Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:10:46.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More on the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter: Response to Moser

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

George Tsebelis
George Tsebelis*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Moser analyzes the cooperation procedure using a model that assumes (1) one dimension and (2) complete information. I show that because of these two restrictive assumptions and his misunderstanding of the strategic implications of Article 189a(1) of the Maastricht Treaty (an article also present in the Single European Act and the Treaty of Rome), Moser's conclusions are mistaken. In particular, his predicted outcomes are incorrect, and his major institutional prediction (that the European Parliament plays no role in decision making except in the second round of the cooperation procedure) is contradicted by thousands of parliamentary amendments, the major part of which are accepted in the first round.

Type
Forum
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 839 - 844
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John A.. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 89 (12):1181–206.Google Scholar
Corbett, Richard, Jacobs, Francis, and Shackleton, Michael. 1995. The European Parliament, 3d ed. London: Cartermill Publishing.Google Scholar
Crombez, C. 1996. “Legislative Procedures in the European Community.” British Journal of Political Science 26 (04):199–228.Google Scholar
Dinan, Desmond. 1994. Ever Closer Union. New York: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Earnshaw, David, and Judge, David. 1996. “From Co-operation to Co-decision: The European Parliament's Path to Legislative Power.” In European Union: Power and Policy-Making, ed. Richardson, J. J.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics, ed. Friedman, Milton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey, and Tsebelis, George. 1996. “An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism.” International Organization 50 (Spring):269–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infodoc. 1995. Letter from the Research and Documentation Service of the EPP Group. December.Google Scholar
Judge, David. 1992. “‘Predestined to Save the Earth’: The Environment Committee of the European Parliament.” Environmental Politics 1 (Winter):186–212.Google Scholar
Kalandrakis, Tassos. 1996. “The European Parliament and Its Powers under the Cooperation Procedure: A Case Study on Chemicals.” Mimeograph, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kreps, David. 1990. A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kreps, David, and Wilson, Robert. 1982. “Sequential Equilibria.” Econometrica 50 (07):863–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Gary. 1995. “Post-Maastricht Legislative Procedures: Is the Council ‘Institutionally Challenged’?” Paper presented to the 4th International Conference of ESCA, Charleston, SC.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 1992. “Bureaucratic Politics and the Institutions of the European Community.” In Euro-Politics, Sbragia, A., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Selten, Reinhard. 1975. “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games.” International Journal of Game Theory 4 (1–2):25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steunenberg, Bernard. 1994. “Decision-Making under Different Institutional Arrangements—Legislation by the European Community.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150 (12):642–69.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Compartive Politics. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1994. “The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter.” American Political Science Review 88 (03):128–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995. “Conditonal Agenda-Setting and Decision-making inside the European Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies 1 (Spring):65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George, and Kreppel, Amie. 1995. “The History of Conditonal Agenda Setting.” Working paper, Center for the Study of German and European Studies, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar