Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

NewTheories

of European
tntesrailon
BEN ROSAMOND

cnapter
contents

n The m c of t h. . a$ c aldebat e
r nn t ut ionalis m
andih. ELI
. Theore5olpoLi.y mak nga.d th-" ELI
s Mlt

eve governance

, 5oc : ic ons t r uc t iv Et : ppr c ac he s t o t h e E U


r l.ternatona Reatons and lnt.rnatio.alPo tca Econonyrevlsted

neaoerscuiae

Thischapt.rdc:lswth rec.nttneoreiicalwor[o.
theEuropan
Unon. tconcentrates
upo']
a p p ro a .h e 5 ,w hni cvha,ro l s tra l s ,5eektodep.l tfronrtheennbl i sl redthortLca
postons
(seeCh;rpter
es|abrLshed
(seeChapterT).
by.eo fLrncionalrsm
6)ard intergovernmentallsrn
Thi5chapter
comme.cerw
th adi5cLrssion
olhow'newefapproaches
ldentifytlre
lirniratons
ofthe classical
debateMlch oflh 5 discuss
or hingesonhowanalysls
characieflze
the EU
F o .ma n y th e EU
i sb e s l .o n .
v e do i arapol t ca system,w h.hsl g| estsrharthetheoretcal
toot .f.onventionalpo t.a scenceand poicy analysis
mlghrhJ.;egreateieiptariirtory .
powerrhanapproaches
lrom th. d s.ip ine of .GnrationaiRelarioos
(iR).Toerptotethe:
p a u !b L l l l y o fl h s p fo p o s L ti o f,thi 5.hapterdi scu5sesi nt!rnthcontri buti ontoE U studte
' ..
f" d " ,o T .l .-e \F o o e
Lon5tJ(.Lm t " . " pte.atoe/poF,
-r.e" -d
' h o w l n te rn a t-o n a l n e t.l ti o n s rheoresmghtbebro!tshtba!\ntoE
U n!dl e5Th." purydeof
_ ro "ro | ' ro o ' ' q 4 or(br,or 1-heo-nLarFpenoi -i rl U crrde c
1 e r" D te r.
' ' h o r o r' ." .
g r' -, , o ,e . or5 dbo-L
r
t1e ." ot arrho-fy{arehobd.
,t6 noal oej .od
n drh e . s a n d ro . o rm Lrn l !' n dor na ,. e, nr6

['

11 8 B e i R o 5 a mo n d

Introd
uction
Much of the academicwo rk on the EuropanUnio n
rcnuins under the spell oI the .dassical'debate
b.lween neo-tunctionalism and intergovern
mcntalisn (seeChapterc 6 and 7). There is a ratioDate
for continuing to exptore the oFposition behveen
thesetwo schools.Thnrking nr this way forcesus to
r dd re * l .e r i .s re , o r .o n ri r-i ' ) \e 1u\.h,ntsp rr
Europeanpotitics.Doesthe growth of rheEUinply
the transcendeDceof the turopean narion stare
sv^stem?If!o,doesthis bring to thc fore a new group
oi acllvrst nLpranationalinstitutn,rs and confirm
the rise to prorninence of powerill non srare

Rathcr,being consciolrsofthc theoreticatproposr_


hons chosenby authors is vitat becausealterDative
' reddi ng\ u| ' h( | U JId fU roperr i nrc gr r r r on
l nl l o$ Fom dhemJri vcrheorcti Jt premi \\. . f t ir
said, Miters rarc.ly(thesedays ar ieasr)auempr ro
construct 'grand theories' of integratjon. Instcad,
.rn(. l l e l ()70..rl -e\ l rre rcrrcedro hrri l ,lrh eu
er
to aidundersrandingand explanrtion of eter?e,,sof
(a) the intesraiioDprocessand (b) EUsovcrndre
Even the direct desccndantsof neo-tunctionarrm
and intcrgovcrnmentalisrn (discussed in the
prcvioustwo chapters)havctjmired ambitjons.for
enamplc, Sandhottz and Stonc Swect'.sthcorl
Alternativell, are thc member states the Kcv l l u.)F ri \uprdnJri onrt
go\i rnrn.c .\p t i. id)
r c r o ^ i 1 rh i , p ro ,e .' rn d rre rh ( ft ,(eyJl mJmi .
-brJ.tr(t\ thr I i ..,cr. r.ro. I l he o" gi n,.,f
th c aU,
intergolernDrental? These rival a.ademic dis
bccausethe theory haj no way of exptaining this.
courses have their equivalenrs nr thc poticv world.
Moreover, Moravcsik (200t) has emphasjzedttat
The strategyofthe fbunding fathers ofintegrarion hr' l i berrl
i rrrergurernmenrJthm
i \ n.h i nr r r ded
(srch as lean Monnct aDd Robert schuman) ms
l o be J r.mpreh(c,i \e theorvut t-uropeJnir t egoften been thought of as'no-Iirnctiona]istl lrhite ratron, but
rather a theory of intergovernmental
politicians still rend to use a vo.abulary that is bargaining
only.
underwritten by statist and intergovernmentaxsl
These cavea$ stilt do not bypass the objectjon
that thc old neo functionalisr intergovemmenransr
Howev.:r, .ecent years havc witncssed concertecl debatefails
to capturehighly significantattributesof
altempts to 'thiil< otlcmise, aboLrt the EU. This
( nr pre ro fo hrv .rhth e \c -n e \ rh e o rcr
n r' rppro.t.hp\. tne hrst substantiyesection of rhis chaprer,js
that
I t s w o rrh o " u rrrg ro .o n .i ,i e r h h ir nch mrtsh( ' o' d r1-eor.i '
drc rooreJi 1 dn .ru.o" rcdLon,e pr ion
mean ir this conte{.'Thetermimplies, aftera,that
olwhat thc EU is. However, ruenee.i to be n-are trrat
some theories are otd' or perhaps redundanr. rn the study
of the EU is not somerhingthat simply
partrcular, many academics who offer new theorer
cbbsand flows with the'real
devetoprneDt
of
rcalprospcctuses
'yorld'
tend ro begin wjth the proposiuoD Europcan integration
and thc evotution of the
that the 'classical'terms ofdebate as reprcs;nred b'- European
Union.It is also- and perhapsmore prcthe rivalry berweenDeo-fun.tionaljsn aDd iner_ dom rdnl l )
L" ' und up w i rh rr-eJde opmpn, , I n
c ' t r e rn m e n ,J i .r. tu i l ,o ,J p ru -e J equ.,rcr)w hJi . social scientific fashion_
Many scholan think aoout
goingot1in thc contenporary EuropeanUnion. This tEis
in ternx of theorericat .prcgress' thar is, rs
chapter$ attentiveto this premiseord bcgjnswith a i o.i rl *
i en." -n sendrt anJ pot LcJr ,{,t' n,e in
J ( e] ' e rJ n , u s ru r o t i r.,o u rd -.\ J , I proto!,i on parti.ular'improves'
its techdques,so we can expecr
lor theoreticaideparrue.
objccts of study such as the Europcan Unnrn to be
'l'his discussionalerts us to the imporrance
of l r(Jrrd mure ri gorou.l vthJn hi l t,.rtu. I hc dlegeo
r hi . rn g c J -.fu l y ,b n u rIn e o re r.,,rtqork.| ,..or) r.
consequeDce is that theoreticai advancemenr
Dot siDply a self indutgcnt exercjse.Nor can it be dctivers
more robust and reliabte resr rs, thercby
. ide . t' p p e J h \ o n y .e U U \ \ru d e nr nt
l hc tU .
advancmg our empiricat knowtedgc of the EU.

Nefi Ih,"oi e! ofE!roDE;I fteqGton

119

The imitsoftheclassical
debate
is the previous two chaptcrs have indicated, the

politicsbeiweenmernbersrateexccutives
and the
legades of neo-tunctionalisn and intergovern claimtharsdstantivechangein European
inregra_
mentalismremainintactin much currentwritx,g ri"n i. fi aceable
oni\ ro in.ergo\ernmenrrt
DJrgJin\
aboutintegratlon andthe EU. Moreover,venwhen rrJnd\ Jt tdrirn(c w J- d lol
ot lhc empiricdl
aMlystsof the EU attempt to offer an alternntive evrden,e
g. hereJhv droredr lhc ,odl hce or EU
point of theoreticaldparture,they invariabtyset studres(seeChapter7).
Howevcr,whiie much of
6eir coordinates
with reference
to the estabtishedwhat goeson withiD the EU_ in termsof daylo
day
neotunclionalistand intergoveumentalist
posr legislaliveand regulatoryaclivity is bound
up
tions.Thereis alwaysa dangerthat the historiesand with th actionsof'non
stateactorslthisdosnor
trajectories
of neo-tunctionalisn
andinrergovern, mean that neo-irnctionalismis necessarity
best
mentalismcan end up being caricaturedin such pta.edto makea.omeback
accounts.It
is not the job ofthis ch:rpterto offera
To take an cxampie,one of the big debatesto
revisionistreading of the .classical'theoretrcal emergein the literarure
of the tate 1980sand early
literaturq suiice to saythat the earlytextsof inreg_ 1990sconcemed
the originsof the SingteMarket
ration theoly repaycaretul readingby present-day programneascodified
in the SnrgteluropeanAct
students.
This is not ii6t bause
ofthe obviousty (SEA) (1987) (see atso Chaptersj and
16).
usennleg:ciesof ideassuch as spi over. rt is atso Intergovernmentaiists
honed in on rhe SEA a an
truelo.a) rhJrLhewa) in h hichrle\eotd rheones obvious .ase of
treaty reform initiated by an inter
'
arecriticizedis openrocontest.
Indeedtheideathat govrnmental bargain. It was argued rhat
change
there .r convenientand dgid divjsionbetween becamepossible
because
of
the
.onvergenr
interests
'new 's
and b1d'theoriesis open to considerable of the threemost powerful
mernberstates(France,
criticalscrutiny(seeHaas2001,2004jRosamond Germany,
and the UK). Moreovr,thesenatrona
200sa).
preferences
emergedout of processes
of domestic
Thelold' debatehasbeencriticizedon at leasr potiticalexchange
in all threecountries(Moravcsik
LI.er inrerrelared
cuunr,:;1. J egeomdbitrDlo I99ll.A8ainstthisitwasclaimed
that theSEArp
aiprurethe rtulir\ ot intFBrdtiun
anLlthe lUi ir, resented
the formalconsolidation
ofpractjcesthat
\t'ppo\ed
enr'rpmcnr
in rle d.,crptrnarl
witderce,s had emergedin recentyears.Tlis in tuin reflecreo
ol In ernarionrtRetsrion\:.rnd it, .o.cJUed J. r'
o, in,trru.iondl
. r<drirtrby the.ommr\.ion,
'icie;t-ftalimrtaiion,
the jurisprudenceof the Courr of lustice,and
_ rn processesof institutional interation (Winott
(!- Ol rhe 6nt of these,-neo-tunctionalists
Paftrcuiar- wreieavity criricized for the tack of 1995).At the sametime, neo,tunctionalists
lounrl
correspondence
between
thehtheoryof inregration someevidenceof spiltoverasjniriadves
to
create
the
,nd rheunloldingredlittof Furopc.rr
intcqrarion.SingleMarketpronpted callsfor incursionsinto
Theaserrinnor i-Lrgo'crnmenru1
potiric,from the rearm..r .oci.t put,cyand monerat
union
the mid 1960s,the obstinacyof nati;nalistsenti- (Tranholm-Mikkelsen
19eL).Burwhitetheevidq,ce
mcnt within the nrembersrates,and the pecutiarity for this
spilover wasinpressive,it wasalsotrue that
and non-replicabiliry
of thc Europeanexpe ence therewas a lot more going on jn the
Communnres
all piovided seriousbody biowsro neo tunctionaNr
besides progression to the Singte M.rket and
d$courseby rhe mid 1970s (see Chapter 6).
beyond. In any case, other (newer) theorelcd
I
Similarly, intergovernnentalism ts open
to the perspectiveshad developedstrong exptanationsof
crarge that ir ofiers onty a pa iafrepresentation
of how and why thc Single Market nnd subsequent
bothintegrarionandEU g"**"".". ffr. f.-"."
progress
to monetaryumoncameabout.

'I'he next criticisn1of otd,


theoriesbuilds on rhe
Thc l hro.r ri ..m,,ft1,..,..\.r..,rdeu te t r ng,
r r le g J ri ," rh J r h e m ,rg " ru m rh{ d:,ci t,i ,rdr, togcther
a number of concernsabout the ttpe of
homcland of htenational Rctarions {lR). Ifom
tl]cny involved. Nco fLrD.tionntisn in particutar
uxs vantagepoint, lti is claimcd to be a discjpline has
beencnti.izcdas agnndtheory an attemprto
preoc.rpied with h\o corethems:questionsof war develop
a setof generat.taws'abourthe dlmami.s of
and peaceaDd rclations betwccDrarer. Eurcpcu
rcgrcnalnxcgration acrossthe,!orld. Suchattc!rprs
nrtegrationwas origina v ofinterest ro rR scholars al overarching
theory came undcr intcnse scniiny
becauseEuropeanstatesseemcdto be embarxr:rg in the
carll 1970sand i1 is no conrcideDcerhlt rnls
on a proJect that sought to uDderrnine trnd was the pcriod
in which nco tuncibnatisn was
elim i n d .erh e r(. u .-e n r..,u \. . 4 . h . ,r on rh, (on.i
jts forcmost practitioncrs
abandoned by
nent.lhis ied lR-clerilcd theoriesinto nvo rvaysof (N l oravcsi k
1998rt1; R osamond2000: 190) . I n
thinking. Neo-furctioDatists becaoe concernea praceor grand,
universattheoies, sociat scientists
with the progrcssi\-emclunics of the iDtegrarbn became
nore inicrested in devetoping nidcre
plocess,white inrergovernrneDtatists
developedan rungerhori s. 1\ rhe ndm. .u ge,r .
mi ,rJt er . r r g,
nterest D thc ways in whi.h diplomacv berween rneJ
e\.J.' nol tri .c .otrl .,i ng rrnb,r on- rhev, ee{
natronal govcnmenrs eiihcr survived or bccaure ro * p
rrf, , r\ Lf d phen.,Tenon- rrhf" I hr n ir j
n. , ru L o -J l i l c Jr.rrl , o n r< ,,i l u r,,pe.r i nregr" don. \\1,-l e.-m
\i dr hl l .e( b(." h. mo{ Lonrr.. . po, Jr ) .
]\is nl turn sparks rwo tpes of conplaint. r.hc r\eure,r.Jl
$url i . , nrnrrreu ai Lt.,\ptrir , , g
fi$t is that rhe EU is about a ld more than the aspccts
of the poiicy processand rcgulatoryfabric ot
'mtegratxDquestionlSjlnor
Hi\ (1994,2005)DuKes the EU. TheoriesofEuropcan
trregrarrd areby and
the point that the questionol whether there shoutd large
obnnesceDt(rhough seeHaas2004).
be m u re o r e .. a 1 ? ," ,i ., .t,,e . -i i m,i r\rri .
Of coursc, this criticism often Dreryeswilh the
the behaviourofmosr of the actorsinvolved in thc crtiquc
of IR b suggcst thnt dre problenr of
busincssof lhe l,lu. Rather,he aryues,theseare jndr_ Internatnmal
lkhtions is that ii conrinuesto tracle
r J , r d bJ n d s u u } ,. p u A u rts rh r i Ir cr.\!, (i rhrn
d ln the ctrrrency of grand theorn Anorhe.vav
of
complex political system.ds anatysts of rhe EL, wc rh.r. i ng
Jb" ,rr rh\ prodl en i , .o ;Jrnt:n , , r a
:rre in lacl conlronrcd with thc dergreen polirical rl L,,r\
J..o., enrrdt.rt on he,JrarI J, n.eSr . , , ion
s.'encc q!'estior of'who Setswhat, when, how,, rc \' ,,-l d
rJke. t-or m..r, ." ,,r,ntor,., ..1,,t , , or
use Hdold Lasswclllschssic Iormutation (Lassw,| rre
fU . rl ,.\ i . ..mpt. .r1 .tret.a.rnr
\up.r.on.\ ^hdl
1950).Ifwe diiDk that thc.integrationquestiodis a[ ments
attcntion and expLamtionare thc processcs
tbat theLUisabout, rhenwe tall into rhesamerrap as through
which the ItU delivers authorhative
thosepoliticiaDsnho.onccptualize thc LLI in te.ns
outputs and
the'big picture,questjon ofwhar
'ror
of the simplezero-sumopposiiion berreeel.narrux the
EU is bccomnrg.
state aDdfedfal'supersrate:
l.his teadsto rhc second
Itwould be amistake ro rhini( that thesecriticisrb
type of conplaint. 'Lhis nraintiins that wc need ro have
beencomptetclydccisivcandhave ushredtsU
bfeak out ofthc'state fixarion,that chdracterizes
so studicsinto a ng' rheorerjcatage.Eachjs coDteste.l
Druchof the roufire academicand potiticaldiscourse ano, cven
rvhere scholarsagreetbat rherc is some
about the EU. For one rhjng,many _ perhnpsmost
substaD.ein tlle above,n1aryarguerhat the rheoret
studcntsofthe EU would rvantto .rgue thrt thc EU
trro-en dj rfr JItl .,,mpt.r , hdr
hascvolvedinro a pecutiarforDrofpolityor polihcat m?ny or
the crirics ofclassicaltheorysuggcst.Some
syslcm that docs Dot rcallr,frt inb any establisned ot theseponrts
wil be etaborrtedn1o.efulll, in rhe
tcmplate lbr understnndingthe state.OD the other conclusion
to this chapter.For norr it is,vorth.ecots,
hand, th. [U is a s]stem that dcliverscohercntand nizing
that not ali criliques ,{olrld take the failtu$
bindnrg policy outpur'. The altcgriion is Grt tR of r" o
l l rn.rr,,n.r.i ,nrJnL
re,bure-,r.rpn r . . t . , m
perspeciives
fail to deal$,iri rhesccriticisms.
to match reility' as a legitimarc starting poinr.

Ncu,h:orl.sof
Efrolean
rrl
l:::r:.::,l
th. EU has shiftedfronr being a phenomenon
thnt anal)$tiseekto explainto becominga facto
r\ir ,onrrib,rre'ro r.e erp,dnJt'on
ur orh(r pl-.
nnrrenr.'l ni. .mnJn.. to movingfrom a,Urg
'l\hy doesintegrationoaaur?'10posingth. quesri^n WlrJrpre.rdoe.inregrdlron
hJve?Whrlerh'
spondto and/orpredicttheieal' world.
Moreover those who dismiss Internauora, evolutionof the EuropeanUnionmay.'xplainwhy
Relaiions!s a parent disciplinehavebeentaken to the natureof EU studies(andthc rhcoreti.alwork
ta5kby thosewho suggestthntwhnt goeson within IR that informsit) hasshiftedin this wax it is clearly
and journalsbearslittle resemblance
to not the only reasoD.
lt is impo.tantio remember
deparrments
andfashions
of thepoliticdl
rhegrand theorizing and state-fi\atedareaof study thatthepreoccupations
rRo.dmond
bv
rlc.r.rrc.
1000.
al.hough
for
sciences
also
change
over
timc.
Ior
example,the
dep:.rcd
In
rhl growthof policyanalysis
asa keyconporent of EU
a clerrr iriqu(of IR' conrinlingfsr,on.
200,1).
In anycase,
it isnbolddaim studiesreflecis.m explosion(in politicalscience
seeSoreDsen
area,
that overstates the enent to which the study of mr.c Bfnirrll'l ul'poli'\ JnJlqiLho.k.In pJrl.cu
luropean integation was evercordoned otr asa sub- lar this hasconcentrated
upon lessformal, softer'
IR
of
lrnst
Has,
Detrtsch,
governnnce,
field of
The likes
Klrl
forrns of
thereby exposing a dense
reon Lindberg,and philippe Schmitterstudiedthe arrav of informal institutionalmecharismsand
carl)(ommuririe\J*elf .nnriou.'and "lienpi,, non hierarchicalpolicy methodologies
within the
neering)er"onents of the latest politic.l scien.e EU systeD(lachtentuchs
and KohlerKoch2004).
rHe 2001.2004:
L.egririor Theoretical
Ruggie
e, r/. 10051.
developnent(or,for sone,progress)
in
theorls most obviousconnectionto IR wasits coD a particuLar
fieldis aboutassimilating
thecunently
tributionto theemergence
of lnternational
Politicl predominantconceptual
toolkit and the preoccuI IPI-r.d\ub drer.hdrextlicirl\
L-onom)
patioDs
ofso.ial
science.
Some
would sayihat this
"nrphr,i/e.
-the tuziiness of the boundariesbet'veen
domestic deliversprogressin a 6eld in the form o{ beiter
poliri$ .rnd inrernddondl
reldLion,,KJr/en\rei1,
explanatiorN
ofthe realiwof the objectof enquiry
Keohane,and Krasner1998).Otherssuggestthat IR (in our casetbe EU) and moredgorousforms of
theoriesretain a significant place in EU studies socialscience.
Otherswould arguethit ou know
be.ru.er}cva,r a'
rool'
lounoer'tr.rding
ledgeof the socialworld is governedby prevailins
'aluablc
ihe slobal environment within which the EU conceptionsof what countsas valid knowledge,
operates
(Hurrel andMenon1996jandPeterson
and therebyskewingthe gamein favourofsomeforns
Bornberg
1999).
oftheory overothers.
Thethird point- thetypeoftheorizinginvolved
in the'old'debate-is lessn criticismrhananobser
vationabouthow the stuJyuf o pl"nu-"non 1t"
our casethe EU) is bound up with the ebbsand
.- Recentyars
haleseenrenewed
nterestifiheorizing
florvsofsocialscience,
asmuchasit is relatcdto the
the EU.MonscholaE
acceptthatthere
hasbeefas e
contextsuppliedby thatphenomenon.
nincantsh
fttowardsnewerstyles
oftheoretcaiwork
Anotherwayofthinkingaboutthisshift&omt}te
debate
regadneofLrictionalism
'old'tothe'new'issuppliedby Markuslachtenfuchs . Critcsofthc assrcal
and intergovernmentalism
aetheoresthat askthe
(2001).He drawsa distinctionletweena dassicnl
wrongsortsofquestion
aboLttheEU
phase
ofintegrationtheorywherethe'Eulopolity'
. _Disclsslons
aboutthe obsolescence
of old'tlreors
the dcpendcntvariableandthe contenponry
_was
qlesuonsaboutthe nature
5e some nterestinS
'governance'
phase in which the 'Europolry
andpurposeoftheory.
becomcs
the hdcpcndcnlvariable.In otherwords,
Theoristsworking iD what is sometimescalledthe
.h e re l J ri o n ' hp
co n sri ru ri\ c I r . r J it i^n . e i ;d
be r$ e e rl
n eor y r nd r eJ lih r' i n ri r rte a n dp ro h l e m
ari ca n d q ould c hoo" er li o Ee th e -d ' ffe -e n t.ri re -' r
a heor ie. . h d r l h e i r J h i l :n r^ L o rre
f o r e va l Lring,

122 8enRosam.ond

I nstitutionaland
i smt heEU
a

I
l

By the standards
of regionalintegrationschemes So.ou.h ofthe corpusofEU studicsinvotves
the
worldryide,the EU is heavilyinstitutionalized.
Ir rnilhi.ufform"lrnd nlormJtinlir, rinr\ andrhe
possesses
a distinctivesetofsupranationalinstitu impact that institutionalized pracrices
have upon
tionssuchasthe Commission,
the partianrenr,
and poliry ourcomes.
poUack
As
M;rk
has
noted,.ltlhe
the Courr of lustice(seeChaprers9_12).rn addi - Europ&rD Unbn is without
question the mosr
tion, the EU felruresanumberof inrergovernmental
boclies,
not to mentionscveraismalterbodies,such
as the Economic and Social Committee (see
ChapterI), that wietd lessin the wiy of fomul
power yet lorm distincl cogs iD the European
lnstitutionsand the new institutionalism
policy-makingmachincry.The treatiesdethe the
Formoststldentsof
pottics,insttut on,biings
to mind
rolesof thesevariousinstitutioDs
aswel asrheways
D fFronF b
n" tFl "s
.F."el Lt.-.d,dl .dl
dt
in whichthelare supposed
'
iointera.t.
c albanchesotgovernment whatwemighrthnk of
!-ourpoints areworthy of note.first, the founders
as ongoifg or embeddedsets of forrnaties, often
of the European Communiries soLrghtto capture
Ll d- w n!-no.codfr" do, o I rr-to-o p.-..rp t o.
their desiradbalancebetweennarionaland suprana, 'Eary polluaalscience
deatw th ihe studyofthissdii or
1" .i o^' Ll o" , F,otor" dno* ,,n D od,-.o pe, .
r'onallorcerrhroughrJrelutinstrrurionrt
de.ign.
ated,howtheynteracred,
andhowtheysupp|ed
sersof
Most n.cpt rlat the balancehas alteredover time
',.ri o 56D -d od,.ol .rrortl -trr.
/-.!pol
(wallace1996),but the ioimt insrituri;nalsrruc
ca slstemsoperared.
often suchstude5 conctrdd
ture of Europeanintegntion hasrcnained remark
nstfLtona patrernsreflededrhe character
of !
qbly resilient for half a century. Secondl, ctose -that
.o' l i ^sD oi ri c.. t' r, o,d ..r' ,to." .1
14c. i.
.r-Fd
D P ra I b. oel d'or
observersof the EU ortennote the groMh of dismcr
. ^pt" | 0. .l l o' r
j . o.
. ulrurc\wi!r\inrheviriou\in\ri.utrun\.
'
" oJi l -d " .0" I or po
tr is nolju.l
l " eo- " ol ao-nB dt ' F I i t , grrr . orpotrI r . e
thattheieis a particularmodusoperandiwithin the
_re?c,o,o' g o" o. i r
o ,..r '
Cornmnsion, but that individual Dircctoraes
b" rs o aro.o- " q1" ,c" -o, -o\oLdd-c opcr
Cene'JlIDC' ot rhe.ommi.\ronpo\e* d,nir,.
rvepolrtca behavioLfHowever
ctassical
nstirltjona
'studesdid
institutional cultures.The sane is true oI diffeqr
bequeath
a concern
w th thetmpactofrute!
uponthe behaviour
of actorsandthus uponpo irica
Coun,il'.lh.rdlr.
lheqi,
'rj'oldr.hiphr( rfl(a1ed
oulcomes
genera
morc
y. 'New,insttltonaism Dro
terce of various informatities within rhe formil
-h. i I 11,t oj natre
.,ror
.rrrpeur rre LU. lni. work ,usgen,
instirurional
"
shapeBofand nflleiaesuponador behavo!r(rather
thatmuchthatis decisive
within thepolicyprocess
thiii as mereexpressions
rs
of poltica c! t!re) Thislj
lhecor\equence
cornbined
ot regda'i/eopr.r.rice.ihardo nor
\rith a broaderdeflnitionof,nnituton to
have formal statuswirhin the trearies.Lr spite of
--b?, -, oLo tro.rdrL6.o:"to,o|
o , o g or g
h " 'l o n r q " . o 1 o d ' r F p o e o r- .
that, these established routines are trequently
.1d
opq" c pd i"
. r " i o r . . io
thought of as institutions. Fourthh much re.enr
'd . d d a
r o a , o D o o n D '4 q d a p d . - a b . p o o - t r ao .
scholarlyefforth$ beendirecredar understandilg ' i . . 'o 8 o o , - r . i o r
" - , e " , . , r , r . L o n ,ti ,
thc muldJeyelcharacterof theIUt institutionatized
vantagepo nt, we may be tatrrtneaboft anyrhingfr;m
polity-Thus EU nrstiturions(wherherformai or
wrtten coistitlrori;l rutesthforgh to norms or etan
, 6 d '. n o o . *r - r r e p d o _
informal) rre constirutednot simply by the world of
o | , ..
t u t r o n sWi t h t h i s i n m i n d , i t s h a d l y s ! r p r l s i n g t h a tth e
Bruss]s
andSkasbourg,
butby a densenawork of
_ | ,d o-,on6a,dvoL6d\-,""
o:,,.p,.,
."o,-.,
institutions that erlend into rhe fal,ric ol dornesoc
insttut onatistpo iticatscience.
4ndlocalpolities(seeBox8.t).

NewTlreofics
of Europear,lniEgrar
on 123
lardmark discussionof Hall and Trylor (1996)
identifiesthree sub+peciesof institutional$m:
!s studiesof the EU havemultiplied in recentyears, lational choice,historical,and so-iolo$lai.fach of
I
in EU studiesGeeTable8.1).
s6the wider world of political sciencehas become thesehasa presence
with
the
so
called
'new
institutiomlism'
ltational
choie
institutionalismis the most
intusd
raylor
ree6).
ind
obvious
and,
for
some,
the mostsuccesstulw.y
(uall
In whrchrdrrondlchoifcdoprodche\
lo polirii\
tr so u d bt ' r m ' \ r dle .o re g d rol h e n c w i n \l i tu
d o l .rl i sm A J . in8le l h e o re ri .J l p e r.p e c l | v e . have infiltrated EU studies (Do$'ding 2000).
agree,
moreorless,thatinstitutions Rationalchoiceinstitutionalismis,nsRogerScully
Institutionalists
(2006)notes,a closerelative in termsoffounda,
Aspinwall
As
and
Schneidernote:
natter.
iionattheoreti.alpremises of Moravcsiksliberrl
.o ro .o d s F r l o .F Intcrgo\Lrnmt'nlil|'m.
tt
rrL r . . o. .
Ririondl.hoic( fieor)
bult nto ther societyovertirne,whch n turn leadsto perhnpsthe dominant (th;uth much criticized)
distribLrt
onalconsequences
Theynrucrurepoljt - nrrnd ;r."r,enrporun \mericdn
importani
polr(rl {ien.e
andoltconresratherthan
simplym rcr ngsocal
calactlons
is basedon the idathat humanbeinssareself
actvty and ratofa competton among d saggregatedseeking
and behaverationally and strategically.
The goalsof politicalactorsareorganizi:dhrerar
(lspinwallandSchneder 2001a:2).
. hi,Jlh lher form lherrprefe'en.e.
on rhebJsr,
of their interests.lnstitutions are importanf
i Inportantly,institutionalists
ofdifferenthueshave -becausethey act as inte enins variables.This
. )rernari'ea.,"urrr oiju,l iow,/r.}, in.rirurion, .lreans that institutionsdo not alter preference
lr hatter Aspinwall and Schneider rhinl about functions, but wil have an impact upon the ways
insthutionJl
poir ,rl \cien(eJ\ J ipecLrum.
Ar in which actors pursue those preferences.
'-ine ena or th; spectrum.lit' un .*no-"t,.
Consequently,
changes
in the nrsdtutionalrulesof
rationalist polition *hich sees insritutions aJ' Lhegdme.\uch a\ theInr'odu.rionof Lhe, od(.i
, tht consequcri.abllong
run pauernsofbehaviour sion procedure(which,followinsthe Maastricht
byself-seeking
agents.
Institutions,in thisaccount, rnd Amsterdamtreaties,gavethe Counclland the
nre bolh mocliheBol rhe pur.urf ot (elt-rnrere.r European Parliament co legislativepowr in cer,
anda nedium throqgb which aclorsmay conduct tain areat er qtqtati{4! to tbqvotlngtules witbin
their transactionswit}l sreater efiicienc{ At tha the Council Gay from unanimity to qualified
.oppositeend of the spectrumis a sociologicalposl- mrjority), will induce actorsto recalculatethe
tion whereactors'interestsareactuallyconsrructed ways in which they need to btave in ordei rij
throughprocesses
of institutiolal interaction.Th realizethcir prefcrences.
in D e hoflo l|-')u r\ |] ,/rtr , 4:r J l r . At lne r J m e I m e.

