Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:49:55.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiating under Political Uncertainty: National Elections and the Dynamics of International Co-operation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2017

Mareike Kleine  and
Clement Minaudier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores if (and how) national elections affect the chances of concluding an international agreement. Drawing on a literature about the informational efficiency of elections, it examines how political uncertainty in the run-up to an election impacts the dynamics of international negotiations. Using the case of decision making in the European Union (EU), it finds that (1) pending national elections significantly reduce the chances of reaching an agreement at the international level (2) this effect is strongest during close elections with uncertain outcomes and (3) the effect is particularly pronounced in the case of elections in larger member states. The findings highlight the fruitfulness of further research on the dynamics between national and international politics. The article has positive and normative implications for the literature on two-level games, international negotiations and legislative bargaining in the EU.

Keywords

electionsinternational negotiationspolitical uncertaintyambiguitytwo-level gameslegislative bargainingEU politics
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 315 - 337
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (email: [email protected]); Department of Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science (email: [email protected]). This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/J500070/1]. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S000712341600051X

References

Alesina, Alberto. 1988. Credibility and Policy Convergence in a Two-Party System with Rational Voters. American Economic Review 78 (4):796–805.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Cukierman, Alex. 1990. The Politics of Ambiguity. Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (4):829–850.Google Scholar
Beckmann, Matthew N., and Godfrey, Joseph. 2007. The Policy Opportunities in Presidential Honeymoons. Political Research Quarterly 60 (2):250–262.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, Persson, Torsten, and Sturm, Daniel M.. 2010. Political Competition, Policy and Growth: Theory and Evidence from the US. Review of Economic Studies 77 (4):1329–1352.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Arnold, Laura W., and Zorn, Christopher J.. 1997. The Strategic Timing of Position Taking in Congress: A Study of the North American Free Trade Agreement. American Political Science Review 91 (2):324–338.Google Scholar
Chaudoin, Stephen. 2014. Audience Features and the Strategic Timing of Trade Disputes. International Organization 68 (4):877–911.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1988. Closeness and Turnout: A Methodological Note. Journal of Politics 50 (3):768–775.Google Scholar
Der Spiegel. 2013. The Power of Egoism: Merkel Reelection Campaign Stalls the EU, 10 September 2013. Available from http://www.Spiegel.De/International/Europe/German-Election-Stalls-Most-Major-European-Union-Projects-a-921318.Html, accessed 10 September 2014.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, Jacob, Van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., and Stokman, Frans N.. 2008. Outcomes of Collective Decisions with Externalities Predicted. Journal of Theoretical Politics 20 (4):415–441.Google Scholar
Döring, Holger, and Manow, Philip. 2012. Parliament and Government Composition Database (Parlgov): An Infrastructure for Empirical Information on Parties, Elections and Governments in Modern Democracies. Version 12/10, 15 October 2012. Available at http://www.parlgov.org/.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter B. 1993. Building an Integrative Approach to International and Domestic Politics: Reflections and Projections. In Double-Edged Diplomacy. International Bargaining and Domestic Politics , edited by Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson and Robert D. Putnam, 397–430. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Follesdal, Andreas, and Hix, Simon. 2006. Why There Is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (3):533–562.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. 2002. Electoral and Partisan Cycles in Economic Policies and Outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science 5 (1):369–421.Google Scholar
Frieden, Jeffry, Ghezzi, Piero, and Stein, Ernesto. 2000. Politics and Exchange Rates: A Cross-Country Approach to Latin America, Working Paper No. R-421. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey, and Tsebelis, George. 1996. An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism. International Organization 50 (2):269–299.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23 (4):409–451.Google Scholar
Glazer, Amihai. 1990. The Strategy of Candidate Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 84 (1):237–241.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Suzanne. 2014. Secret Talks and a Personal Letter: How the US-China Climate Deal Was Done. The Guardian, 12 November.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona N. 2005. Pre-Electoral Coalitions in Comparative Perspective: A Test of Existing Hypotheses. Electoral Studies 24 (4):643–663.Google Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 1999. In the Shadow of the Vote? Decision Making in the European Community. International Organization 53 (4):733–764.Google Scholar
Golub, Jonathan. 2007. Survival Analysis and European Union Decision-Making. European Union Politics 8 (2):155–179.Google Scholar
Grambsch, Patricia M., and Therneau, Terry M.. 1994. Proportional Hazards Tests and Diagnostics Based on Weighted Residuals. Biometrika 81 (3):515–526.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Helpman, Elhanan. 2005. A Protectionist Bias in Majoritarian Politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (4):1239–1282.Google Scholar
