Author (Person) | Ellison, David |
---|---|
Publisher | Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences |
Series Title | Working Papers: Institute for World Economics |
Series Details | No. 161, July 2005 |
Publication Date | July 2005 |
Content Type | Journal | Series | Blog |
More conventional analyses of EU accession suggest that the Central and East European countries have successfully completed a lengthy negotiation Focusing in particular on bargaining outcomes with respect to the CAP and the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the EU accession process has led to The final section of the paper asks whether the imbalance in the distribution of EU resources can be overcome now that the New Member States are officially in the EU. Given the relative power of states within the EU decision-making framework, this paper argues that the large member states tend to dominate the decision-making process. Reform proposals made within the context of the new Constitutional Treaty do little to resolve this problem. Thus it is unlikely that the New Member States will be able to make substantial progress in resolving this imbalance in the near future (the chances are greater with the Structural and Cohesion Funds, much smaller with the CAP). This paper provides strong support for more traditional intergovernmentalist arguments about what drives decision making within the European Union. Moreover, it suggests that even with EU membership in the New Europe, the basic contours of the decision made at the December 2002 Copenhagen
|
|
Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.vki.hu/workingpapers/wp-161.pdf |
Subject Categories | Politics and International Relations |
Countries / Regions | Europe |