of Valuations, Outside Options, and Information in Ultimatum Bargaining Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 49-73, February.
    8. Fellner, Gerlinde & Guth, Werner, 2003. "What limits escalation?--Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 53-60, July.
    9. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2004. "Economic determinants of free trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 29-63, October.
    10. Farvaque, Etienne, 2000. "Breaking-up a nation, from the inside," ZEI Working Papers B 20-2000, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    11. Croson, Rachel & Boles, Terry & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2003. "Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 143-159, June.
    12. Farrell, Joseph & Gibbons, Robert, 1989. "Cheap talk can matter in bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 221-237, June.
    13. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    14. Abhinay Muthoo, 2000. "A Non-technical Introduction to Bargaining Theory," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 1(2), pages 145-166, April.
    15. Ville Kaitila, 2004. "Convergence of real GDP per capita in the EU15. How do the Accession Countries fit in?," Economics Working Papers 025, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.
    16. Peter Kurrild‐Klitgaard, 2002. "Opting‐Out: the Constitutional Economics of Exit," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 123-158, January.
    17. Anders Wivel, 2005. "The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States: Interests, Identity and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 393-412, June.
    18. Buchanan, James M & Faith, Roger L, 1987. "Secession and the Limits of Taxation: Toward a Theory of Internal Exit," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1023-1031, December.
    19. Stahl, Dale O. & Haruvy, Ernan, 2008. "Subgame perfection in ultimatum bargaining trees," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 292-307, May.
    20. Schneider, Gerald & Cederman, Lars-Erik, 1994. "The change of tide in political cooperation: a limited information model of European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 633-662, October.
    21. Messick, David M. & Moore, Don A. & Bazerman, Max H., 1997. "Ultimatum Bargaining with a Group: Underestimating the Importance of the Decision Rule," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 87-101, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ohr Renate, 2015. "Europäische Integration am Wendepunkt? Zum möglichen Austritt Großbritanniens aus der EU / European integration at a turning point? Consequences of a British exit for the EU," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 66(1), pages 99-114, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:got:cegedp:77 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    3. Tetsuo Yamamori & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2019. "Endogenous Social Preferences in Bargaining and Contract Enforcement," Working Papers e134, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    4. Paul Pecorino & Mark Van Boening, 2010. "Fairness in an Embedded Ultimatum Game," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 263-287, May.
    5. Mago, Shakun D. & Pate, Jennifer & Razzolini, Laura, 2024. "Experimental evidence on the role of outside obligations in wage negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 528-548.
    6. Robert, Christopher & Carnevale, Peter J., 1997. "Group Choice in Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 256-279, November.
    7. Feicht, Robert & Grimm, Veronika & Rau, Holger A. & Stephan, Gesine, 2017. "On the impact of quotas and decision rules in collective bargaining," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 175-192.
    8. Nguyen, N.P. & Shortle, J.S. & Reed, P.M. & Nguyen, T.T., 2013. "Water quality trading with asymmetric information, uncertainty and transaction costs: A stochastic agent-based simulation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 60-90.
    9. Sven Fischer, 2005. "Inequality Aversion in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Conflict Payoffs - A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis -," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-36, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    10. Eric Cardella & Carl Kitchens, 2017. "The impact of award uncertainty on settlement negotiations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 333-367, June.
    11. Ferreira, Mark, 2017. "When knowledge is not power: Asymmetric information, probabilistic deceit detection and threats in ultimatum bargainingAuthor-Name: Chavanne, David," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 4-17.
    12. Kay, Aaron C. & Wheeler, S. Christian & Bargh, John A. & Ross, Lee, 2004. "Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 83-96, September.
    13. Khanna, Shantanu, 2020. "Salary History Bans and Wage Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    14. Spencer, Michael Andrew, 1995. "Structured and unstructured bargaining with positive transaction costs: an experimental investigation," ISU General Staff Papers 1995010108000018183, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Alexander Libman, 2015. "Words or deeds: what matters? On the role of symbolic action in political decentralization," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 801-838, November.
    16. Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.
    17. Qiyan ONG & Yohanes Eko RIYANTO & Walter E. THESEIRA & Steven M. SHEFFRIN, 2013. "The Self-Image Signaling Roles of Voice in Decision-Making," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1303, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    18. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    19. Nebiyou Tilahun & David Levinson, 2013. "Selfishness and altruism in the distribution of travel time and income," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1043-1061, September.
    20. Ainhoa Jaramillo Gutiérrez & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Aurora García Gallego & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2007. "Cultural And Risk-Related Determinants Of Gender Differences In Ultimatum Bargaining," Working Papers. Serie AD 2007-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    21. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2019. "The role of communication in fair division with subjective claims," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 72-89.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    European integration; EU decision-making; Right of withdrawal; Exit option; Game theory; C 70; D 70;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:kap:ejlwec:v:32:y:2011:i:3:p:357-375. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.