Some authors have asserted that the Agreement on Social Policy (the `Social Chapter' of the Maastricht Treaty), by allowing the social partners (trade unions and employers' associations) to bargain over the contents of planned social legislation, grants them the power to set the agenda in the Council of Ministers. A problem is that the precise definition of each actor's competences is unclear from the wording of the Agreement. The first purpose of this paper is, therefore, to examine in a simple spatial model the implications for the legislative outcomes which different readings of the Agreement have. The second step of the argument concerns the distributional consequences of the procedure in each of the interpretations. It is shown that the Commission may benefit from the involvement of the social partners although this limits its own agenda rights. This helps to explain why the Commission chose an interpretation which transfers much of the agenda power to the social partners. It also illustrates the more general point that one should distinguish between agenda rights, on the one hand, and distributional outcomes, on the other.
Addison, John T.
and W. Stanley Siebert (1994) `Recent Developments in Social Policy in the New European Union', Industrial and Labor Relations Review48: 5-27.
2.
Bercusson, Brian
(1994) `Social Policy at the Crossroads: European Labour Law After Maastricht,' in Renaud Dehousse (ed.) Europe After Maastricht, An Ever Closer Union?Munich: Beck.
3.
Bercusson, Brian
and Jan Jakob van Dijk (1995) `The Implementation of the Protocol and Agreement on Social Policy of the Treaty on European Union', International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations11: 3-30.
4.
Boockmann, Bernhard
(1995) `Das Verhandlungsverfahren nach dem Maastrichter Sozialpolitischen Abkommen', in Peter Oberender and Manfred E. Streit (eds) Europas Arbeitsmärkte im Integrationsprozeβ. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
5.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC)
(1988) `The Social Dimension of the Internal Market: Interim Report of the Interdirectional Working Party', mimeo. Brussels: CEC.
6.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1993) `Communication Concerning the Application of the Agreement on Social Policy Presented by the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament', COM (93) 600 final.
7.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC)
(1997) `Proposal for a Council Directive Concerning the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work Concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC', International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations13: 248-267.
8.
Crombez, Christophe
(1996) `Legislative Procedures in the European Community', British Journal of Political Science, 26: 199-228.
9.
Crombez, Christophe
(1997) `The Co-Decision Procedure in the European Union', Legislative Studies Quarterly22: 97-119.
10.
Däubler, Wolfgang
(1992) `Europäische Tarifverträge nach Maastricht', Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht3: 329-336.
11.
Denzau, Arthur T.
and Robert J. Mackay (1983) `Gatekeeping and Monopoly Power of Committees: An Analysis of Sincere and Sophisticated Behaviour', American Journal of Political Science27: 740-761.
12.
EIRR
(1992) `The Sectoral Social Dialogue', European Industrial Relations Review224: 14-17.
13.
EIRR
(1993) `Maastricht and the Social Policy - Part Two', European Industrial Relations Review239: 19-24.
14.
EIRR
(1996) `Into the Unknown: Implementing the Parental Leave Agreement', European Industrial Relations Review267: 19-23.
15.
ETUC; CEEP; UNICE (1993) `Proposals by the Social Partners for the Implementation of the Agreement Annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy of the Treaty on European Union', mimeo.
16.
ETUI (European Trade Union Institute)
(1992) `The European Dimension of Collective Bargaining After Maastricht', mimeo. Brussels: ETUI.
17.
European Parliament
(1994) `Resolution on the Application of the Protocol on Social Policy', Official Journal of the European CommunitiesC205: 86-89.
18.
Falkner, Gerda
(1996) `European Works Councils and the Maastricht Social Agreement: Towards a New Policy Style?', Journal of European Public Policy3: 192-208.
19.
Goerke, Laszlo and Kathrin Piazolo (1997) `Decision-Making under the EU's Social Chapter: Discretion and Amendments', Discussion Paper No. 336, University of Konstanz (forth-coming in International Review of Law and Economics).
20.
Guéry, Gabriel
(1992) `European Collective Bargaining and the Maastricht Treaty', International Labour Review131: 581-599.
21.
Hall, Mark
(1994) `Industrial Relations and the Social Dimension of European Integration: Before and After Maastricht', in Richard Hyman and Anthony Ferner (eds) New Frontiers in European Industrial Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
22.
Lange, Peter
(1993) `Maastricht and the Social Protocol: Why Did They Do It?', Politics and Society21: 5-36.
23.
Lapeyre, Jean
(1996) `First Round of European Negotiations on a Key Issue for Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment', Transfer2: 121-128.
24.
Miller, Nicholas R.
, Bernard Grofman and Scott L. Feld (1989) `The Geometry of Majority Rule', Journal of Theoretical Politics1: 379-406.
25.
Moser, Peter
(1996) `The European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter: What Are the Conditions? A Critique of Tsebelis', American Political Science Review90: 834-838.
26.
Moser, Peter
(1997) `A Theory of the Conditional Influence of the European Parliament in the Cooperation Procedure', Public Choice, 91: 333-350.
27.
Obradovic, Daniela
(1995) `Prospects for Corporatist Decision-Making in the European Union: The Social Policy Agreement', Journal of European Public Policy2: 261-283.
28.
Ordeshook, Peter
(1986) Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Ramsay, Harvey
(1995) `Euro-Unionism and the Great Auction: An Assessment of the Prospects for the European Labour Movement Post-Maastricht', in Peter Cressey and Bryn Jones (eds) Work and Employment in Europe: A New Convergence?London: Routledge.
30.
Schmitter, Philippe C.
(1976) `Still the Century of Corporatism?', Review of Politics38: 85-131.
31.
Schulz, Otto
(1992) `Auf dem Weg zur Sozialunion: Die Ergebnisse des Gipfels von Maastricht', Sozialer Fortschritt41: 79-84.
32.
Schuster, Gunnar
(1992) `Rechtsfragen der Maastrichter Vereinbarungen zur Sozialpolitik', Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht3: 178-187.
33.
Steunenberg, Bernard
(1994) `Decision Making under Different Institutional Arrangements: Legislation by the European Community', Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics150: 642-669.
34.
Tsebelis, George
(1994) `The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter', American Political Science Review88: 128-142.
35.
Tsebelis, George
(1997) `The Democratic Deficit of the European Union', Aussenwirtschaft52: 29-56.
36.
Vaubel, Roland
(1995) `Social Regulation and Market Integration: A Critique and Public Choice Analysis of the Social Chapter', Aussenwirtschaft50: 111-131.
37.
Venturini, Patrick
(1988) Un espace social européen a l'horizon. Luxembourg: Office des publications officielles des Communautés européennes.
38.
Weiss, Manfred
(1992) `The Significance of Maastricht for European Community Social Policy', International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations8: 3-14.
39.
Wessels, Wolfgang
(1991) `The EC Council: The Communities Decisionmaking Center', in Robert O. Keohane and Stanley Hoffmann (eds) The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change. Boulder, CO: Westview.