*" t t

8.1 The newinstitutona


isrns'

NSITUIONAL 5M
RESEARCI]
OB]ECIIVE

lortre Hal andrayLor|996)

124 8 e n R o l a mo n d

Dy .rnd lirge, ratioml choice instirutionalists


havebeeninterested
in how their thcorydevelops
proposittuns
aboutihe changingrelativeporrerof
Rationalchoice
andthescience
ofEU studies
instiiutionalactorsin the policy processGeeBox
Supporters
of rational
chocennitutionalism
beieve
8.2).As Crombez(2001)shows,scnolarsof this
thatthisapproach
to
the
EU
is
abl
to
buiid
know
edge
persuasionassumethtrt inst;tutionala.tors seek
Inasyste.faticway
scholats
working
Lndertheauspices
uolicyuuL,,me.
lhar.on(-pond
a.,luvly r. po,.iof ratonaLchoicesubscribe
to parricutar
nreihodsof
ble to then preferences.
This is why institurionsare
theorybuidifg.Thisusuallynvovesthe deveopmeft
ofmodlscapable
.rear(Jin hefirn pld(e,Ine$ c-lleJtun.l;onat
ofgeneratirg
hypotheses,
,r
whichcan
then
be subjected
to conflrmrtionor d sconfirmarion
theoryofnrstitutionaldesign).Thc consrruction
of
throughexposureto
hardempiricai
evdenceSuchwork
forrnal nodels, often deployingthc t}?e of reasonrelieson th deploymentof (often qrite stytized)
ing found in formdl e.onomicanalysis,
allowsfor
assumptons
andthe useof gametheoryasa tool of
the empirical resear.hon specificcasesro be
anaysisThesubstantaworkof ceotrreycarctt and
mapped againstthe formal dccision rules that "Ceorge
Tsebe
is(forexarnple
Tsebelis
1994;Ganenand
Tiebalia
l g!i6)yeldsthecountets
ntut vectam tharthe
apply.Thus EU studieshasdevclopedlively dbare
co]]ecrs
on procedure
hasstrngthened
the Councilai
about matterssuch asthe agendasettingpower of
the expenseof ihe Comi.ssionand the European
thevariousirstitutions.Anotherkeycomponentof
Paiia;int. Theanarysis
s sophst cared,but reiteson
the rationalistargumenthasbeenthe applicadon 'rc + L^ pr on t-dt
p.ca o. i 6 d..
nrtl oof 'principal-agent
analysit to EU politics.Here -arransed
aronga continuum
iccoidingto theamo!ntof
. "Briorro!
self regardingactors('principals')find that their
- " r d r o n L o r '. . . f , , t \ p c o - Eo 4
rnayproducentrigu ng.esults,blt it reliestoomlch on
pFleEntes are best served by the delegation of
Lnreasticassumptons
anddescrbesgamesthat bear
,endinduthurirdrire
lJ5k5l".ommon.n'rirutionj
no relation
to the compexinteractions
thatrakeptace
('agents').
In the EU cnse,this approachprovides betwen
EUinsttutionson a day-to-day
basis.Anorher
powerlije\?lrn.rion,rormember.rrre.
de,i,ions
dimension
tothis debateisthat ratona .hoiceinstituto createand xssigntasksto supranationalinsritu
tronaistsoftenadvance
the viewthartheirsis a r.or
tions suchas the Commissionand the EuropeaD r ga.ousform of po itica science
thanthat offeredby
ertherEU slldies tradiriona5tl or thoseof a mor
Court of,ustice(Pollack2002).
persrasion
constructlvist
For their proponents(suchas Dowding2000),
such rational choiceperspectives
offer rigorous
roundJnon\for lhe de\.loomenr,"d re,rilg oi
falsifiable
hypotheses
arounda serieso?coreshared
propositions.
This improveskDowledge
in a proHistorical institutionalistsnre interestedin how
and
cumulative
wav.Scholarswork from a i n{i tuti onri . hoi ce\ hJ' e l ong rerm ef ip. t .
lressive
setof (adnittedlystylized)assumptions
to produce Insrrruron..d-eoe\rgncdt,,r pr(rcul dr purpo. e\ |r
progressively
better undersrandings
of how the particular setsof circumstances.They are assigned
fU w.'rk,.lor IhcI upponenr,..drionr choi.e tasks and in this process acquirc nlterests and
institutionalists
missthe point.Theirfocuson for ongoing agendas.If institutions intcra.t with one
mal rL esleadsthem to igDorethe variousinformal anotherin a decision:;aking processthen patterns
processesthat grow up around the codified that are constitutionallyprescribedor evolvein the
practices.
It isthescinformalitiesthatbettere\plain early lifetime of the institutions concerned nay
pulir) oulLom.\. \-,Ioreo!c',rdrional .J-ni.e 'lo& in' and also become ongoing. This 'lock ln
nccountsof actor preferences
rend to leavethese mLJr\ l hor d pJrh deFnJenr .ogi c mry .er in.
fl{ed rather thaD recognizing the ways in which Thc oDgoingnature ofinstitutional interesta(rheir
processes
of socialization
can mould interestsand ionAnuing buieau shapingagendasand their yridentities(Hooghc2001).
I< ' (n.e l .r\el ' prLsLr!r i nn' nedn\ rhdri n\ri t t ion.

N l Ti rF F oatLropP rn fregnton

125

institutions.Thusthc mngeofpossible ing ofthe interests


pre-existing
ofactors.
action and policy choice is constrained. Policy

This last commeni providesa link to sociologial

mayattemptto redesigD
institurions institutionalism,
ennepreneurs
a strandofliteraturerhatis closelv
,urrrnrneed.,burrhryd,,\o
nLherdceol boundupnirh rheconsfiu,rivllrurn in inrerna
romeer
'institutional agenddr th:t are locked in and which
tionalandEuropemstudies
(seeRisse2004;Wiener
ue, therefore,potentially diffrcult to reform.
2006 for comprehensive
overviews).This is dis,
' Likethe other two variantsof institutionalism, cussedlaterin thechaprer,
sorhccxpositionin lhis
histoicalinstitutionalismis not exclusiveto EU sectionwill berelatively
briel tt isimpo(ant to note
But its applications
srudies.
areobvious.That said, thar sociological
institutionatists
tend to rejeclthe
s.holarsuse this basictemplatein variousways. other institrtionalismsbecauseof their inlerent
Pad Piersons well known discLrssion
of path 'rationdismlThemeaningofthis term isagaindisdependency
1998)
problen
looksat the
of cussed
below,but for now it is worth rememberinq
lPierson
consequences.He argues that the rhar sociological instirurionalists/constructivists
I
inmediaie concernsof the architectsof the operatewith a quiredistinctontologylan uDoery
: -unintended
.., luropean Communities (EC) led them, at a critial

ing conceptionof the wortd). Thjs boils domto

interests.
Wriie rationalchoiceand (most)hisror
ical institutionalists see interests as erogenous
conomies.
Sowhile the intcntion ofwest European (extemalto ) interaction,sosociologicalinsritutional
ofthe 1950smay havebeento rescue istsseethem
(intelnal).Thatisto srr
asendogenous
Sovernments
the natiotr state, Pierson\ work suggests that the thatinterests
arenot pre+et,but rathertheproducr
of interaction betweenactors.

insightnre quite interesting.It pushessrudentsof inslitulionsandrheroleofpersuasion


an.tconnu
thEUtothinkaboutpolicypathways-howpdrtiL-nicaiiveactjonwirhinmsrirurionat
seuings(Bitzel
ularLU levelLomp(rer.ie\emergeover
mer(r
rndRi\.e1000,.8v!uiru'-i,aednhccmergen(e
resultof specificdecisions.We are askedto think of common fiames d reference,nor s governing
abouthow rationalactsat onepoint in time influ behaviour. and'., ,tsnirivefilte6t Ar Hilt andT.rylor
encerationalactionin thefLrtur.
note, in this nccount'insritutionsdo not simply
Lessweddedto rational nctor assumptions;s affecrrhc srratetsrc
.JLotat;onl of rndividuals,as
otherhistoricalinstitutionalist
work suchasrhrt oi rationatLhorcernstrtutronalists
conrend,but also
KennethArmstrongand SimonButmer(1993)in rheir most basic pderences;d very idenriry
their extensivestudy of the Single Market. (Hal and Tiylor 19961948).With th; in mlrd,
and Bulmcrare moreinterested
in the sociologicalinstitutionalistanaiysisof the EU
^rmstrong
waythatinstitutionscanbecomecarriersofcertain looks at the waysin which ongoingpatternsof
ideas,
values,andnormsovertime. Onceagainwe intiracrionind'noimal'loimsoibehaviouremerse
aF dire.redlowrrdsrhrnLingahoul ,oh
wi,hrnrn\riruri,,nrl
\eningr.As onr wrirerpur, it.
normativeand ideational'matter'is loaded'uch
into 'insrirutions have theories about themsetves'

: i:i:'' l

126 8enRosamond

l
t'

(Jachtentuchs1997: a7). Thur insrirutions con- their individual beliefs into broader, shared
rribule to actorsundenl,nding,oi *fitGey ar;. understandings'
(Checkel2001:3i). Sociologicd
'wTar tfie-uconren;, ani what
mighrbeni moii- inslitudonalism
is not simplyinreresled
in lhe EU
varronsor orneracors, lnrs \on ot work.ums to le'elot analyr-A iot or uork k beinedone;n rhe
idd substanceto oftin hiard claimssuchar rhe idea
_mlerdctionof ndlionaland Europn levelnorms
that differnt Directorates-cenerrl (DGs) of the !4{q pe4&urqr$e
y.aysily!l:! :puroeean
European Commission tunction in quite distinct normsfiIter into the existingpolitical culrursofthe
ways. Another area in which the applicarion of -membei stata (rorzet zoozl
this sort of thinl<ingseemsappropiate is th mvesligation ot whetier formaXl inrcgovernnrenral
proe'ser iuch as those aso(ialed with rhe
(nmmon Foreignand SecurityPolicv{CFsP)
conJorm to e\tablisbedpiflerns ol irrersLaqe
interaction,or whetherther brins about new rorns
of exhangebetweenthe envo's of membet states,
therebylrdntormirg long.esrablished
nomls df
rntelstatepolrtrcs.
'Ihe rolesof corrnnication,3lCg!"1,
suarionareseenaspaniculdrlvimDortant"!4".Jin lhese
conrexti.This rr likelr to occur in
there
.
,- 'etrinei
.:-.
normshavebeenertablished,
bur thesedeliberative
proce$esalsoconlributero rhe establi5hment
of
common undentandine". Thu; soa-6To{l'tu1]trsrtubonarrslsonm embdk upon empiricalquertr
for so-caled 'norrn entlepreneurs'- 'wlt placed
individual actors... [who] ... can often rurn

Theories
of policy-making
andtheEU
One of th major featuresof EU studiesin recent needsto erylore the waysin {b!4I9!!!L4gendas

how policyis madein this conrexr.This confims different patterns


_9e"!2"11!!g,9@1il
the idea,discussed
above,that the EU is abour differentar's of EU acti"irv.t-h"r, th" ,.liti."

agiculturatregdationmighrbe quitdissimilar"f
to
sl$.e111.Ugqiglr[esrth.t rcholirship, the politics of merger control. This suggeststhat

rathrmorethnninreFationlf werlLi*ol][e EU

_Alpglq

N ervTheori 5of
E Li ropean
ntegratl on 127
.

deiailedempiricalscholarshipis neededon a sector rlembJrs.Theimpaclofsuchwork is that ir guides


