IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Reframing the EU budget- decision-making process

  • Indhira Santos
  • Susanne Neheider
Registered author(s):

    This paper traces the history of the EU budget and draws lessons for the review to come. Whatever reforms are proposed, the authors believe that they must serve to shift spending to policy areas and instruments where the EU can best add value while at the same time recognising the political need for member states to present EU budget negotiation results in Â?net-balanceâ?? terms. A two-stage negotiation is proposed: first member states should negotiate and agree on what constitute EU public goods. Everything else would thereafter - by default - be deemed redistributive/compensatory spending to be financed on the basis of member statesâ?? current overall net balances.

    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: http://www.bruegel.org/download/parent/306-reframing-the-eu-budget-decision-making-process/file/749-reframing-the-eu-budget-decision-making-process-english/
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Bruegel in its series Working Papers with number 306.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: May 2009
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:bre:wpaper:306
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Rue de la Charité, B-1210 Brussels
    Phone: +32 2 227 4210
    Web page: http://www.bruegel.org
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Angel de la Fuente & Rafael Doménech & Vasja Rant, 2008. "Addressing the net balances problem as a prerequisite for EU budget reform: A proposal," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 738.08, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    2. Richard E. Baldwin & Joseph F. Francois & Richard Portes, 1997. "The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and central Europe," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 12(24), pages 125-176, 04.
    3. Charles B. Blankart & Christian Kirchner, 2003. "The Deadlock of the EU Budget: An Economic Analysis of Ways In and Ways Out," CESifo Working Paper Series 989, CESifo Group Munich.
    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:bre:wpaper:306. 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: (Bruegel)

    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.