2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11558-014-9201-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Balancing design objectives: Analyzing new data on voting rules in intergovernmental organizations

Abstract: This article presents a new data set on one of the most visible features of institutional design -voting rules. The data set covers 266 intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) that vary in size and substantive scope and includes data on IGO issue area and founding membership characteristics that complement the measures on voting rules. The article outlines the characteristics and categorization of voting rules in the data set and establishes the broader importance of voting rules by illustrating how they help s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
51
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(46 reference statements)
0
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…IO policy-makers confront cognitive limitations in terms of bounded rationality (Jupille et al 2013;Poulsen 2014) and institutional friction in the shape of demanding thresholds for policy adoption (Scharpf 1988;Blake and Payton 2015). As a result, IOs typically experience attention scarcity as the number of issues deserving political attention exceeds the capacity of policy-makers to develop new policy.…”
Section: Applicability To International Policy-makingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…IO policy-makers confront cognitive limitations in terms of bounded rationality (Jupille et al 2013;Poulsen 2014) and institutional friction in the shape of demanding thresholds for policy adoption (Scharpf 1988;Blake and Payton 2015). As a result, IOs typically experience attention scarcity as the number of issues deserving political attention exceeds the capacity of policy-makers to develop new policy.…”
Section: Applicability To International Policy-makingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To begin with, IOs vary in their institutional rules on decision-making (Blake and Payton 2015). Decision rules can contribute to friction, affecting the ability to arrive at policy decisions (Scharpf 1988;Tsebelis and Yataganas 2002).…”
Section: Theoretical Expectationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the World Heritage Convention clearly states that decisions must be taken by the majority of two-thirds of its members present and voting (Art. 13.8), like in many other intergovernmental organizations, deliberations are mainly characterized by multilateral negotiations and consensus building, following both informal meetings and formal discussions at plenary sessions (Blake and Payton 2014). Decisions are prepared and pre-structured, for instance by means of drafts produced by the World Heritage Center, which acts as the Secretariat of the World Heritage Convention.…”
Section: Trends In Unesco World Heritage Decision Makingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main characteristic for control in decision-making is the type of decision rules applied during the process, since it will determine how much influence the individual member states have over the IGO decisionmaking. Also in voting through consensus (or unanimity), a single vote of a member against any proposal can jeopardize strategy making and affect IGO responsiveness (Blake and Payton, 2015). An example of these rules is the allocation of number votes to each member (Reinalda and Verbeek, 2004).…”
Section: Decision-makingmentioning
confidence: 99%