The collection of articles in this special issue provides a comprehensive analysis of European Union decision-making during the Eurozone crisis. We investigate national preference formation and interstate bargaining related to major reforms of the Economic and Monetary Union. The analyses rely on the new ‘EMU Positions’ dataset. This dataset includes information about the preferences and saliences of all 28 EU member states and key EU institutions, regarding 47 contested issues negotiated between 2010 and 2015. In this introductory article, we first articulate the motivation behind this special issue and outline its collective contribution. We then briefly summarise each article within this collection; the articles analyse agenda setting, preference formation, coalition building, bargaining dynamics, and bargaining success. Finally, we present and discuss the ‘EMU Positions’ dataset.
AchenCH (2006) Institutional realism and bargaining models. In: ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCHet al. (eds) The European Union Decides.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.86–123.
2.
ArmingeonKCranmerS (2018)
Position-taking in the Euro crisis.Journal of European Public Policy25(4): 546–566.
3.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Politics in Modern Democracies.
London:
Routledge.
4.
BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensAet al. (eds) (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
Bueno de MesquitaB (2004)
Decision-making models, rigor and new puzzles.European Union Politics5(1): 125–138.
6.
Bueno de MesquitaBStokmanFN (eds) (1994) European Community Decision-Making. Models, Applications, and Comparisons. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7.
CaporasoJARhodesM (eds) (2016) Political and Economic Dynamics of the Eurozone Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
CopelovitchMFriedenJAWalterS (2016)
The political economy of the euro crisis.Comparative Political Studies49(7): 811–840.
9.
CrammeOHoboltSB (eds) (2014) Democratic Politics in a European Union Under Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
DegnerHLeuffenD (2019)
Franco-German cooperation and the rescuing of the Eurozone. European Union Politics20(1): 89–108
11.
FinkeDBailerS (2019)
Crisis bargaining in the European Union. Agenda, Veto, or Economic Power?European Union Politics20(1): 109–133
12.
FriedenJA (1999) Actors and preferences in international relations. In: LakeDAPowellR (eds) Strategic Choice and International Relations.
Princeton:
Princeton University Press, pp. 39–76.
13.
FriedenJWalterS (2017)
Understanding the political economy of the Eurozone Crisis.Annual Review of Political Science20(1): 371–390.
14.
FriedenJWalterS (2019)
Analyzing inter-state negotiations in the Eurozone crisis and beyond. European Union Politics20(1): 134–151
15.
HallPA (2018)
Varieties of capitalism in light of the euro crisis.Journal of European Public Policy25(1): 7–30.
16.
HumphreysMJacobsAM (2015)
Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach.American Political Science Review109(4): 653–673.
17.
IoannouDLeblondPNiemannA (2015)
European integration and the crisis: Practice and theory.Journal of European Public Policy22(2): 155–176.
18.
KönigTHugS (2006) Policy-Making Processes and the European Constitution.
Abingdon:
Routledge.
19.
LanePR (2012)
The European sovereign debt crisis.Journal of Economic Perspectives26(3): 49–68.
20.
LehnerT andWasserfallenF (2019)
Political conflict in the reform of the Eurozone. European Union Politics20(1): 134–151
21.
LeuffenDMalangTWörleSM (2014)
Structure, capacity or power? Explaining salience in EU decision-making.Journal of Common Market Studies52(3): 616–631.
22.
LeuffenDShikanoSWalterS (2013)
Measurement and data aggregation in small-n social scientific research.European Political Science12(1): 40–51.
23.
LundgrenMBailerSDellmuthLMet al. (2019)
Bargaining success in the reform of the Eurozone. European Union Politics20(1): 65–88.
24.
MannersIWhitmanRG (2016)
Another theory is possible: Dissident voices in theorising Europe.Journal of Common Market Studies54(1): 3–18.
25.
MattilaM (2009)
Roll call analysis of voting in the European Union council of ministers after the 2004 enlargement.European Journal of Political Research48(6): 840–857.
26.
MoravcsikA (1993)
Preferences and power in the European community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach.Journal of Common Market Studies31(4): 473–524.
27.
MoravcsikA (1998) The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht.
Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
28.
MoravcsikA (2018)
Preferences, power and institutions in 21st-century Europe.Journal of Common Market Studies56(7): 1648–1674.
29.
MorrowJD (1999) The strategic setting of choices: Signaling, commitment, and negotiation in international politics. In: LakeDAPowellR (eds) Strategic Choice and International Relations.
Princeton:
Princeton University Press, pp. 77–114.
30.
PooleKT (2005) Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
31.
PrincenS (2012)
The DEU approach to EU decision-making: A critical assessment.Journal of European Public Policy19(4): 623–634.
32.
PutnamRD (1988)
Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games.International Organization42(3): 427–460.
33.
SchimmelfennigF (2015)
Liberal intergovernmentalism and the euro area crisis.Journal of European Public Policy22(2): 177–195.
34.
SchneiderGFinkeDBailerS (2010)
Bargaining power in the European Union: An evaluation of competing game-theoretic models.Political Studies58(1): 85–103.
35.
TarleaSBailerSDegnerHet al. (2019)
Explaining governmental preferences on economic and monetary union reform. European Union Politics20(1): 24–44.
36.
ThomsonR (2011) Resolving Controversy in the European Union. Legislative Decision-Making before and after Enlargement.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
37.
ThomsonRArreguiJLeuffenDet al. (2012)
A new dataset on decision-making in the European Union before and after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements (DEUII).Journal of European Public Policy19(4): 604–622.
38.
ThomsonRStokmanFN (2006) Research design: Measuring actors' positions, saliences and capabilities. In: ThomsonRStokmanFNAchenCAet al. (eds) The European Union Decides. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–53.
39.
ThurnerPWPappiFUStoiberM (2002) EU Intergovernmental Conferences. A Quantitative Analytical Reconstruction and Data-Handbook of Domestic Preference Formation, Transnational Networks and Dynamics of Compromise during the Amsterdam Treaty Negotiations.
Mannheim:
Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung.
40.
TsebelisGHahmH (2014)
Suspending vetoes: How the euro countries achieved unanimity in the fiscal compact.Journal of European Public Policy21(10): 1388–1411.
41.
WarntjenA (2012)
Measuring salience in EU legislative politics.European Union Politics13(1): 168–182.
42.
WasserfallenF (2014)
Political and economic integration in the EU: The case of failed tax harmonization.Journal of Common Market Studies52(2):420–435.
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.