Gualmini, Elisabetta. 2008. Restructuring Weberian Bureaucracy: Comparing Managerial Reforms in Europe and the United States. Public Administration 86 (1):75–94.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Darren, Lake, David, Nielson, Daniel, and Tierney, Michael. 2006. Delegation under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory. In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, edited by Darren Hawkins, David Lake, Daniel Nielson and Michael Tierney, 3–38. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hertz, Robin, and Leuffen, Dirk. 2011. Too Big to Run? Analysing the Impact of Enlargement on the Speed of EU Decision-Making. European Union Politics 12 (2):193–215.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2016. The Timeline of Elections: A Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Political Science 60 (1):219–233.Google Scholar
Kardasheva, Raya. 2013. Package Deals in EU Legislative Politics. American Journal of Political Science 57 (4):858–874.Google Scholar
Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2005. Who Surfs, Who Manipulates? The Determinants of Opportunistic Election Timing and Electorally Motivated Economic Intervention. American Political Science Review 99 (1):17–27.Google Scholar
Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2006. Trade and the Timing of Elections. British Journal of Political Science 36 (3):437–457.Google Scholar
Kayser, Mark Andreas, and Lindstädt, René. 2015. A Cross-National Measure of Electoral Competitiveness. Political Analysis 23 (2):242–253.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2000. Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational. International Organization 54 (3):457–488.Google Scholar
Kleine, Mareike. 2013. Informal Governance in the European Union. How Governments Make International Organizations Work. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
König, Thomas. 2007. Divergence or Convergence? From Ever-Growing to Ever-Slowing European Legislative Decision Making. European Journal of Political Research 46 (3):417–444.Google Scholar
Leeds, Brett Ashley, Mattes, Michaela, and Vogel, Jeremy S.. 2009. Interests, Institutions, and the Reliability of International Commitments. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):461–476.Google Scholar
Licht, Amanda A. 2011. Change Comes with Time: Substantive Interpretation of Nonproportional Hazards in Event History Analysis. Political Analysis 19 (2):227–243.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. 2004. The Government Agenda in Parliamentary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 48 (3):445–461.Google Scholar
Meirowitz, Adam. 2005. Informational Party Primaries and Strategic Ambiguity. Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (1):107–136.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2000. The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization 54 (2):217–252.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, William D. 1975. The Political Business Cycle. Review of Economic Studies 42:169–190.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1976. The Theory of Political Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 70 (3):742–752.Google Scholar
Pervez, Fouad. 2015. Waiting for Election Season: The Timing of International Trade Disputes. Review of International Organizations 10 (2):265–303.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market. Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3):427–460.Google Scholar
Rabkin, Jeremy. 2005. Law Without Nations: Why Constitutional Government Requires Nation States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rickard, Stephanie J. 2010. Democratic Differences: Electoral Institutions and Compliance with GATT/WTO Agreements. European Journal of International Relations 16 (4):711–729.Google Scholar
Rickard, Stephanie J., and Caraway, Teri L.. 2014. International Negotiations in the Shadow of National Elections. International Organization 68 (3):701–720.Google Scholar
Roemer, John E. 2001. Political Competition: Theory and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rogoff, Kenneth. 1990. Equilibrium Political Budget Cycles. American Economic Review 80 (1):21–36.Google Scholar
Rogoff, Kenneth, and Sibert, Anne. 1988. Elections and Macroeconomic Policy Cycles. Review of Economic Studies 55 (1):1–16.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald, and Kayser, Mark Andreas. 2002. Majoritarian Electoral Systems and Consumer Power: Price-Level Evidence from the OECD Countries. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3):526–539.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Smith, Alastair. 2015. Domestic Political Determinants of the Onset of WTO Disputes. Unpublished Manuscript, Version 17 June.Google Scholar
Schleiter, Petra, and Tavits, Margit. 2014. The Electoral Benefits of Opportunistic Election Timing. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 3–6 April 2014.Google Scholar
Schneider, Christina J. 2013. Globalizing Electoral Politics: Political Competence and Distributional Bargaining in the European Union. World Politics 65 (3):452–490.Google Scholar
Schulz, Heiner, and König, Thomas. 2000. Institutional Reform and Decision-Making Efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science 44 (4):653–666.Google Scholar
Seemann, Wenke. 2008. Do State Elections Affect Federal Governments’ Legislative Behaviour? Empirical Evidence from the German Case, 1976–2005. German Politics 17 (3):252–269.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition. American Political Science Review 66 (2):555–568.Google Scholar
Stein, Ernesto H., and Streb, Jorge M.. 2004. Elections and the Timing of Devaluations. Journal of International Economics 63 (1):119–145.Google Scholar
Stone, Randall W. 2008. The Scope of IMF Conditionality. International Organization 62 (4):589–620.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2):565–598.Google Scholar
Thomson, Robert. 2011. Resolving Controversy in the European Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2009. The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103 (1):83–98.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2004. Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems. Government and Opposition 39 (2):260–287.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kleine and Minaudier supplementary material

Appendix

Download Kleine and Minaudier supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 327.7 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Kleine and Minaudier Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/V7QQCR
Link