'by-'e .IorU. i' il s ( di( ro p ro n e rl r (o m p re h e n d
u. a$1, llom rhinlinEdbo,rrp,,li(r mdkingin
g
u
re
md
n
,e
.
ol
f
U
H o w e \e r.!h i . termsof rule bound interictionsbetween(consti
ri e co m plf lir y

.doesnot meanthat theoryisirrelevantor


margmal tutionaliydefined)institutionsthat are organizcd
'to this enterprise.
All politicalscience however hierirchically.
Ii emphasizcs
ihe needto understand
is
informed
by
theory.
the
spc.i6c
relations
of
mutual
dependency
smpirical
that
f,U
has
always
been
port
a
of call for obtainnl dil|rent sectors.
,: The
Opinionis dividedasto whetherpolicynetwork
theoreticdwork constructedelsewherein the social
rn.Jvi\ hrs r pldrein rhr.r,rd\of .heI I Kdsrm
sciencesand the concern with the minutiae of pol(1994), lor example,criticizespolicy network
;cy-mrkrng
'uggerr.rn impondnrrolefor rheofre\
policy
analysis.
In
their
disussion
of
EU
dcciapproaches
of
for neglcctingrhe inreraclion of
andElizabcthBomberginstitutions that is so central to a proper under
sior rnaking,lohn Peterson
(looql\uggenthrr di{erenrlc\(1.ofrcrion.nrhe standingof the EU policyprocess.
Petcrson,
on the
EUrequiredifferentsortsof theory.Theyidentily otherhand,pointsto the regulalory,
uneveD,
fluid,
rnreelevelsofaction:super-systemic,
systemic,
and andmulri-a.
ro' (hJ'r.rero( rheI U poli^ Srmed.
'' mesoGectoml).At eachlevelanal)'stsareinterested amplejustificationfor the application
of the policy
vdiables
in
diilerent
respectively,
chanses
in
the
network
template
to
the
EU.
Also,
as
Richardson
.
si d e rcn ! r ' r nm enr of t he L U . In .ri ruI n n d l.h d r' g e i (2001)remindsus,ihe conceptof poliynetworks
r n d !e {o uRe depende n .i e r. l \u ' . .rrh e v e t' (asopposedto the rathermorerigid ideaof'poticy
differenttheoretical
tools.IR theories
work communities')
is nuid and adaptable
andrhuswell
. requires
we ud r u e \ uDer\ y nc m . ( re \e r.$ h l e n e h In \ttl u
suited to the fact that EU policy making is
I tionatisttheoriessuit thc systenricleveiof analysis. segmented,comple4 and populated by multiple
a- At the sectorallevel,whereregulatorycomprclry stakeholders.
prevails aDd where 'stakehoLders'in the policy
Thi tal'up of this approachby studenrsof t}le
processexchangeinformatioD and resources, EU begs the interestingquestion of whether
the tools used to study national sovernanceand
pbliat:naking can be applied straightforwardiyto
theEuropean
level.Thistnkesusbackto someof the
fundanental issuesdiscrlssedat rhe beginning of
this chapter.Itut policy network anjlysis is not alone
in makingtnisassumption.
situations
whereidgologyis largelysecondary:nd
Another goodexampleemergesfrom the work of
exPertte
i\ dr r premium.lhi. i. nor ro.Jy rhrl GiandonenicoMajone(1994,200s)who
hasbeena
' Politicsis absent.On the contrarxpolicynetwork -atntral figure in the developmentof idea of the
aralysisd& s with the politics of influence ard 'regulatorystalcl The reguiatorystate literature
n u ru rl d t ' pendenc yin
u h e re p o s e r i ' offers a view of how the managementof advanced
' r ru a ri o r'
disPersed.
'
The actors involved in policy networks .Jp'tdli'le.onomie.
hJ' .hifredin re.cnrrime,in
have,
by dcfinition,an inrerestin policyoutcomes. the faceof cha engesposedby changesin the global
.tn nation:l contexts- wherethe policy Detwork economy.tn Majonet terms,the EU hasnany of
was6rst developed emphasiswasplaced thekeyfeaturesofa rcgulatorystate,the paradigm
I aPproach
uPon the reiationships between goverrunent exrtmpleof which is the USA.Regultrtorystatesare
oepanm(nlc,
prcsur(g!oup..dndvdriou.dgen.
ie. distinct from positive jnterventionist states.
andorganizations.
The main insightof suchwork Whereasthe latter involved governmentinterven\tE" lhdr ner$orksoncr invol\edt1e onsoirg tion to engineerthc redistribudonof resources
exhange re'our.e. b.rwe.n ,t. (omponell (usualy through the mechanismof the welfare
"r
'

128 B.f R o s a rn o rd

1
st:te), so the former busics itself ody with the
rectificationof markct failure.Much ofwhat the EU
does is bound up with the regulation of thc Single
Market. lt pretty much - lacks the welfarc tunc
tion associatedmost with the post-wnr lwest)
European state. The EU's relativcly modest
resourcesare bcst targeted at regulatory fonns of
policy making. But Majon's point is that regula
r : on i , I fo m o i g n v e rrd n c erhr \ he.omi ng
widespreadr.ross the Western rvorld. It is not a
developmcnt unique to the EU. Howeven rhe EU
can be thought ofas a set ofregLdatoryinstitutrons
createdby the member statesto solveproblems of
marlct nnperfection. In this respect Majone's
J nd l \.i .
d l o r w rrh p ri n .i p . l dgenr.mJl yi \
' h J re .
Not everyone would agree that the EU is solely
a regulatoly state,but the model ofnegarive ma!
ket integration/regul:tion n increasingly sceD as
one imponant dimension of the wly in whi.h
governancein Europe is delivered (Wallace2005i
,orgensen and Rosamond 2002). Thc regulatory
mode of governance pro.eeds from quite distincl
logrc . w h e n c o mp J ' .J r,, rh e c l rs i c.umrnuni r)
method. It is worth noting that much of the eairer
theoretical work in EU studies was concemed with
expioringthe dFarnics of the Communitynethod.
The grorth of regulation within the EU policy
processthus - nrguably has forced a cotresponding recalibrationoftheory One thing that would
r ppe a rro u n i re p u | l r( J .. i e n n s nocki ng on rhe
EU with, on the one hand, sholarsoflntemarional

PoliticalEconomyand, on the othcr, analystsof


a
natiomlandsubnatioDal
policy-making
is an inrer.
estingordnar.e (pierre2000).The term is usuallyI
definedin termsof the rangeof acrionsandinstiru--t
iions tlat supply order.Wl:t we conventionatly
understrndasgorerrmdntisonewayinwhichorder
is delivered,but the litcrature on governance
l
suggcststhat the traditional nethods of pubtic
rcgr.'rinn ;'llervcnrion
rnJ letsiJ ion
"re b.ing.i
displaced
andthat xuthorityis beconingdnpclsedI
amongsta varietyofactors.The stateretainsa key
roieh governance,
but itsroleiabainjreformdatcd
ind, arguably,
residudized.
TheEU is thoughrofas l
a very interestingand pertinenthbontory for rbe
explorationof thesetrends,a point ta-kenup by
the literatureon multi levelgovenance.
;

.t,Ihe statlsofthe EUd a po itylhatisrsponsiblefof


the deiveryof coherent
po cy outandmeaningful
putscha engesusto think about t in termsothr
thanthec a$icatheoretcadisco!rs.ointegration .d

\
. .Withthis
in mindrnanyhalesoughttotreattheEiJ
as :
a po icysystemTh s rqui.es
the applrcalion
ofthe
toos of poliryanalysis.
Manyoftheseapproaches
.,
slch aspolcynetwork
anaysis,orie
na y emereeO
in
thstudyolnationalpo iticalsystms.

o A l i gLr/ di ' FF rol eo- hr qL..to. ro r t r .


'r
aboltthe EL.J
in rerrnsoftrendsthatafshapn81he
waysin whch governance
s deliveredn nrodern

governance
Multi-level
Much ofthe work introducedin the prcvioussec
tion buildson thc claimthat policy-making
within
toth nation statesand the EU is a complexaffan
that cannotbe capturedby staticnodels of the
decision-makins
processfocusingon formal leglslatlvelistitutions.Analysts
who a&)ptthetheorec
icallanguagc
ofpoli.y networksandthe regulatory
state fo.ce us to question whcther there is any

i
.
:
:

meaningfuldistinctionbetweenpolicy-makingat
differentlevelsof governance.
Perhaps
the cruciai:j
changcsaretaking placein terms ofpolicy rnal<ing
stylesrather than policy-m?king levels.We cantake ':
this a litde turther to saythit the characterof govelnancein Europehaschangedsign;icantlyoverthe
past s0 years.If we adopt this position,tlcn we
might suggestthat the boundariesbtweennalional

'r I I f

L!olaJ.

ej

jtEgrn!r

129

But the ideaof


lolicy-mildng and European poticy-mrkins have the national,and the subnaiional)to
point
of insignificance.
l he 8U MLG goesbeyondthis.It nlsr emphasizes
fluidity
beenblurred the
isr ot something
thatsimplyhappens 6erweentheseticrs,so thatpolicyactorsmtrymovc
policyprocess
level.It penrtrarestuto national betweendifferent levelsof action.Moreover,disperat the EuropeaD
and
legal
qstems in colnpld walr. So .ronofJurhorirv
i. unr\enr. rn., policyarea..
lolitical
has
beenan undoubtcditrift' of author
Ar pre.enfMIC rcma.n.moreof an organ.zing
whilethere
iry in various policy arers to the Europeanlevel metrphorthanatheory(foracogentdiscussion,se
(Hooghe
andMarls 2001;Schmitter1996),
weneed wrrlciEli 2006).It is within this meraphorthat
away
from
the
image
of
tbere
nove
being
twodis- particularapproaches such as policy network
&
potitics
in Europe the n:tional anaiFis- .an sit confo.tably.But it doesreston
inct domainsof
level.
sometundamentaltheoreticalpreconceptioffthat
andthesupramtional/European
' Thisclaimrepresents
a directchallenge
to thcor- differentiate it squarelyfrom Ll (Marks, Hooghe,
Iiberalintergovernmental-and BlaDk le96). We have already noted the
issuchas Moravscik'.s
(LI)
Chapter
z).
Ll retieson the ideaofa departurelrom the conceptions
of poliiical space
Gce
. !,sn
two levclgameto describehow govemments'pref offeredby-two levelgametheorists-It is alsoworth
-;en.es emefgein the context of domestic politics sayingthat MLG proceedsfrorn a more pluralistic
, ard arethenthefoundalionsfor intergovernmentaland organizational conception of the state than
within Europeanlevcl
bargaining
institutions.
Such Lhelike.of Ll. lhi\ meJn.rhrrJruly.l,beginning
yrith an MLG frame of referencedispute quite
tundamentay the intergovernmentalist
account
of whrt the EU is.The MLG versionofthe EU;s a
'sei of overarching,mr ti level polic,. neMorks
twherel. . . ttlbe structureof political contrcI is
variable, not constant acrosspolicy space'(Marks
i of the literature discussed in this chapter, the et at. 199614r). Jn maly war MLG represcnrs
' B ro h d ro f \ 4Lc . dns uas ei n F U .rL d i e ! i ' .n e c h oo f an attemptto capturethe complexityof the EU,
work within sever:l fie1ds including IR, local but it also representsa clear denial of the idea
goremment, and policy analysis (Hooghe and that therecanbe a singleall:encompasing
t1*",y
of the EU.

