Regional Integration and the Evolution of the European Polity: On the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Journal of Common Market Studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2009
This volume serves as another addition to the plethora of introductory EU textbooks currently occupying the marketplace. Like most of its competitors, this book offers chapters concerning the historical evolution of the EU, its institutional infrastructure, the nature of EU policy-making and broader political attitudes towards integration processes. The strongest part of the book is that covering the machinery of governance where students are offered a succinct overview of the key governing institutions and their respective roles. Later chapters also provide useful coverage of decision-making and legislative processes and there is also discussion of a range of individual policy areas. A glossary of terms at the end of each chapter should provide a useful introductory key to the uninitiated and there is some reference to further reading at the end of the book. The latter is, however, relatively brief and its utility is compromised by the author's reference to earlier editions of standard texts which have subsequently been published in revised editions (for example, George and Bache's volume Politics in the European Union is referred to as being 'rather dated' but in its 2001 rather than updated 2006 edition!). Although the book offers much in the way of useful detail on specific issues it is unfortunate that a source published in 2008 should refer, on its back cover, to '25 member governments' when there have been 27 since January 2007. Although the actual content of the volume does offer coverage of the post-2007 enlargement, this initial blip does engender an air of caution in the reader. There are certainly areas of the substantive content which might have benefited from reappraisal. For example, the early chapters on historical evolution are somewhat uneven; whilst some detail is provided on the origins of the integration project, its progress through the 1960s and key developments from the 1980s onwards, coverage of the 1970s is rather scant. Similarly, whilst some introductory material on integration theory is included, this remains arguably underdeveloped (for example, no effective distinction is made between Hoffman's intergovernmentalism and Moravcsik's liberal variant). The chapters making up section 5 on 'Attitudes' are arguably the weakest in structural terms. Although these seek to examine Member State attitudes towards integration processes, the opening heading 'Eligibility for Membership' suggests a discussion on enlargement. The subsequent analysis does indeed consider national attitudes but framing this within the context of successive waves of membership expansion perhaps limits the scope for cross-comparative study of attitudes. It also leads to the
The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Perspective
Many European and American observers of the EC have criticized "intergovemmentalist" ac counts for exaggerating the extent of member state control over the process of European integra tion. This essay seeks to ground these criticisms in a "historical institutionalist" account that stresses the need to study European integration as a political process which unfolds over time. Such a perspective highlights the limits of member-state control over long-term institutional de velopment, due to preoccupation with shorHerm concerns, the ubiquity of unintended conse quences, and processes that "lock in" past decusions and make reassertions of member-state control difficult. Brief examination of the evolution of social policy in the EC suggests the limita tions of treating the EC as an international regime facilitating collective action among essentially sovereign states. It is ore useful to view integration as a "path-dependent" process that has pro duced a fragmented but still discernible "multitiered" European polity.
Monetary Integration in Europe - By H. Tomann
Journal of Common Market Studies, 2009
In The Europeanization of British Politics, the impact of EU membership for Britain's politics is seen as a cyclical process, involving constant interactions between national and European arenas and linking actors across different sectors and levels. This impact has been significant but is not always recognized-as can be deduced from the EU implications in virtually all pivotal events in British national politics in recent history, including Labour's opposition period, the fall of both Thatcher and Major, the crisis within the Conservative Party, the emergence and substance of the New Labour project and the developments in Northern Ireland. The volume satisfyingly succeeds in its aim not only to report on and better appreciate Europeanization in Britain, but also to add to and strengthen the existing building blocks of our theoretical understanding of Europeanization more generally. Perhaps the most interesting theoretical findings of this volume are the analytical limitations of two of the much-used taxonomies in the field of Europeanization when applied to the British case. Firstly, the neat concurrence between dimensions of Europeanization (polity, politics and policies) and intensities of Europeanization (semi-Europeanization, largely non-Europeanization and progressive Europeanization, respectively) that have been reported elsewhere for Germany, simply does not follow for the British case. Secondly, the categorization that is repeatedly used to analyse the degree of domestic change (inertia, retrenchment, absorption, accommodation and transformation) is proved to be overly restrictive for the British case, since it leaves little room for gradual change that over time amounts to transformation. In the volume, such change is found in Burch and Gomez's study on the English regions and in Bulmer and Burch's study of central government. The editors propose that the Europeanization literature is relatively underdeveloped due to the lack of attention to its 'political' dimension. While their concern is by all means justified, it is therefore surprising that the volume does not devote a separate case study to Parliament, and that there is a single case study on the dynamics within the political and administrative executive, without differentiating between the two spheres of central government. The Europeanization literature may not have come of age yet, but The Europeanization of British Politics certainly pushes it into adolescence, both in empirical and theoretical terms. Besides its emphasis on the cyclical nature of Europeanization, it helpfully recognizes first-and second-generation Europeanization, in
The Making of a Polity: The Struggle Over European Integration
1997
The reorganization of European political economy since the mid 1980s has had to come to terms with two of the most fundamental issues of political life: the structuration of political authority and participation, and the scope of authoritative decision making in the economy. The European Union continues to serve as a means for achieving narrow collective goods, but these larger questions are never far from view. This paper argues that European political economy is being shaped by an intense debate which has mobilized leaders, political parties, interest groups, social movements and, on occasion, the wider public. This struggle is neither a random conflict of interests, nor a reflection of functional pressures. We hypothesize EU politics is structured along two dimensions: a left-right dimension ranging from social democracy to market liberalism; and a national-supranational dimension ranging from support for the restoration of national state autonomy to support for further European integration.
