This study examines how the institutional provisions of the Nice Treaty and the
constitutional reform of the European Union (EU) will affect agricultural
decision-making in the enlarged EU. Although the agricultural sector is a core EU
policy domain, we have little knowledge about the effects of institutional reform
following the accession of 10 relatively small and poor countries, each having a
large primary sector. Based on an input–output taxation model, we identify
the positions of old and new member states in the twodimensional space of EU
agricultural politics. This allows us to investigate whether and how Council
decision-making will change if the Nice Treaty’s provisions for qualified
majority voting are replaced by those of the draft constitution of 2004. Our
analysis shows that the constitution is an advance providing for more policy change
but it falls behind the Laeken proposal, which would have effectively reformed EU
agricultural decision-making.
Alter, Karen
(1998)
‘Who Are the Masters of the Treaty? European Governments and the
European Court of Justice’
, International Organization52(1):
121–147
.
2.
Baldwin, Richard
,
Joseph Francois
and
Richard Portes
(1997)
‘The Costs and Benefits of Eastern Enlargement: The Impact on the
EU and Central Europe’
, Economic Policy12(24):
125–176
.
3.
Bednar, Jenna
,
John Ferejohn
and
Geoffrey Garrett
(1996)
‘The Politics of European Federalism’
, International Review of Law and Economics16(3):
279–294
.
4.
Bräuninger, Thomas
(2003)
‘When Simple Voting Doesn’t Work: Multicameral Systems
for the Representation and Aggregation of Interests in International Organizations’
, British Journal of Political Science33(4):
681–703
.
5.
Burley, Anne-Marie
and
Walter Mattli
(1993)
‘Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration’
, International Organization47(1):
41–76
.
6.
Cameron, David R.
(2004)
‘The Stalemate in the Constitutional IGC over the Defi- nition of
a Qualified Majority’
, European Union Politics5(3):
375–393
.
7.
Carrubba, Clifford J.
(1997)
‘Net Financial Transfers in the European Union: Who Gets What and Why?’
, Journal of Politics59(2):
469–496
.
8.
Carrubba, Clifford J.
and
Craig Volden
(2001)
‘Explaining Institutional Change in the European Union: What
Determines the Voting Rule in the Council of Ministers’
, European Union Politics2(1):
5–30
.
9.
Coleman, James S.
(1971) ‘Control of Collectivities and the Power
of a Collectivity to Act’, in
Bernhardt Lieberman
(ed.) Social Choice, pp. 269–299.
New York: Gordon & Breach
.
10.
Commission of the European Communities
(2002) ‘Enlargement and Agriculture: Successfully
Integrating the New Member States into CAP’, Issues Paper, URL
(consulted June 2004): <http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/docs/financialpackage/sec2002–95_en.pdf>.
11.
De la Fuente, Angel
and
Rafael DomÈnech
(2001)
‘The Redistributive Effect of the EU Budget: An Analysis and
Proposal for Reform’
, Journal of Common Market Studies39(2):
307–330
.
12.
EU Directorate-General for Agriculture (2000, 2001,
2002) Agriculture in the European Union: Statistical and economic
information, URL (consulted April 2004): <http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/agrista/archive_en.htm>.
13.
Felsenthal, Dan S.
and
MoshÈ Machover
(2001)
‘The Treaty of Nice and Qualified Majority Voting’
, Social Choice and Welfare18(3):
431–464
.
14.
Garrett, Geoffrey
(1992)
‘International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European
Community’s Internal Market’
, International Organization46(2):
533–560
.
15.
Hinich, Melvin
and
Michael Munger
(1997) Analytical Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
16.
Holler, Manfred
and
Mika WidgrÈn
(1999)
‘Why Power Indices for Assessing European Union Decision-Making?’
, Journal of Theoretical Politics11(3):
321–330
.
17.
Hosli, Madeleine
(1996)
‘Coalitions and Power: Effects of Qualified Majority Voting in
the Council of the European Union’
, Journal of Common Market Studies34(2):
255–273
.
18.
Kandogan, Yener
(2000)
‘Political Economy of Eastern Enlargement of the European Union:
Budgetary Costs and Reforms in Voting Rules’
, European Journal of Political Economy16(4):
685–705
.
