Articles

• Eldar, Ofer

Abstract

There is evidence that countries trade votes among each other in international institutions on a wide range of issues, including the use of force, trade issues, and elections of judges. Vote-trading has been criticized as being a form of corruption, undue influence, and coercion. Contrary to common wisdom, however, I argue in this article that the case for introducing policy measures against vote-trading cannot be made out on the basis of available evidence. This article sets out an analytical framework for analysing vote-trading in international institutions, focusing on three major contexts in which vote-trading may generate benefits and costs: (1) agency costs (collective good), (2) coercive tendering, and (3) agency costs (constituents). The applicability of each context depends primarily on the type of decision in question – i.e. preference-decision or judgement-decision – and the interests that countries are expected to maximize when voting. The analytical framework is applied to evidence of vote-trading in four institutions, the Security Council, the General Assembly, the World Trade Organization, and the International Whaling Commission. The application of the analysis reveals that while vote-trading can create significant costs, there is only equivocal evidence to this effect, and in several cases vote-trading generates important benefits.