The Stability and Growth Pact clearly failed to prevent the euro crisis. We contend that the failure was due largely to the ability of the Member States to undermine the Pact’s operation. The European Commission served as a “watchdog” to monitor fiscal performance. The Member States themselves, however, collectively had the ability to change the content of the reports for individual states. We confirm the expectation that powerful Member States had the most success in undermining the role of the Commission. Perhaps more surprisingly, we find supporting evidence for our argument that governments with euroskeptic populations behind them were also more successful in weakening the Commission’s warnings. These results have broader theoretical implications concerning which mechanisms explain country-specific outcomes under a shared rule. Another contribution is the creation of a new data set of European Commission assessments of Member State economic programs and Council of Minister revisions.
BeggI.ButiM.EnderleinH.PenchL.SchelkleW.WealeM. (2004). Reforming fiscal policy co-ordination under EMU: What should become of the stability and growth pact?Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 1023-1059.
2.
BenoitK.LaverM. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London, England: Routledge.
3.
BernhardW. T.LeblangD. (2016). Sovereign debt, migration pressure, and government survival. Comparative Political Studies, 49(7) 907-938.
4.
ButiM.PenchL. (2004). Why do large countries flout the stability pact? And what can be done about it?Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 1025-1032.
5.
CarrubbaC. (2005). Courts and compliance in international regulatory regimes. The Journal of Politics, 67, 669-689.
6.
ChapmanT.FangS.LiX.StoneR. W. (2015). Mixed signals: IMF lending and capital markets. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123415000216
7.
ChaudoinS. (2014a). Audience features and the strategic timing of trade disputes. International Organization, 68, 877-911.
8.
ChaudoinS. (2014b). Promises or policies? An experimental analysis of international agreements and audience reactions. International Organization, 68, 1-22.
9.
CopelovitchM. (2010). Master or servant? Common agency, preference heterogeneity, and the political economy of IMF lending. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 49-77.
10.
DreherA.VaubelR. (2004). The causes and consequences of IMF conditionality. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 40(3), 26-54.
11.
FabbriniS. (2013). Intergovernmentalism and its limits: Assessing the European Union’s answer to the euro crisis. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1003-1029.
12.
FatasA.MihovI. (2003). The case for restricting fiscal policy discretion. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1419-1447.
13.
FischerJ.JonungL.LarchM. (2008). 101 proposals to reform the stability and growth pact. Why so many? A survey. Public Finance and Management, 8, 502-560.
14.
FjelstulJ. C.CarrubbaC. J. (2016, January). The politics of international oversight: Strategic monitoring and legal compliance in the European Union. Paper presented at the 2016 Southern Political Science Association Conference held in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
15.
FranzeseR. J. (2002). Electoral and partisan cycles in economic policies and outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 369-421.
16.
GenoveseF.SchneiderG.WassmannP. (2016). The Eurotower strikes back: Crises, adjustments and Europe’s austerity protests. Comparative Political Studies, 49(7) 939-967.
17.
GriecoJ. M.GelpiC. F.WarrenT. C. (2009). When preferences and commitments collide: The effect of relative partisan shifts on international treaty compliance. International Organization, 63, 341-355.
18.
HallerbergM. (2004). Domestic budgets in a United Europe: Fiscal governance from the end of Bretton Woods to EMU. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19.
HallerbergM.MarzinottoB.WolffG. (2015, December11-12). The Europeanization of Eurosceptic parliaments? The changing role of national parliaments under the European semester. Paper presented at the European Semester Workshop, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
20.
HallerbergM.WehnerJ. (2013). The technical competence of economic policy-makers in developed democracies (Social Science Research Network Working Paper 2191490). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2191490
21.
HeipertzM.VerdunA. (2010). Ruling Europe: The politics of the stability and growth pact. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
JohnsL. (2013). Depth versus rigidity in the design of international agreements. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 26, 468-495.
23.
JohnstonA.HanckéB.PantS. (2014). Comparative institutional advantage in the European Sovereign debt crisis. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 1771-1800.
24.
KoehlerS.KönigT. (2015). Fiscal governance in the Eurozone: How effectively does the stability and growth pact limit governmental debt in the Euro countries?Political Science Research and Methods, 3, 329-351.
25.
KönigT.LuetgertB. (2009). Troubles with transposition? Explaining trends in member-state notification and the delayed transposition of EU directives. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 163-194.
26.
KönigT.MäderL. (2013). Non-conformable, partial and conformable transposition: A competing risk analysis of the transposition process of directives in the EU15. European Union Politics, 14, 46-69.
27.
KucikJ.ReinhardtE. (2008). Does flexibility promote cooperation? An application to the global trade regime. International Organization, 62, 477-505.
28.
MansfieldE. D.MilnerH. V.RosendorffB. P. (2002). Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organizations, 56, 477-513.
29.
MorrisR.OngenaH.SchuknechtL. (2006, June). The reform and implementation of the stability and growth pact (Occasional Paper No. 47). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: European Central Bank.
30.
RichardS. J.CarawayT. L. (2014). International negotiations in the shadow of elections. International Organization, 68, 701-720.
31.
RosendorffB. P.MilnerH. V. (2001). The optimal design of international trade institutions: Uncertainty and escape. International Organization, 55, 829-857.
32.
SchelkleW. (2005). The political economy of fiscal policy coordination in EMU: From disciplinarian device to insurance arrangement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43, 371-391.
33.
SchuknechtL. (2004, December). EU fiscal rules: Issues and lessons from political economy (Working Paper No. 421). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: European Central Bank.
34.
SchuknechtL.MoutotP.RotherP.StarkJ. (2011). The stability and growth pact: Crisis and reform (Working Paper No. 129). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: European Central Bank.
35.
SchureP.VerdunA. (2008). Legislative bargaining in the European Union: The divide between large and small member states. European Union Politics, 9, 459-486.
36.
SörensenK. (2007). Distance measures based on the edit distance for permutation-type representations. Journal of Heuristics, 13, 35-47.
37.
StatonJ. K. (2010). Judicial power and strategic communication in Mexico. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
StoneR. (2011). Controlling institutions: International organizations and the global economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
ThackerS. (1999). The high politics of IMF lending. World Politics, 52, 38-75.
40.
ThomsonR.TorenvliedR.ArregioJ. (2007). The paradox of compliance: Infringements and delays in transposing European Union directives. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 685-709.
41.
VanbergG. (2005). The politics of constitutional review in Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
WalterS. (2016). Crisis politics in Europe: Why austerity is easier to implement in some countries than in others. Comparative Political Studies, 49(7) 841-873.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
