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

Mueller on European Federation: A Reply from the Perspective of Australian Federalism

Listed author(s):
  • Aroney, Nicholas
Registered author(s):

    Dennis Mueller has recently made a significant contribution to understanding issues of federalism and confederalism in the European Union--from a particular public choice point of view. He furnishes an important and provocative discussion of the relationship between the decision-making rules embodied in a constitutional convention (or other means of drafting a form of union for constituent states) and the decision-making rules which will be contained in the constitution which is the outcome of that convention. However, Mueller's veiled preference for a certain ideal form of federalism for Europe tends to reduce the parameters of his discussion, and gives his article an unrealistic and narrow focus, despite its ambitious scope. The present article explores some of the latent complexities in the public choice analysis and design of European integration, particularly by drawing on the wider experience of working federations and theory of federalism, using the unique and synthesizing Australian experience as a point of departure. It argues that Mueller's analysis is biased towards the reduction of decision-making costs of European governance, and thus undervalues the external costs that may be imposed through excessive central government. Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

    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: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Public Choice.

    Volume (Year): 105 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 3-4 (December)
    Pages: 255-272

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:105:y:2000:i:3-4:p:255-72
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:105:y:2000:i:3-4:p:255-72. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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.