To what extent did the European Monetary Union crisis alter the logic of European Union
decision making? We analyze the relevance of asymmetric market pressures as compared to
that of formal voting and agenda setting rules by applying three established bargaining
models to the ‘EMU Positions’ data. Accounting for the interdependence between issues and
agreements, we locate actors’ positions on three reform dimensions, namely the level of
fiscal discipline, transfer payments and institutionalization. We find that market
pressure during the height of the Eurozone crisis was particularly relevant, and that
debtor countries were weakened by their difficulty in refinancing their public debt. Our
finding shows that formal rules determining agenda setting and veto rights remain relevant
even in times of crisis.
AchenCH
(2006) Evaluating political decisionmaking
models. In: ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCHet al.
(eds) The European Union Decides: Political Economy of Institutions and
Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,
pp.254–298.
2.
ArreguiJStokmanFNThomsonR
(2006) Compromise, Exchange and Challenge in the European
Union. The European Union Decides. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp.124–152.
3.
BauerMWBeckerS
(2014) The unexpected winner of the crisis: The European
Commission’s strengthened role in economic governance.Journal of European Integration36: 213–229.
4.
Boranbay-AkanSKönigTOsnabrüggeM
(2017) The imperfect agenda-setter: Why do legislative
proposals fail in the EU decision-making process?European Union Politics18: 168–187.
5.
Bueno de
MesquitaBStokmanFN.
(1994) European Community Decision Making.
New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
6.
CamisãoI
(2015) Irrelevant player? The Commission’s role during the Eurozone crisis.
Journal of Contemporary European Research 11. Available at: http://jcer.net/index.php/jcer/article/view/686 (accessed 16 November
2018).
7.
ChaeSYangJ-A.
(1988) The unique perfect equilibrium of an N-person
bargaining game.Economics Letters28: 221–223.
8.
ChangM
(2013) Fiscal policy coordination and the future of the
community method.Journal of European Integration35: 255–269.
9.
CrespyASchmidtV
(2014) The clash of titans: France, Germany and the
discursive double game of EMU reform.Journal of European Public Policy21: 1085–1101.
10.
CrombezC
(1996) Legislative procedures in the European
Community.British Journal of Political Science26: 199–228.
11.
DegnerHLeuffenD
(2019) Franco-German Cooperation and the Rescuing of the Eurozone.
European Union Politics 20(1): 89–108.
12.
DinanD
(2012) Governance and institutions: Impact of the escalating
crisis.JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies50: 85–98.
13.
Enelow JM and Hinich MJ (1984) The spatial
theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
14.
EraslanH
(2002) Uniqueness of stationary equilibrium payoffs in the
Baron–Ferejohn model.Journal of Economic Theory103: 11–30.
15.
FinkeDFleigA
(2013) The merits of adding complexity: Non-separable
preferences in spatial models of European Union politics.Journal of Theoretical Politics25: 546–575.
16.
HartlappMMetzJRauhC
(2014) Which Policy for Europe? Power and Conflict Inside the
European Commission. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
17.
HodsonD
(2013) The little engine that wouldn’t: Supranational
entrepreneurship and the Barroso Commission.Journal of European Integration35: 301–314.
18.
HowarthDQuagliaL
(2016) Internationalised banking, alternative banks and the
Single Supervisory Mechanism.West European Politics39: 438–461.
19.
Ioannou, Demosthenes, Patrick Leblond, and Arne
Niemann. European integration and the crisis: practice and theory. Journal of
European Public Policy 22(2): 155–176.
20.
König T, Finke D and Daimer S (2005) Ignoring the
non-ignorables? Missingness and missing positions. European Union
Politics 6(3): 269–290.
21.
KreppelAOztasB
(2017) Leading the band or just playing the tune?
Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission.Comparative Political Studies50: 1118–1150.
22.
LehnerTWasserfallenF
(2019) Political Conflict in the Reform of the Eurozone. European
Union Politics 20(1): 45–64.
23.
LundgrenMBailerSDellmuthLMet al.
(2019) Bargaining Success in the Reform of the Eurozone. European
Union Politics 20(1): 65–88.
24.
MenzGSmithMP
(2013) Kicking the can down the road to more Europe?
Salvaging the Euro and the future of European Economic governance.Journal of European Integration35: 195–206.
25.
MerloAWilsonC
(1995) A stochastic model of sequential bargaining with
complete information.Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 63(2):
371–399.
26.
MoravcsikA
(1993) Preferences and power in the European community: A
liberal intergovernmentalist approach.Journal of Common Market Studies31: 473–524.
27.
Moravcsik A (1998) The Choice for Europe:
Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Cornell University
Press.
28.
Nash Jr JF (1950) The bargaining problem.
Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society,
155–162.
29.
PuetterU
(2012) Europe's deliberative intergovernmentalism: The role
of the Council and European Council in EU economic governance.Journal of European Public Policy19: 161–178.
30.
RoddenJ
(2002) Strength in numbers? Representation and
redistribution in the European Union. European Union
Politics3: 151–175.
31.
Romer T and Rosenthal H (1978) Political resource
allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public choice 33(4):
27–43.
32.
RubinsteinA
(1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining
model.Econometrica50: 97–110.
33.
SchildJ
(2013) Leadership in hard times: Germany, France, and the
management of the Eurozone crisis. German Politics and
Society31: 24–47.
34.
SchimmelfennigF
(2014) European integration in the Euro Crisis: The limits
of postfunctionalism.Journal of European Integration36: 321–337.
35.
SchimmelfennigF
(2015) Liberal intergovernmentalism and the euro area
crisis.Journal of European Public Policy22: 177–195.
36.
Schneider G, Finke D and Bailer S (2010) Bargaining
power in the European Union: An evaluation of competing game-theoretic models.
Political Studies 58(1): 85–103.
37.
SchoellerMG
(2017) Providing political leadership? Three case studies on
Germany's ambiguous role in the Eurozone crisis.Journal of European Public Policy24: 1–20.
38.
TarleaSBailerSDegnerHet al.
(2019) Explaining Governmental Preferences on Economic and Monetary Union
Reform. European Union Politics 20(1): 24–44.
39.
ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCet al.
(2006) The European Union Decides: Political Economy of
Institutions and Decisions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
40.
Tollison RD and Willett TD (1979) An economic
theory of mutually advantageous issue linkages in international negotiations.
International Organization 33(4): 425–449.
41.
TorstenssonP
(2009) An n-person Rubinstein bargaining
game.International Game Theory Review11: 111–115.
42.
TsebelisGGarrettG
(2000) Legislative politics in the European
Union.European Union Politics1: 9–36.
43.
Van den
BosJMM (1994)
The European Community, decision making, and integration.
In: Bueno de
MesquitaBStokmanFN
(eds) European Community Decision Making. Models, Applications, and
Comparisons. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press,
pp.17–32.
44.
WalterS
(2016) Crisis politics in Europe.Comparative Political Studies49: 841–873.
45.
WasserfallenFLeuffenDKudrnaZet al.
(2019) Analysing European Union Decision-Making during the Eurozone Crisis
with New Data. European Union Politics 20(1): 3–23.
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.
