Collana del Centro interdipartimentale di ricerca sull’integrazione europea
Università degli Studi di Siena
Thematic Network of European Studies
The Scientific Committee of the Thematic Network of European Studies (SENT) was formed by:
Federiga Bindi (University of Rome Tor Vergata) Ariane Landuyt (University of Siena)
Kjell A. Eliassen (BI Norwegian Business School) Vita Fortunati (University of Bologna)
Stefania Baroncelli (Free University of Bozen) Ioan Horga (University of Oradea)
Sophie Vanhoonacker (Maastricht University) Cláudia Toriz Ramos (Fernando Pessoa University) Juliet Lodge (University of Leeds)
Amy Verdun (University of Victoria)
Alfred Tovias (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
ANALYZING EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS
FEDERIGA BINDI AND KJELL A. ELIASSEN
SOCIETÀ EDITRICE IL MULINO
This book was published in the framework of the SENT project (Thematic Network of European Studies), financed by the Euro- pean Commission. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
The speed and depth with which the European Com- munities/European Union has evolved is breathtaking and has radically shaped the life of the continent. Ever since the beginning of this ambitious economic and political project, scholars around the world have tried to explain the under- lying logic behind it and the mechanisms of its functioning. Thus, a plethora of studies developed alongside the evolu- tion of the EU.
SENT (Network of European Studies) is an innovative and ambitious project which brought together about 100 partners from the EU member states, candidate and asso- ciated countries, and other parts of the world. It was a far reaching project aimed to overcome disciplinary and geo- graphical-linguistic boundaries in order to assess the state of EU studies today, as well as the idea of Europe as trans- mitted by schools, national politicians, the media, etc.
SENT’s main goal was to map European studies, in or- der to get a comprehensive picture of the evolution of Euro- pean studies over the last decades in different disciplines and countries. This approach permitted to achieve a better un- derstanding of the direction these studies are now taking. Five disciplines were identified where EU studies have par- ticularly evolved: law, politics, economics, history, and social and cultural studies. The mapping of EU studies thus in- cludes a review of the most studied issues in EU studies to- day, the main academic schools, the most influential journals and books published, but it also shows how local realities and national identities affect the study and teaching of Eu- rope around the world. In addition, an important work was done in mapping and discussing teaching methodologies in relation to European studies with the aim of introducing and diffusing the most up-to-date techniques.
The project was structured in various working groups, corresponding to their respective disciplines. These net- works worked closely together to ensure a discussion across geographic boundaries. At the same time, the SENT net- work brought together scholars around the world in a di- rect and multidisciplinary dialogue in a General Assembly held in Rome in July 2010 to reflect on the state of the EU disciplines and their future.
We are very proud to present the results of this ambi- tious project in a series of volumes. The following are being published with Il Mulino:
1. European Integration Process Between History and New Challenges, edited by Ariane Landuyt;
2. Analyzing European Union Politics, edited by Fede- riga Bindi and Kjell A. Eliassen;
3. Integration Through Legal Education. The Role of EU Legal Studies in Shaping the EU, edited by Valentino Cattelan;
4. Questioning the European Identity/ies: Deconstruct- ing Old Stereotypes and Envisioning New Models of Repre- sentation, edited by Vita Fortunati and Francesco Cattani;
5. Ideas of Europe in National Political Discourse, edited by Cláudia T. Ramos;
6. Communication, Mediation and Culture in the Mak- ing of Europe, edited by Juliet Lodge and Katharine Sari- kakis.
Other two volumes are part of the SENT series and will be published elsewhere: Mapping European Economic Integration, edited by Amy Verdun and Alfred Tovias with Palgrave and Teaching European Studies Curricula and Teaching Methods, edited by Stefania Baroncelli, Roberto Farneti, Ioan Horga and Sophie Vanhoonacker with Sprin- ger.
The extensive work of this project was coordinated by Prof. Federiga Bindi, Director of the Jean Monnet Euro- pean Centre of Excellence of the University of Rome Tor Vergata and her valuable team, and benefited from the generous support of the European Commission.
The scientific organisation was assured by a core
coordinating committee formed by: Federiga Bindi, Ariane Landuyt, Kjell A. Eliassen, Vita Fortunati, Stefania Baron- celli, Ioan Horga, Sophie Vanhoonacker, Cláudia Toriz Ramos, Juliet Lodge, Amy Verdun and Alfred Tovias.
It is fair to say that these volumes show how the EU has uniquely affected not only the daily life on the ‘old continent’, but also its scholarly work. We hope that this project opens the path for further extended debates about these transformations providing food for thought and re- search tools for young researchers, practitioners and scho- lars of European affairs alike.
