Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T05:30:22.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Testing procedural models of EU legislative decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Bernard Steunenberg
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Torsten J. Selck
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Robert Thomson
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Frans N. Stokman
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Christopher H. Achen
Affiliation:
Princeton University, New Jersey
Thomas König
Affiliation:
German University of Administrative Sciences, Speyer, Germany
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The view that institutions are important to decision-making has led to a large number of game-theoretical models that aim to understand and explain the European Union's legislative process. As these models stress the sequential features of the legislative process as well as the differences in decision-making power of the various actors involved, they are referred to as procedural models. Departing from the ‘older’ legislative procedures, such as the consultation procedure (Steunenberg 1994a; Crombez 1996) and the cooperation procedure (Tsebelis 1994; Moser 1997a), this literature has expanded to include the more recently adopted procedures, including the two different versions of the co-decision procedure (Garrett 1995; Crombez 1997, 2000a; 2006; 2000c; Steunenberg 1997). In this chapter, we focus on the procedural models developed for the European Union and test some of these models empirically.

The procedural models of EU decision-making are related to a broader rational choice literature in which political outcomes are regarded as the combined result of political preferences and institutions (Shepsle 1989; Shepsle and Weingast 1995; Ostrom 1986; Dowding 2002). This literature developed as a response to studies, especially focused on the United States Congress, which approached politics as a simple account of majority rule. The main expectation from these studies was that voting cycles might frequently occur, which would make politics chaotic and arbitrary, and make it almost impossible to predict outcomes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×