'. authority have shifted over the past half-century


:- Hoogheand Marks 6nd that authority hasbecome
moredispersed
sincethe latc r950s.Sowhilethere
I las Ueeno a.it of zutlority ftom the nation;l to the
:l buropean le\.el, tlere has a1$, been a general
u(vo ru ro 40t deLt \ t on- m d k rn\ go mp e te -'e rn m ..l
west European countries- At the same rimc,

- hor*c,.
nanon.rtso!c'nmenr\
remdinimporrrnl
sitesof aurhority.
Sowe havea pictureof the EU policy process
consfting aseveralliers of authority (the European,

...Tne trcratL,reon muti-levelgovernance


(MLG)
encourages
us ro think aboutthe Eu as a political
systemacross
nrultipeievesindudnCnatonaland
sLrbnaUona
arenas
ofactionaswe the nstitutional
environmenl
ofBrusseh
. MLG rs prer.lsedon th ldeathat auihorityhE
gradLally
movedawayfrom fatona governments
over the pasthalfcenturygLt autlrorityhas not
simpLyshfted upwardsto state-k European
institutions;it
hasbecomedispersed
ar'rong
avarery
of private
andpubicagents
t Th s yrelds
a prct! ofcomplex,vaiable,
andrnevn
patterns
of po cy-making
n contmporary
Eurcpe.

130 EnRosamond

Social
constructivist
approaches
to the EU

Constructivismhas been the big news rn institutionalism


earlierin thischaptcrareinteresred
lrlerndUon.rl
Re,,rion.lheorr u\cr rhe p6r f.* in how couective
understandings
energeand how
years. The rerli of construcrivist scholars like institutionsconstitutethe intcrcstsandidentitiesor
Alexfd(r Wt'cot' oqo no' ru-" r" po.eo,c;ou. actoii. However,writeraliLwndt
( 1999) anrt I
cha enge to the establishedsdooh of lR thcory. IetrreyChe.kel (2001),l,ho has written eiensively :
Until rccently,the main debatein mainstrcam IR about Europe, insist that corlstructivism can and
.:
wJ. b(rhfHnform\ot redh.nr
JId liberri.m.\\rhile .noul J .hd-e rhr r;i ,uni l i , , on,mi r m cnr r o
iaalistsoffer a srate-cenlricview of thc world rhat devel up,nsknohJeJgcrhn,us\,l edr re,e", JhDr o
enphasizes
thepri;acy ofself helpandpowenlib- grammes, refutable hlpotheses,and the specifica i
enls contemptate
the wa)s in which interDational tion of.auial mechanismsthatproduceregularities. i
' Ihi i ' uodoubrcdl yqhdrmon
cooperation,
commerce,
andinstitutioDalization
are
l R con.I r , r ivi. r .
ableto temper tendenciestowardswar in the inter- r\pIe ro.H osc\( 1orJl l ot tho.ew orU i Bhilr ind
national slstem. Constructivisisnote thar both of broadly constructivist tradition a.cept that a con .i
theseapproachesemergi from sirnilar foundaxons. Itru.tivist ontology is compatiblewith a rationalist ir
'Theyareborh/a.io"aliittheorics.
Dfiningrational- epistmologv (i.e. the ret inthich kno'yledge ir I
i,r ure. Lr.mrorh". o-'rulerre.rlmof nerarheory.acquired).There is no need to pursue this debate :
andwecannotaojusticeto it herc(seeS.Smirh200I I-p,e teyond Jcknow l edgi ngi r\ eri \Lenceina
for a deeperdisc-ussion).
Theytendto operare
with a pointing out thar ir raises some tundamentat i
viewofthe world (anontology)thatseesinterests
as que' Li on\rbour w ndLamounr\ro propei or good
materialy given.They aho adhereto a posirivisric .o,i dl ,ci (rcc (R n\e l 00aJ. Ihi , hr. oL, viou,
concaptionof how knowledgcshould be gathered. implications fo. a subdisciplinesuch as EU studis
This involvesa commirment to 'scientific' men,oo, bel ru.e.unl e\r. over the\i que\ti on\ !\iil ar r ecl
the n-utralityof facts,and the existence
of obsen whnt is published in academicjournals and book
dblerc. iIi.\ ' 5.:m;lh2001:217l.
WhJc.uch\pnri .rboutFuropedni nregr,l ri onand.D ) e\ren{oa. \ iU
menr,,hrrJderi/e
muih.ociai..ien.erhcyrr -or influencehow the subjectis taught in universities.
rhdreduntr,r.Jl).R.ngedagai5rrJ.ionali'mi. d
The editors of the first colection of constftcrivist
rangeof rels.t/tst approaches- suchaspostrnod e* d)\ on rhe tU d,i ccprLl Jr rhe \rri ou\ . r ur hoF
ernisn, forms of feminism, and varietiesof criticai oitupy dllferent positions along the continuum
rieorr rhatbeginhom whoill aificrenr
p'"-ir'
between rationalism and reflectivism (ChristiaDsen,
Keuhrn"
1488
dir.u*H.
rhi.
d,,Lin.rronJ.
lorgcnsen,and Wiener 200I). Moreovcrthe commri'
ap?eal
ofronstnKtivism
or
at
least
the
t)?e
ment to break bread'with rationalist theories such as
llhe
ol .on{ruL(it|\mr}rr hi. erreredtie lR main libernl intergovemmentalism varies ftom nuthor to
streamin the lastdecade is that ii claimsto olTera authol That said, constructivists argue that thev are
m'ddlewaybetwcrn
Jnd renecrivi.m.best placed to study integration as a pro.esr. Wlile
'r,ioral.,m
ao_'rru.ri\i,r.
r,
Wenrlt
,ce inrere,t,a,
'u,h
.intergovernmentalists recommend that the Flr be
socialiy constucted rather thnn pre given, which
d dn rnanceot i nter.rak hrrga iningr nd
' rudi ed
mean.thJrrLBuliri,i;','n
Lhuinrernarioral
conparalivistl think about the EU as a politic!.I
1'rrn
ar. the.on,eqItn.eof rollcctieror'inrel\ubj.. s)$tem, constructivists purport to investitte tha
\o rhe.hduengr
rire r medning..
r,' -drionali.m
i. . hi ruJre'of rhemov" fr" m : b,rg,:i ni ngre gir e r o I
pdmarily ontological. Constructivists, ns r,.e p{,lity (Christiansen,lorgensen,and wiener 2001:
hJ\e,een hir}l r\e di',1,*ion
.ociuto8i.l I I ).Thusifwethinkabout E!rcpean integrarionasa
"i

NervTireore5ofE!ropeanlntegraton 131
processbound uP with change,then it makessenseto
d Jd qo n J nr \ l. r ll' eor eliJ p o !L i u I th a ttre J t.re J l i ry
a \o n rcn rd r nd pr oblem J rnT. h i . q e J n . r\d , L o n
"$r ctivist-ilspiretworli should foos
on tocial
ontologiesand socialinstitutiois, directingresearch
j at rhe odgin and recorsltuction of identities, the

deploymcnr of ideas, and Ge esrablishmenr of


n o m < . w ( al ,, needro pdvrrrerti on l o rhe hr)\ i I
whichthesenorns and ideasae commun;citid ard
to thc p;oAsseso{leaining ofsdcializarionrhat rake
ptaceamong actors. Norms' areparticularlyimpor
tanl in the constructivist vocabulary. These are
inpacl ol rulesand norms,the role of languageand defined as 'collectivee\pc.tations for the proper
and behaviour of actors with a given identity
Jorgensen,
3olitical discourse'(Christiansen,
(Katznstein1996:5).It is rhrough the itrternaliza,
Wiener200l:12).
trloreconcretely,
asRiss (2004)notes,construct- tion ofnorms that acton acquiretheir identiriesand
ivistsare pfedisposedto think abour how humm establish what their intrests are. This is ryhar con(be \rrul l j vi ,b meanw hen,Felral ,"al routr,he.onsri ru;gentsinteractin wa)sthat producestructures
$eynorms,hstiturions,shared
culturalundrstand:live effeats' of nor_lrs.
-jnss, or discoDrses)
that simultaneousiyshapeand
The emerging .onstructivist research agenda in
socialinteractionandthe possibilities
influence
for EU studies(which har much in conrmon with that
at6on &at follow. 'Constructivists endeavourto of sociologicalinstitutionalisrn outUDedearlier ]n
- unde tandthe constitutionof interests
and (ttrusl this chapter) also pays nttention to the ways rn
identities.Moreover,tley:re interestedin thewalr in
European levelnorms, ideas,and discourses
qhih inr iturion..cr ds.urna.f"r."mmunicarion,'{hi.h
p c 1 (rrJre i nro he \dri ou, nrr:onrl pol .r c' rhJl
{teliberatioD,
argumentation,persuasion,and social- m*e up the EU (Bitrzel2002).

iniion. Constructivistsalsotouchbasewirh discoune


inJy\rs rwrt?r 2001, ro enphJsi,,elhe power
residentin the capacityto createmeaningand so
ftarnepolicy choicrsin often non negotiableways.
.rlonstructlvsm ls a recentimportto EU studes,
Perhap,lhebestwiy ro unrJvelcon,rrucnvLsm
In
havingtakenon a panlc!ar chaEcterI debates
in
internationaitheory
EU studiesis to mention a few examplesof what
.on,.ruLlivst,.r.r
Jdllrhorkon.Manvrreintert'\rcd
gonstructivism
is not a theoryof integrarion,
but a
in horvEuropeanidentities emerge.Sothe ideaof a
posltiononthenatureofsoca
rca ty (anontotogr)t
'European
fo Lows
thattherearemanyconstructiv
st approaches
economyla'Europeansecurityommu
andsignificantdsagreementaboutthecomparibi
ty
nitylor'EuropeaD
citizenship'
shouldnot bereadas
of constructivism
withEtionasttheories
acon,equence
uf a.toN inrere.lr.hJnBing
rrr;"n
constrlctivists
areinterested
in European
allyin responseto erlernai materialchangessuci as
ntegrarion
process.Theyfocls
particularon
as
a
quesrlons
n
of
theonsetof globalization
or the end of the Cold
dentityandth waysn whichEuropean
norms
are
War.Ratharlonsrructivistsinsist thaawe needto
enablished
and playout withn th Etl nstiiution5
nvestigatethe ways in which these identities are
andthe memberstates.
co-nstNctedthrough the use of lan$.!e, rhe