19.
König, Thomas
and
Thomas Bräuninger
(2000a)
‘Governing the Enlarged European Union: Accession Scenarios and
Institutional Reform’
, Central European Political Science Review1(1):
42–62
.
20.
König, Thomas
and
Thomas Bräuninger
(2000b) ‘The Union’s Institutional
Reforming and Enlargement’, in The NEBI Yearbook
– North European and Baltic Sea Integration, pp.
227–242.
Heidelberg: Springer
.
21.
König, Thomas
and
Mirja Päter
(2001)
‘Examining the EU Legislative Process: The Relative Importance of
Agenda and Veto Power’
, European Union Politics2(3):
329–351
.
22.
Kraan, Dirk-Jan
(1996) Budgetary Decisions: A Public Choice Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
23.
Lane, Jan-Erik
and
Sven Berg
(1999)
‘Relevance of Voting Power’
, Journal of Theoretical Politics11(3):
309–320
.
24.
Mattila, Mikko
(2002) ‘Fiscal Redistribution in the European Union
and the Enlargement’, mimeo, University of Helsinki.
25.
Maurer, Andreas
(2003) Schließt sich der Kreis? Der Konvent,
nationale Vorbehalte und die Regierungskonferenz. Teil I. SWP Working
Paper.
Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik
.
26.
Meunier, Sophie
(2000)
‘What Single Voice? European Institutions and EU–U.S.
Trade Negotiations’
, International Organization54(1):
103–135
.
27.
Moravcsik, Andrew
(1998) The Choice for Europe.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
.
28.
Nugent, Neill
(1994) The Government and Politics of the European
Union, 3rd edn.
London: Macmillan
.
29.
Pollack, Mark
(1997)
‘Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community’
, International Organization51(1):
99–134
.
30.
Rodden, Jonathan
(2002)
‘Strength in Numbers? Representation and Redistribution in the
European Union’
, European Union Politics3(2):
151–175
.
31.
Romer, Thomas
and
Howard Rosenthal
(1978)
‘Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the
Status Quo’
, Public Choice33(4):
27–43
.
32.
Scharpf, Fritz W.
(1988)
‘The Joint-Decision Trap – Lessons From German
Federalism and European Integration’
, Public Administration66(3):
239–278
.
33.
Schmitter, Philippe
(2000) How to Democratize the European Union... and Why Bother?Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
.
34.
Steunenberg, Bernard
(2002) ‘Enlargement and Reform in the European
Union’, in
Bernard Steunenberg
(ed.) Widening the European Union: The Politics of Institutional Change
and Reform, pp. 3–20,
London: Routledge
.
35.
Steunenberg, Bernard
,
Dieter Schmidtchen
and
Christian Koboldt
(1999)
‘Strategic Power in the European Union: Evaluating the
Distribution of Power in Policy Games’
, Journal of Theoretical Politics11(3):
339–366
.
36.
Tsebelis, George
(1994)
‘The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter’
, American Political Science Review88(1):
128–142
.
37.
Tsebelis, George
(2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
.
38.
Tsebelis, George
and
Geoffrey Garrett
(1999)
‘Why Resist the Temptation to Apply Power Indices to the European Union’
, Journal of Theoretical Politics11(3):
291–308
.
39.
Tsebelis, George
and
Geoffrey Garrett
(2001)
‘The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and
Supranationalism in the European Union’
, International Organization55(2):
357–390
.
40.
Tsebelis, George
and
X. Yataganas
(2002)
‘Veto Players and Decisionmaking in the EU after Nice:
Legislative Gridlock and Bureaucratic/Judicial Discretion’
, Journal of Common Market Studies40(2):
283–307
.
41.
Wessels, Wolfgang
(2001)
‘Nice Results: The Millennium IGC and the EU’s Evolution’
, Journal of Common Market Studies39(2):
197–219
.
42.
World Bank
(2003) World Development Indicators.
Washington, DC: World Bank
.
43.
Zimmer, Christina
,
Gerald Schneider
and
Michael Dobbins
(2004) ‘The Contested Council: The Conflict
Dimensions of an Intergovernmental Institution’, mimeo,
University of Konstanz.
