The literature asserts that legislators are unlikely to adopt inefficient policies unanimously. Yet the systematic and unanimous increase in quantities of Total Allowable Catch, under the auspices of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is inefficient by internationally recognized standards. This article develops a game of distributive politics to explain this puzzle. The game is based on the assumption that specialized Council formations are composed of preference outliers and behave like `runway institutions'. The article shows how, over a period of 16 years, ministers were significantly less concerned with environmental protection, were more supportive of (agri-)fishery issues, and were more right-wing than their governments. The article also tests the conservationist preferences of the European Commission. Finally, we map these preferences into the policy output of the CFP and show how the Council deals with problems created by its own decisions and by national implementation through the restraining of national authorities and delegation to the Commission.
Austen-Smith, David
and Jeffrey Banks (1990) `Stable Governments and the Allocation of Policy Portfolios', American Political Science Review84(3): 891-906.
2.
Baron, David P.
(1991) `Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs, and Procedural Control', American Journal of Political Science35(1): 57-90.
3.
Baron, David P.
and John A. Ferejohn (1989) `Bargaining in Legislatures', American Political Science Review83(4): 1181-1206.
4.
Budge, Ian
and Hans Keman (eds) (1990) How Party Government Works: Testing a Theory of Formation, Functioning and Termination in 20 Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
Budge, Ian
, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum (eds) (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
Commission of the EC
(2000) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Application of the Precautionary Principle and Multi-annual Arrangements for Setting TACs. COM/2000/0803 final. Vol. 1. Brussels: CEC.
7.
Commission of the EC
(2001) The Future of the Common Fisheries Policy. Vol. 1. Brussels: CEC.
8.
Cox, Gary W.
and Mathew D. McCubbins (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
Epstein, David
and Sharyn O'Halloran (1999) Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making under Separate Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
European Parliament
(1994) Manual on the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research.
11.
Ferejohn, John A.
, Morris P. Fiorina, and Richard D. McKelvey (1987) `Sophisticated Voting and Agenda Independence in the Distributive Politics Setting' American Journal of Political Science31(2): 169-193.
12.
Franchino, Fabio
(2001) `Delegation and Constraints in the National Execution of the EC Policies: A Longitudinal and Qualitative Analysis', West European Politics24(4): 169-192.
13.
Hardin, Garrett
(1968) `The Tragedy of the Commons', Science162: 1243-1248.
14.
Hayes-Renshaw, Fiona
and Helen Wallace (1997) The Council of Ministers. London: Macmillan.
15.
Henning, Christian H. C. A.
(2001) `Institutional Foundation of Economically Inefficient Agricultural Policy within the EU-System: A Neoclassical Approach', paper presented at the Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, 6-8 September 2001, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
16.
Hix, Simon
(1999) The Political System of the European Union. London: Macmillan.
17.
Huber, John D.
and Charles R. Shipan (2002) Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Huber, John D.
, Charles R. Shipan, and Madelaine Pfahler (2001) `Legislatures and Statutory Control of Bureaucracy', American Journal of Political Science45(2): 330-345.
19.
ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea)
(2000) Report on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak. Copenhagen: ICES.
20.
ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea)
(2001) Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks. Copenhagen: ICES.
21.
Kelemen, R. Daniel
(2000) `Regulatory Federalism: EU Environmental Regulation in Comparative Perspective', Journal of Public Policy20(3): 133-167.
22.
Laver, Michael
and Kenneth A. Shepsle (eds) (1996) Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Lequesne, Christian
(2000) `The Common Fisheries Policy. Letting the Little Ones Go?', in Helen Wallace and William Wallace (eds) Policy-Making in the European Union, pp. 345-372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Lohmann, Susanne
and Sharyn O'Halloran (1994) `Divided Government and U.S. Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence', International Organization48(4): 595-632.
25.
Majone, Giandomenico
(1996) Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
26.
Majone, Giandomenico
(2001) `Nonmajoritarian Institutions and the Limits of Democratic Governance: A Political Transaction-Cost Approach', Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics157(1): 57-78.
27.
Moravcsik, Andrew
(1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
Müller, Wolfgang C.
and Kaare Strøm (eds) (2000) Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
Niou, Emerson M. S.
and Peter C. Ordeshook (1985) `Universalism in Congress', American Journal of Political Science29(2): 246-258.
30.
Pollack, Mark A.
(1997) `Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community', International Organization51(1): 99-134.
31.
Scharpf, Fritz W.
(1988) `The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration', Public Administration66 (Autumn): 239-278.
32.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.
(1978) The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.
and Barry R. Weingast (1981) `Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel: A Generalization', American Journal of Political Science25(1): 96-111.
34.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.
and Barry R. Weingast (1982) `Political Solutions to Market Problems', American Political Science Review78(2): 417-434.
35.
Weingast, Barry R.
, Kenneth A. Shepsle, and C. Johnsen (1981) `The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics', Journal of Political Economy89(4): 642-664.
36.
Westlake, Martin
(1999) The Council of the European Union. London: John Harper Publishing.