International
Relations
andInternational
PoliticalEconomv
revisited
Wesarvearlicrin this chapterthat the disciplineof for studeDtsof the FU. If rhe EU is about much
lnternationalRclations
(IR) hasbeenihoughtolby irorethrn'Lntigrrtion,run5rhe.rrgument,thcnrve
someas an inappropriatdisciplinaryhomeland necdto breakawayfrom a di;ciplinethnt is re.ilty

132 Bf Rcs;norc

':;

l;l

rl,l
rlrl

only capableof asknrgquesttunsabout whether simultaDeousemcrgen.ehas somerhingto do wlln


thereis moreor lessintcgrationand which acrors exposureto commor stinuli.
influencethe integrationprocess.One counterThe most obvious explanationfor the revivat of
argumcnt,s we havescen,is to c-hallenge
this regnrnal intcgration is the developmenr of
imagcofwhat Ilt is all at out.Forexample,
thereare tsl ,i bJl ,,ari u' r.,
;l ,,hJl i /dri ons J.rpl y.on r . nr , "u.
plenty of scholarsworking ir tR deparrneDrs, topic, but is |lsully though of as a combination oi
atten.tingIR conferenccs,
aDdwriting in IR jour- things like heightenedcapit.l rnobility, inrensilied
nais who seethe disciplineas ar thc foreFontof . r,* . bordrr rrJnvcri on.. InL nuIi nrLi on Jt i/ r r ion
rhrn,|,groout errrrgrnrr-"n.n-rr"rrrle.onomn of production, and the sprcad of neo liber:l ecoandsocialspaces
andtheformsofgorrnancethat nomic policv Dorms - in short, the growlh of
ariscin suchcircumstances.
Anoiheris io question market authority at thc e'xpenseof formal polincaL
the notnn of a hard boundarybetweenpolitical authoritx This debareis vcrycomplex,but one line
scieDceand IR and to point out that integration ofargument is that regionalism(as reprcscntedby
theorywasfounddby figures- like Karl Dcutsch N A ITA l ,{er.o.ur.rnd on ' ' rhepfl mr wr y in
)
aDdErnstHnas who wereengaged
in thc cxplicit which stateshave respoDdedto globnlization.The
applicationofthe newestpoliticalscienceideasro move to regionalismsuggestsrhat stateshave se.!r
the studyof a verl interestingnew phenomenon fit to pool resouces in order to rccaptue some of
(regionalintesrationin Europe)(Haas200I, 2004i the ruthority that globalization has taken away - a
Ruggieeral.2005).
rype of collectivcin*uance againstglobal;ation.
Thisis a debateworth having,but inrcccntyears
Debate e{ists over the erdent to which srates
therehaveemergedothcr reasonsfor 'bringingtR actuallyand effectivelylead the creationofregional
bdck Inl lwu, in parri.ulan.ldnd our: !./ lhe i nr< tsr.ri on\hcme' . thi . i . uhe' . d ai, r in. on
possibilitythatthe EU canbestudiedasan instance brrneenregi " n.rl i ,manc regi una' i zr,i nrr im ponofthe so-called'nerv
regionllisnitharhnsemerged ant nr the litcrature. While iegionalisn describes
in recentyearsacrossthe world as (perhapt a state led proje.ts of insritution-building among
rc.pon.ero gl.,l-..iil.rion:
Jnd' br lh( gruwinS
!E
groups of countdes, regionalizationis a term used
nificanceof theEU asan actoron rheworldstage. to .apture the emergenceof a de facto regional
economn propeled by the cross border activitiesof
t' .onomi Ln.r,,r\ pafl Ludrl ) nrm.. thc qui. t ion
hse is whether thc formal institutions of region.l
ntegr,rtion are creatcdtodealwith and regulaterhjs
emergenttransnationaleconomicspace,or whether
llegionalintegration especialLy
in the forn offree the growth ofcross border aclivity is stimulatedby
tradeareaiaDdcustomsuntuns is not a Dewphe- the decisionsol governments.Theseare empirical
theperiodsinccthe mid 1980s que\don\ r. one tcvcl .brr rht hdo p.\ir ion. i. 1
.nomcnon.Howver,
has beeDcharactcrized
by rhe gror',rhof nany this particular debate cmerge from two diffcrent
iaglon e.ooomicblocsin the globalpoliticaleco- theoretialaccountsofthe world one largclystatenomy.Amongthe mosrconspicuous
arethe North centnc and one not,
Americm lree TradeAsreement(NAFIA), Asia
There is also a debate in intemarional economb
Pacific Economic Co operarion (APIC), and about the impact of rceional agreements on the
Mcrcosurin SouthAmerica.Not suprisingly,these global econony. A11 of the instances mentioned
cascsof \egionalism'havegenerated
considerabteabove are actual or aspirant free trade areas. The
scholarlyinterestand analysrshavebeenkccn to question is whether the creation ofregional Fee tride
c-lplorethe possibilitythat rheir norc or less zones crcates or divefts trade on a globil s.ale. Pul

T heE Uandt he' ne w ' re g i o n altsm

NewThore5.riELrropean
nlegraton133
anotherway,ir askswhc'therwe are headingfor a Integrationtheoristsandtheir criticshavelonggrap
(ofcompeting
regional
bloct or a pled with the so-calleila : 1 problem, that is, the
regiomlizedwond
globalizedworld Asain, such matters can be lncomfortrble possibility tlat the EuropeanUrion
empirilrlly.bur LheoreLiai
irl(nenr ion i. Indvbenofiingurhn
rhJnanin.rJn.e,,t
rr.ell
|ne.i'ured
if
we
are
fuly
to
understand
the
meaning
ofa
There
arc
lwo
suggestions
asto how the field of
reeded
\,ii.e al,o.how mucliof EU
rermlile glol,,li-,arroni
might be .eunircd reith the study of
ile foregoingimpliesa parliculart'"e ofrelationship comparadve
-uniCs regionalintegrationwithout the EU
betweenglobnlizationand statehoodand, it should becomins the parddigmcase.The first follows
be said,betweenstruture and agen+ Altemative lvarlcigh\ (2006)argumentthat EU studiesitscf
accountsph.e differentialemphasisupon t}le struc- - rhJnL.r,' rrJn\ of lhL rhtu'.1i..1developm(rh
in this chapter- olTe$a rich and ferrile
tura] qualities of globaliz-ation- its ability to s.1 discussed
ranseofideasfor scholars
impemtivcsandshapethe behaviourof actors.
interested
in questions
of
The theoreticalrelevanceof the questionsraised governane
beyondihe nationstate,the ilterylny
in the precedingpragraphs becomesespecially betweendomesticpolitics and coiletiveinstitu
apparentwhen we thinl about their application to tions,and the possibilities
for post-nationdemoc
th EU. Thinking theoretically,as tames RoseDau racy and legitimacy.The secondsuggestedstrategy
rnd Mary Dufee (1995)point out, involvesaskjng invotvesthe rediscovcryoT some of the neslected
be of wh.rtis thi' rn in'tinre?que.rion.The
neh themesof classiaal
integrationtheory,particularly
(seeChapter6), wheretherewas
ragionalismliterature forcesus to askwhether the neo-functionalisn
liU is a comparable.ase to, say, NAFIA. If the an overi emphasison the study of the requisite
anver i( )L'. rh"n ,he {udy or .ompdrrrive materialand cognitivebackgioundconditionsfor
;rrpj,ario,i" h-ouEht
regional
bdckin wllh rheI i
t}lc formaiion and consolidationof regional
aroneof theprimarycases.
projecls(Rosanond200sar2005b).
Of coursc,the EU is at best a deviantcaseof
regionalismIts longevity rules out trnf claim thrt
theEU was.redre, ai a responseto globaleconomlc
upheav:isin the late 1970sand eaily 1980s.
Moreorer.
.ompareolo orhcr.J.* uf rrBiunJi'm Theexternalpolicyof theEU is discussed
at lcngth
the EU n co$iderably more institutionalizedand elsewhere
in this book (seeChapters14 rnd ts).
nuch more deeplyintegrated.]b usethe EU as a The taskhereis to con.entrateon lrhat this might
benchma* case againii which other resionat meanfo r the waysin which we might conceptualize
projectsshouldbe measuredis clearlya falla+ Yet and theorizethe EU's rolc in the globalpolitical
al de \Jme time rhe a,(rlirrriol rf e,ononi.
integration
throughthe SingieMarketprogranrme The questionthat Iirst emergesis whctherwe can
andprosress
towardsmoDetaryunionhas
theEU asandctor.Tharisto sanisthe
coincided conceptualize
with the growth of regionalprojectselsewhere.
EU a discenible entity with its own opacity to act
Theproblm is not a nw onefor theoreticiansof on the basisof its own interests?To be sure,the EU
Europearint.gration. In many ways,the probtem possesses
certainformalrolesin world politicsand
defined fie prcject of the tust generation of in themanagment
ofthe globaleconomy.Itspeaks
htegration theorists.For neo-functionalists(as we with a commonvoi.ein international
hadenegotihaveseenin Chapter6), comparisonwasa 'must' ationsandhasthemakingsofan embryonicforeign
becauseonly then might a generalizabletheury andsecudtypoticy(M. Snith 2001a).On the other
of regional nrtegration emcrgc ftom thc c:sc hand it consistsof 25 memberstatcs,all of which
study supplied by the Europcan Communitles. oFalc as actorsrvithin the currenl intemational

