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

Optimal Majority Rules and Enhanced Cooperation

Listed author(s):
  • Widgrén, Mika

The decision-making rules of the European Union (EU) are defined in an incomplete contract signed by 15 national governments. The design of the contract defines the set of policy issues where it applies – in decision-making rules i.e. the majority rules and the division of powers among the actors involved. The treaty also gives competence to the Commission in terms of making legislative proposals. In this Paper, our objective is to study how decision-making rules affect expected outcomes in the above-described hierarchy. Our aim is to derive ex ante optimal voting rules in the setting where decision-making can be modelled as a spatial voting game. We thus assume that the players have spatial preferences but the rules are designed behind veil of ignorance. The designers only know how member states’ ideal policies are distributed in the policy space but as the rules are later applied in day-to-day decision-making, preferences are known by all players. We also analyse two types of designers, benevolent and self-interested. Benevolent designers take the whole range of national preferences into account in their design. Self-interested government designs the rules by taking only the preferences of the same type of government into account but assesses the consequences of increased status quo risk if an anti-integrationist government is in power. The Paper shows that when the probability of 'no gains from integration' is positive it is, in general, impossible to design majority rules efficiently. This holds as far as the player set is finite and countable. The welfare loss is not, however, necessarily very big if the likelihood of potential integration gains is sufficiently high. Then, the optimal (i.e. as close to efficient as possible) design leads to outcomes that have an expectation close to the expected ideal policies of member states. When design completely disregards anti-integrationist views an increase in status quo risk makes the optimal majority threshold lower. If anti-integrationist views are taken into account an increase in status quo risk has a smaller and potentially non-monotonic impact. If the likelihood of no gains from integration increases enough the discrepancy between the two designs becomes wider, which makes the trade-off more difficult to solve. The compromise solution is closer to a purely self-interested solution, which makes it possible that the countries with less likely gains are better off when they stay out. The Paper demonstrates, however, that when the likelihood of no gains from integration is relatively small the discrepancy between the two designs is rather small as well. The Nice Treaty of the European Union, signed in February 2001 defines explicit rules for the so-called enhanced cooperation. It allows sufficient number of member states to proceed in integration to areas where not necessarily all member states are likely to gain equally. In this Paper, we have demonstrated how the need for enhanced cooperation might emerge. According to the Nice Treaty, enhanced cooperation projects make decisions in a similar fashion as the decisions are made in common policies but among a smaller group. If these rules are a result of self-interested or average loss minimizing design and the general design is a result of small likelihood of 'no gains from integration' this is what the results of this paper suggest to be a plausible solution.

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:
Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at

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.

Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 3042.

in new window

Date of creation: Nov 2001
Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:3042
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.

Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820

Order Information: Email:

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. Crombez, Christophe, 1996. "Legislative Procedures in the European Community," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(02), pages 199-228, April.
  2. Annick Laruelle & Mika WidgrÚn, 2000. "Voting Power in a Sequence of Cooperative Games: The Case of EU Procedures," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 17, pages 67-84.
  3. repec:hoo:wpaper:e-88-40 is not listed on IDEAS
  4. André Sapir & Marco Buti, 1998. "Economic policy in EMU," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8078, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  5. Widgren, Mika, 1994. "Voting power in the EC decision making and the consequences of two different enlargements," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 1153-1170, May.
  6. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 1999. "Unforeseen Contingencies and Incomplete Contracts," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 83-114.
  7. Laruelle, Annick & Widgren, Mika, 1998. "Is the Allocation of Voting Power among EU States Fair?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 94(3-4), pages 317-339, March.
  8. Laruelle, Annick, 1997. "The EU Decision-Making Procedures : Some Insight from Non Cooperative Game Theory," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 1997027, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
  9. Moshé Machover & Dan S. Felsenthal, 2001. "The Treaty of Nice and qualified majority voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 431-464.
  10. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1996. "Bargaining and Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 357-380, March.
  11. Torsten Persson & Gérard Roland & Guido Tabellini, 1997. "Separation of Powers and Political Accountability," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(4), pages 1163-1202.
  12. Jean Tirole, 1999. "Incomplete Contracts: Where Do We Stand?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 741-782, July.
  13. Casella, Alessandra & Frey, Bruno, 1992. "Federalism and clubs : Towards an economic theory of overlapping political jurisdictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 639-646, April.
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:cpr:ceprdp:3042. 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: ()

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.