Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:26:29.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2004

David Stasavage
David Stasavage
Affiliation:
David Stasavage is Senior Lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics. He can be reached at [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

In recent years there have been numerous calls for making the operations of international organizations more “transparent.” One element in these demands involves the idea that international negotiations should be open to the same level of outside scrutiny that is presumed to prevail with bargaining in domestic contexts. While transparency of this sort may have clear benefits by facilitating attempts to hold officials accountable, scholars have made less effort to consider whether making international bargaining more public might also have detrimental effects. I develop a game-theoretic model that provides four hypotheses about the relative benefits of open-door versus closed-door bargaining, and about the preferences of different actors with regard to this type of transparency. This model, which can be applied to international and domestic contexts, helps extend positive theories about the design of institutions while also providing insights for the normative question of when transparency is desirable. I show that the hypotheses developed are supported both by historical evidence from eighteenth-century disputes about publicity in national parliaments, and by evidence from the more recent dispute about making European Council of Ministers deliberations public.I would like to thank Simon Hix, Bernard Manin, Lisa Martin, John Odell, Andrea Prat, Ken Scheve, Karen Smith, Andrew Walter, Peter Wilson, seminar participants at the LSE and at Sciences-Po in Paris, as well as two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , October 2004 , pp. 667 - 703
Copyright
© 2004 The IO Foundation and Cambridge University Press