2018
Johnny Laursen (ed.), The Institutions and Dynamics of the European Community, 1973–83, Baden-Baden (Nomos) 2013, 312 S. (Veröffentlichungen der Historiker-Verbindungsgruppe bei der Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 14), ISBN 978-3-8329-6963-9, EUR 82,00.
Die nationalen Parlamente und ihre Europa-Gremien. Legitimationsgarant der EU? ? By C.A. Janowski
JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2007
This contribution to a series on the 'state of the art' in various fields of political study has dual aims. On the one hand it invites its contributors to survey European Union Studies-and not, as the editors insist, of 'integration' or 'European Area' studiesas they are today, so as to help postgraduates and teachers worried by the expanding scope and complexity of the field. Save in one chapter it does not do this by statistical assessment of publications and structures devoted to the Union, rather it works by analysing the intellectual content of some of the field's specific political aspects. On the other hand, to justify the concern for 'advances', it looks more normatively for new contributions suggesting where the field might, or should, go. In practice, this attracts less attention than the first aim, although Warleigh makes a strong case for mixing theories, an idea echoed by other chapters. Half the chapters are devoted to specific theories presently used in EU studies, the traditional run through from functionalism to inter-governmentalism being wisely discarded. Of the rest most is given over to dimensions of EU activities such as enlargement, foreign policy, political economy and identity and the ways these might be theorized. Europeanization, being both a process and a possible research agenda, sits between the two. There are also chapters on historical and grand theoretical approaches together with a rounding off piece by Wessels. As is often the case, the contributors adopt a variety of strategies. Some, like Scully and Warleigh, keep helpfully close to what the editors wanted, setting out the theories, showing where they have been applied to the EU and considering future developments. Others concentrate more on the theories themselves, sometimes defensively so. Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier do a great job in creating a structure for theorizing enlargement-something which was virtually ignored not so long agowhile Laffan and Gillespie bring out the importance of identity questions. Overall, although Jupille argues that while it is coming back in, 'grand theory' is much less present than tactical insights, many of which will help academics in the field. Most of the contributors do well in unbundling, classifying and developing their topic. This makes it a very useful tool box for academic studies of the EU and will no doubt be cited in many PhD theses. And the lenses offered here may well affect the way future research is carried out. However, the book offers less the snapshot desired by the editors and more a kaleidoscopic view. The optimum mix, if it exists, is not easy to grasp. Researchers will have to make choices and decide which approach, or mixture, they wish to adopt. And, as the contributions often hint, these approaches can still be in conflict and are not as open as the editors might wish.
Journal of European Integration
This article examines the loss of sovereignty that the transition to the Union implies for France Economic and Monetary Union. In the first part, it reviews several episodes of the French monetary history, and illustrates the constraints that today limit the margin of maneuver of France in terms of economic policy. France retains only a very limited and purely formal margin of maneuver, both in terms of monetary policy and the use of the exchange rate. A second section examines the interactions between different exchange rate regimes-flexible rates, stable but adjustable rates, fixed rates-and the markets for goods, labor and capital. The next section examines adjustment within an Economic and Monetary Union. The article concludes with an examination of the options open to France in the nineties. It shows that a devaluation policy would be extremely costly, and that maintaining the option to devalue significantly reduces the room for maneuver of fiscal policy. To restore this margin of maneuver, France should, on the one hand, make the Bank of France independent and responsible for the stability of the value of the currency and, on the other hand, propose to Germany and other countries to the strong currency of the Community to set the exchange rate of their currencies definitively and without fluctuation, in order to further guarantee the financial stability required for the use of any instrument of economic policy. This solution would also have the advantage of accelerating the transition to EMU and showing the movement. This article examines the loss of sovereignty entailed for France the transition to the European monetary Union. In the first part, it reviews several episodes of the French monetary history, and illustrates the constraints that today limit the margin of maneuver of France in terms of economic policy. France retains only a very limited and purely formal margin of maneuver, both in terms of monetary policy and the use of the exchange rate. A second section examines the interactions between different exchange rate regimes-flexible rates, stable but adjustable rates, fixed rates-and the markets for goods, labor and capital. The next section examines adjustment within an Economic and Monetary Union. The article concludes with an examination of the options open to France in the nineties. It shows that a devaluation policy would be extremely costly, and that maintaining the option to devalue significantly reduces the room for maneuver of fiscal policy. To restore this margin of maneuver, France should, on the one hand, make the Bank of France independent and responsible for the stability of the value of the currency and, on the other hand, propose to Germany and other countries to the strong currency of the Community to set the exchange rate of their currencies definitively and without fluctuation, in order to further guarantee the financial stability required for the use of any instrument of economic policy. This solution would also have the advantage of accelerating the transition to EMU and showing the movement. The monetary history of France is, until recently, marked by the exercise of sovereignty and the temptation of independence. However, since the creation of the European Monetary System in 1979, and especially since the economic adjustment program set up in 1983-1984, French monetary policy has been mainly devoted to defending the exchange rate. This choice has obviously largely undermined the room for maneuver that monetary policy could have in pursuing other objectives of economic policy (employment and growth in particular). The European Monetary System implies a formal (or institutional) abandonment of sovereignty for two reasons: central banks are committed to keeping exchange rates in bands of fluctuation around the central parity, which subordinates monetary policy to exchange rate objective; and, although adjustable, parities cannot be changed unilaterally. Any change in parity within the EMS must be the subject of collective bargaining, a humiliating step for countries seeking to devalue or are forced to do so, especially when their government has made it a point of honor to exclude it permanently! This partial institutional abandonment is doubled by an almost total loss of functional leeway: the asymmetrical operation of the EMS has indeed consecrated the hegemony of the