TheEUasanactor

134 BenRosamond
politics.Thus,for the EUto acquirelegitimacyand
.systen(note holv the very phrnse'intcr-national
system'connotesan ordcrfoundcdon the interac- recognitionasa validactorin the s]rtern,wenight
natnlnalstates).
hypothesizc
that it hasto conforn to the rulesof
tion of authoritative
This in turnwould createpressures
for
Thatthe EU is not a state(at lcastin thc conven- thlt system.
trondlmoderr\en\e"i rhc rrr-l i' nu r.,ll) i1 thc EU to becomesiatdlike. Thei.foie, the paiadox
displritGeeBox8.3).But is it bcomingone?rthis is that while the EU mly appeario transcendthe
is the case,then we might waDtto arguethat the II I intematioDal system,it is still in meaningtul wnls
formedthroughthe constituted(ascoDstructivists
wouldput it) by the
is anembryonicstatewrit 1arge,
gradualmergerof its componentmemberstates. normsof thatverysystem.
This might then alow us to slot the EU as a
,yrter inlo
."n.rrrL(nrunitofrhe interrdlionrl
lunts-c.rrbli,hed
rheorie.ol Il. ruch a' rerli.m.
This wouldconstructhe EU asan entityseekingto
itsownintrests
and,particularly,
to render
advance
The EU and statehood
ftom extemalthreat.
itselfsecure
However,we might be r.:lu.:rantto arrive at thN
Muchof the rouunepolltca discourse
sLrcLndne
LJop" anrrae rrol bo.he p_rrl 1Fq- . 'o. o
conclusion.The EU might appearto be a rather
whetherthe EU s bcominga JedeElsuperstat."l
unique ntiq', lacknrg those decisiveauthodtative
whrch,by defnition,rs supplanting
the powersol ts
odern
attributes normally associaredwith
constituent
mmber
statet.
While
such
debateswil
_;eem
sovereign)nation states.If we thinl
.(supposedly
srmprisric
to crosen;d"nti oftleiu,tlet open
about the imageof the EU that is describedby the
o
b,h-o< .hi -o4doLor . \
' ' l rp" ,. 8" v-1' "
u
5omof-he" " s L" ndi (esolnat ehood
4 r
literature on multi level governance (discused
-cL
earlierin this chapte, and then projectoutwards, na,,on" to 6ti l o.rc ooOroL e& r 1 F- op"'; : ;
EL
ihe pastti;ee anda haraeitoriesForexample,the
then studentsof integration are conilonted wrth
q.l 5'\Fdteni Lo'i ol bot
dd 4 dndi 'do. ao po F.
somethingthatseems
to fit verybadlywith conven
!9!.Iqlolg lhe lesitintte rneaisoirlio
(Russie
IR
1998:173,r).Indeed, !g!oq9l,:!i!
tional theoriesof
.i," oo* roi"reae" a/e-. L6oros.annd
o
pc i.o,ror
rdrherlhdn rning ro fil rhe tt inro In iheo^.
T " l,r e .J' d o
r"r rdoF -.-,.iemphirtic aJihority ovr the sovemanceof iis coi
perhapsIR theoristsneed to look caretuIy at
,. LF - o oaie
b t e , - i r o . o , F r "" n " o
their establishedtheoretical toolkits if they are
"ld
h r n d r e d o f m i l l o . ! o f r o o e " n ! . Mo r e o \e r . "
properlyto comprehend
the EU.Theoriessuchns
p r F ,n p r o I o r r d l r ',
?nrr5-or' r'
to r 1 5 6 L U i
neo-reatism and neo liberal inadrutionAisrii
suffrciantjyilmitarlo iraiiona po itica synemsto arlow
_ i e o e po \ 1 " r o r t 1 ; a o o '4 o , n d l o o l .i a l vp n
ilvt i.l aorni"ut" theorelical diicourse in lR,
"
r d p o h (/ d r d r y \ B n . i d r e h o o d3 'o _ r ' " l e | d l
especialyin L\e USA)-arebuiltrround the ;deaof
"
dimenslonsThus word poltcs has devlopedinto a
statesns&e dominant units of analysisin the world
gdr. p4.o ben ee
t d r F < 4 r . l f F o .:o - o
(pe\)\rem. Inc fu m 8nr D. r rcir o(urr\'nce.
;
o\q-gnl\ o,l1- rl,n"f VJ
olwesten Europc,burthe
cificto the peculiadties
l n r e r n r ro n r . R F L i o n l e 6 r L r a o e b " r e !rh e e n e n t L
wals in which the boundariesbctwecndomestic which processessuch ; globalizationhave begun to
a;d intemationalpotitics havi becomeblurred
t r ro,n ftr5 ,,.ter rer lhp bl8 rdg- of .r"l ood.
lntrnationa poritics, sovereisnry,and dipomacy
along with the stylcs of governance thtrt have
e\ol\edmay 4ell h.\e i mu.h uider applicarion n r r , ! e n c r c f t o r d o o . , , . W- n r g q d g r " !h d (
the conditionfor admissionto the worldpo ity rernarn5
(seear6oTonra2006).
th achi!ernentof statehoodSothe q!estionbecomet
On rider to this is that the EU'serternalaction
p i F ' 1 5 . 'L I o e r E
( Ll r p e db ,
"
'o n < U - d " _ d
take'pla.e,uh.rherin rerm.oi lbreignpo i.) !'r
e^ r
gnorld
i 'i o r r 'i b r Sr o
lF!6r
'radcalreshaping
^ "of
T owor d^po
tcs
commdciai (trade)policl';in conditionsthat sti
respondto the rulesofstate celtredinter national

N ,lTheori es
of E !ropeanrtegfatron 135

ia')Thedismissal
of Internato.aRlatiofsas a slitabre . Aho mportantis recentthinkingthat challenges
the
' (o o4F' d . ol' -b , r u
t ldr p' r e b" o "a' dl
\tatecenlricvison ofthe word that haschancterized
muchmainstream
1RlheoryThepaiticuarcharacler
of
the EUasa presence
niheglobasynemconfronG
this
.**
conceptuar
thinkingin lR has been
a.
tEditionalmagery
bypointngto a nurnberofways
in
"q.n towaidsthe analvs
r directed
5 ofthe growthof reeona
whichstruct!resof aLthoriiyand patternsof poiucs
. sminlheglobalpo
iticaleconomy,ofwhichthe
EUtriay
instance.
bea (pecullar)

C o n c l u sion
Therevivalof interestin theoryin EU studieshas suggestthtrt the roolkit of political scienceand
otcurredwithin thecontextofsomeseriousthink- policy analysismight be usetul. At the sametime,
In g a o o ur r ne r o' e or rn e o ry In p o n ,c ,l | s c rc n c e . howcver,the faci that tie EU is not a stateascon. Sorneof the'new' theoriesdiscussedin this chapter ventionallyundirstoodposesall sortsof chalcnges
' hawerergedfrom.:concemru rerrdcr
rh<or<rrcaltoJho\c.(Ung Io under\lrndnol only I urope.n
work more rigorouny
Othd rL$cr integntion, but alsothe lature of world orqeJin the
'.rcnrrfil::
'approaches har.e emerged
liom positions that earlytweDty fi$t century.The EU may offer a clear
e r? L i cir ly
c hdUc ng.r h/
.,;" " ..-nd"aLiunol uhar a dendriondliredworld order
' rri o ri l i .l
'"
rocial sciencc.Others still notably certain con risht look like (KohlerKochand Eisingr99e).It
slructivists - try to occupy a middle positnr
sits betweennation statesand the intemational
between rationalisn
and rellectivism- These systemmd arguablytransformsboth tbrough its
:li debates havc bcgun to intnde

into EU studies

(Christiansen,
forgensenand Wiener 2001) and
have becn played out more extensively in the
broader International Relations literature (Baylis
j, andSmith200s).lb tbenewcomer,
thismightseem
like cornplex academic navel gazing and thus
b divorcedfrom the realbusinessof studyingthe [U.
'i
But theorer;calreflctionand debatesimply bring
out into the open $sumptions thnt residein any

ihe facts ihat rhe EU is multidimensional,that


inresrddonis un:v,ei a,rd $r Ft Bowmdce i\
.ompo.edol multjple.coe{nrrnepuliq mode\dll
force us to thinl( carefullynbout how the nature of
rurhor:lvischdnging.
Th<lr i.t r\employer\ol'he
'mdltilevelgorernan,e
metaphor
r<rnrnd
u: i' Lo
rhinkdboullhetL .r' pan.rndp"rcel rhi'. hing
"r
\ patlem of gorinance. To trot thtEu asa toliti
enpirical discussion of the EU. Altemative theones cal system'above'naiional poLiticalsystemsignores
have different accounts of social reality and sone'
the complei interpenetrationof the d6meitic and
.
trmes lead to quite different strategies for acquiring
rhe,uprJrll|ionrl
inconrcmpurJr)
FLrrope.
Iher.r\1.
: whcthci diawn liom thef.,rmal discipli
i valid laronledge about that world. This tmnshtes oTrhebries
ventually into a set of disagreements about matte$
mrydomainsof 'lntemationalRelations
or'political
to thisbook.Whatsortof entityis the science'-i! !o oq.1 waysof oryanizinsour thoushts
lundamentai
E andhow.;hould
irbe stndied?
what is goinon in this contet. Wemight con-about
Much of the 'new' rheoreticalwork introduced tinue to be contusedaboutthe complexityof the EU,
abolerep'e,en,,r ,elf con\c:ou,deparrure
lrom butlie presentvibrant theoretical culture in EU
-stuliea tt
Gad ai;; us a chanceof beingcontusedin
,thinkhgaboutthe EU in termsof integrationlIts
- n reasonablysophisiicatedway.
as
a
supplier
policy
of
authoritative
outputs
.statrls

136 BenRosamoird

,l

p.ovdesa betterd scplinaryhomeland


ls t fairto saythat Comparative
Politics
il)r EUstudies
than
InternaUona
Reatons?

2. Cantherbeasingleinsritutiona
istresearch
agendain
EUstudies?
3. H o w h e p fu l i s thi deeaolm!l t vel governance' fororgafi zi ngthew ayw ethi nkabout t h
perspective?
HowmlghtonestudytheEUfroma po cynetworks
a
5 . Wh a ta d d e d v a l u edosoci
constructi
vi stsbrngtothestudyoftheE U ?
6

Howm ghtwegoabouttheorzingtheEUs.oe in theworld?

7.

Towhatextentis rt possbleto compare


the EUwth other inancesof 'fegofalism'in rhe globa
Whyisitimportanttotheoriz
European
integration
andtheELropean
Urion?

I Aspinwall,
M.,andSchneidet,G.(eds)Ihe
Rules
af Inteerotion:
lnstitutionalist
Approoches
ta theStudy
,fE rope(Manchesier:
Manchester
UniveEityPress,2001l.A
r goroussetof esaysexpLoring
the contributionsmadebythevarousforrnsofinsttut ona anayskto thestudyoftheEU
(. E.,andWiener,
* Christiansen,
I, Jorgenser,
A.(edt lhe sacialConstuctian
ot Eurcpe(London:
2001).Acolectlonofconstrlctiv5trnsplred
readings
of aspects
ofEumpeanintegraton.
Contains
responses
anda notable
newessay
byE.nstHas,thefounder
ofneo,functiona
sm
g Cini, M., and So! rre, A. ( (eds)PalgaveAdvancesin EurcpeonUnionStudieslAasinesloke:
lMacmillan,
2006).
A collection
onthestateofthearl in EUstldiesw th numerous
theoretical
insights.

t Hix,5.fhe Political
SynenoftheEurapeon
Unjon,2.dedn(Basinestoker
Macmillan,
2005).
A land
textonthe EUthatbeglns
fromtheclaimthatlheEU sbeststldiedthroughthelensofcomparatlvepolit
I Hooghe,1.,and Marks,G.A4uki-level
Governance
ond Europeanlntegrdiah lBaulder CO:Rowman&
L i tti e fi e l d ,2 0 0 1 ).T h enrtbookengthdi scussonofthetheoryandpracuceofmutt
i
evetgovernance
I Rosamond,
B. Deorlsor.Eurcpeon
lntegrution
Palgrave,2000)
A critlcaldisclsslon
lBasingstoke:
pastandpresent
theofiesof integration.
(eds)Eurapeontntegrotian
Theory(Oxfod:OxfordUniversityPre$,2OO4).
@iener A., and Diez,T
perspctives
FatitioneE ofa widevarietyoftheoretrcal
discuss
andappythelrapproaches
to theEU.

Vlsitthe OnlineResource
Centrethat accompanies
this bookfor loB of ntefestingadd
material.
httD://wwwoxfordtextbooks.co,uldorc/cini2e/