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

Archivas Parlementaires. n.d. Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860, Vol. XXX. Paris: Librairie administrative de Paul Dupont.
Bentham, Jeremy. 1816 [1999]. Political Tactics. Edited by Michael James, Cyprian Blamires, and Catherine Pease-Watkin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Besley, Timothy. Forthcoming. Political Agency and Public Finance. In Principled Agents: Motivation and Incentives in Politics: The 2002 Lindahl Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Michael Herron, and Kenneth Shotts. 2001. Leadership and Pandering: A Theory of Executive Policymaking. American Journal of Political Science 45 (3):532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey. 2001. International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework. Working Paper 01/11. ARENA, Oslo, Norway.
Cho, In-Koo, and David Kreps. 1987. Signalling Games and Stable Equilibria. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (2):179–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbett, William. 1803–1812. Parliamentary History of England. London: R. Bagshaw.
Council of the European Union. 1994. Statement of Defence of the Council of the European Union in Case T-194/94. Brussels, 13 July 1994.
Council of the European Union. 2003. Draft Minutes, 2520th meeting (Economic and Financial Affairs), Brussels, 15 July 2003. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
Elliot, Jonathan. 1836. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Elster, Jon. 1991. Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constituent Assemblies. Working Paper 4. Chicago: Center for the Study of Constitutionalism in Eastern Europe, University of Chicago.
Elster, Jon. 1998. Deliberation and Constitution Making. In Deliberative Democracy, edited by Jon Elster, 97–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farrand, Max. 1911. The Records of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Fearon, James. 1999. Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types Versus Sanctioning Poor Performance. In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, edited by Adam Przeworski, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin, 55–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fingleton, John, and Michael Raith. 2002. Career Concerns of Bargainers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, New York.
Goldstein, Judith, Miles Kahler, Robert Keohane, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 2001. Legalization and World Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1962 [1989]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Oxford: Blackwell.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2002. Toward a European Political Community. Society 39 (5):58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Darren, David Lake, Daniel Nielson, and Michael Tierney. 2003. Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory. Paper presented at the Conference on Delegation and International Organizations, September, University of California, San Diego.
Hix, Simon. 1999. The Political System of the European Union. New York: St. Martin's.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651 [1998]. Leviathan. Edited by J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, Geoffrey, and Daniel Szechi. 1993. The Age of Oligarchy: Pre-Industrial Britain, 1722–1783. London: Longman.
Holmström, Bengt. 1979. Moral Hazard and Observability. Bell Journal of Economics 10:74–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmström, Bengt. 1982. Managerial Incentive Problems—A Dynamic Perspective. In Essays in Economics and Management in Honor of Lars Wahlbeck. Helsinki, Finland: Swedish School of Economics and Management.
Jacobsson, Kerstin, and Asa Vifell. 2003. Integration by Deliberation? On the Role of Committees in the Open Method of Coordination. Unpublished manuscript, State Center for Organized Research (SCORE), Stockholm, Sweden.
Joerges, Christian, and Jurgen Neyer. 1997. Transforming Strategic Interaction into Deliberative Problem Solving: European Comitology in the Foodstuffs Sector. Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4):609–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 2002. Global Governance and Democratic Accountability. Miliband Lecture, May, London School of Economics.
Kenyon, J. P. 1977. Revolution Principles: The Politics of Party, 1689–1720. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koremenos, Barbara. 2003. Open Covenants, Clandestinely Arrived At. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. 1998. Is the ‘Hard Bargaining’ Image of the Council Misleading? The Committee of Permanent Representatives and the Local Elections Directive. Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (4):479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. 2000. The Methods of Community in EU Decision-Making and Administrative Rivalry in the Council's Infrastructure. Journal of European Public Policy 7 (2):261–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. 2003a. Informal Integration and the Supranational Construction of the Council. Journal of European Public Policy 10 (6):966–1019.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. 2003b. Nesting Identities in Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision-Making in the European Union. Unpublished manuscript, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa.
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Lisa. 2002. Distribution, Information, and Delegation to International Organizations: The Case for IMF Conditionality. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Martin, Lisa, and Beth Simmons. 1998. Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions. International Organization 52 (4):729–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, Eric, and Jean Tirole. 2001. The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
McPherson, Elizabeth. 1946. The Southern States and the Reporting of Senate Debates, 1789–1802. The Journal of Southern History 12 (2):223–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1861 [1972]. Considerations on Representative Government. London: Everyman's Library, London.
Mill, John Stuart. 1838 [1950]. On Bentham and Coleridge. New York: G.W. Stewart.
Milner, Helen. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1994. Why the European Union Strengthens the State: Domestic Politics and International Cooperation. Working Paper 52. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for European Studies, Harvard University.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2002. In Defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (4):603–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Stephen. 2001. Political Correctness. Journal of Political Economy 109 (2):231–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolson, Harold. 1939. Diplomacy. London: Thornton Butterworth.
Nielson, Daniel, and Michael Tierney. 2003. Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform. International, Organization 57 (2):241–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, John. 2000. Negotiating the World Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Ottaviani, Marco, and Peter Sorensen. 2003. Professional Advice: The Reputational Theory of Cheap Talk. Unpublished manuscript, London Business School.
Prat, Andrea. 2003. The Wrong Kind of Transparency. Unpublished manuscript, London School of Economics.
Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3):427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. “Let's Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1):1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, Clinton. 1966. 1787: The Grand Convention. New York: Macmillan.
Schwoerer, Lois. 1977. Press and Parliament in the Revolution of 1689. The Historical Journal 20 (3):545–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, Frederick. 1952. Freedom of the Press in England, 1476–1776. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Speck, W. A. 1977. Stability and Strife: England, 1714–1760. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Stasavage, David. 2004. Public Versus Private Deliberation in a Representative Democracy. Unpublished manuscript, London School of Economics.
Stewart, Donald H. 1969. The Opposition Press of the Federalist Period. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Swift, Elaine K. 1996. The Making of an American Senate: Reconstitutive Change in Congress, 1787–1841. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1835 [1986]. De la Démocratie en Amérique. Paris: Laffont.
Verdun, Amy. 2000. Governing by Committee: The Case of Monetary Policy. In Committee Governance in the European Union, edited by Thomas Christiansen and Emil Kirchner, 132–44. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Wallace, Helen. 2002. The Council: an Institutional Chameleon. Governance 15 (3):325–44.Google Scholar
Williams, E. N. 1965. The Eighteenth-Century Constitution, 1688–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.