Abstract

Palminiello claims it is possible to overcome the shortcomings of rational choice accounts of European integration and arrive at a better and more coherent alternative. To this end she proposes a spectrum of bargaining games derived from Thomas Schelling's pioneering studies. This commentary takes issue with some aspects of the bargaining games used by Palminiello to arrive at a non-circular explanation of the European Monetary System. First, it claims that her description of the negotiation process resembles a two-level chicken game rather than a bargaining game. Second, it points out that, as it is, it is Palminiello's account that risks falling into the inconsistencies she imputes to others.