The Development of Euripean Integration Studies in Political Science: An Introduction by Federiga
Bindi and Kjell A. Eliassen p. 11
Early Approaches to European Integration by Jonathon Moses 21
Who Produces European Studies? A Bibliometric
Study by Matti Wiberg 47
Political Science and the Study of European Inte-
gration in Austria by Gerda Falkner 59
European Studies as an example of a Multi- and Inter-disciplinary Eduction Model in the Bal-
tic States by Tatjana Muravska 77
The Governance Turns in EU Studies in Belgium
by Arnout Justaert, Karoline Van Den Brande,
Tom Delreux and Edith Drieskens 91
Analyzing European Union Politics in Bulgaria by
Ivan Nachev 113
EU Studies in Denmark and Sweden by Salla Gar-
ski, Knud Erik Jorgensen and Ian Manners 133
Little Ado About Little: European Studies in Finland by Matti Wiberg 153
The State of EU Studies in France by Olivier Costa p. 193
German EU Studies Oder EU Studies in Germany
by Tanja Börzel and Torben Heinze 217
Greek Political Science on Europe: a Scholarly- Outline by George Contogeorgis and Dmitris
N. Chryssochoou 269
European Integration Studies in Political Science
in Hungary by Edina Ocsko 289
The Development of European Studies in Italy by Federiga Bindi and Serena Giusti 307
The Development of European Integration Studies in Political Science: the Netherlands by Hylke
Dijkstra and Maarten Vink 355
The Study of the European Union from Outside: European Integration Studies in Norway and Iceland 1990-2010 by Kjell A. Eliassen, Marit Sjøvaag Marino and Erikur Bergmann 381
The Development of European Integration Studies in Political Science: the Case of Poland by
Katarzyna Pisarska 411
Mapping European Integration in Portuguese Political Science by Paulo Vila Maior and Claudia T. Ramos 435
European Integration Studies in Romania by Irina Angelescu 465
European Studies in Spain by Francesc Morata and
Izea Ollora p. 485
The Awkward Subject?: The Study of European Union Politics in the UK and Ireland by Nick
The Development of European Integration Studies in Political Science in Canada by Sarah Dun-
phy and Finn Laursen 545
Research and Teaching the European Union in Latin Americ: Background, Context, Trends and a Bibliographical Selection by Joaquim
EU Studies in Russia Today by Alexander Strelkov,
Mark Entin and Oleg Barabanov 615
A Mapping of European Studies East of the Mis- sissippi: Political Science by Eleanor Zeff and
THE DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE:
The rapid and profound transformations underwent by the European Communities (EC) /European Union (EU) have been closely followed by a growing specialized literature. This literature has taken many forms and ap- proaches, focusing on a variety of topics, from the internal developments of the EU to the impact of the EU member- ship on the member states. Last but not least, the message of this literature has not only been conveyed in English, but in a variety of languages. However, there have been few efforts to provide an overview beyond specialized niches. The aim of this volume is to address this absence by pro- viding an overview and carrying out a comparative analysis of major contributions to the study of European integration and European policies in most EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The use of the Eng- lish language makes this endeavor accessible, and, with contributions from native speakers of the various countries covered, it provides a pool of information that would oth- erwise be inaccessible to most readers. In this sense, the readers will be presented with a basic introduction of Eu- ropean integration of every country covered – most of which the reader is unlikely to know well.
The emphasis of this volume is more on identifying the broad lines of development than on a detailed mapping of all the specialized publications in the different countries, an exercise that would go beyond the time and space pro- vided for this endeavor. Given the different contexts of each country covered, the contributors of the volume have been given the liberty to approach their chapter in the best way they deemed appropriate. However, there have been three guiding questions for each of them to answer in their chapters: a. what the status is today regarding major con-
tributions and important institutions and scholars in this field in their country; b. where the study of this subject comes from in terms of scientific fields, traditions and im- portant research institutions; and c. why the development of European integration studies has take the road indicated in the major contributions presented.
The volume covers the majority of the EU and EFTA member states, but also some non-European countries, including the United States. As mentioned before, it would be impossible to comprehensively include all the literature produced on EU integration studies seen from a political science perspective. The approach adopted instead was to put together a panel of country experts and rely on their expertise and in depth knowledge of the country studied in order to select the major contributions, centers and re- searchers for their country analysis. This approach entails the analysis of the experts’ analysis of the different tradi- tions, historical developments and national and European importance of the major contributions. Furthermore, some authors have chosen to also identify the most influential works on European integration translated, studied and quoted by national authors in their work. It is for this rea- son that the volume has selected only authors with a tho- rough understanding of the realities and mentalities of the countries analyzed.
1. Political science and the study of European integration
This volume focuses on the study of European inte- gration, including EU policy-making and EU policies. The approach is that of a country-by-country analysis. The un- derlying question of this project is therefore: how have European integration and EU politics been analyzed, and what have been the major empirical and theoretical contri- butions in each country? The focus is then on the academic traditions of EU studies in the different member and non member states in an attempt to identify the most important contributions and publications within this field. This
would, in its turn, permit to single out a set of contribu- tions to the literature on European integration that are, in a sense, transnational: they are studied and referred to, or even contested, across (European) boundaries.
The decision to adopt a country-by-country logic was justified by three reasons. First, in most cases research on the EC/EU grew out of the fields of domestic or interna- tional politics. Second, the existence of literature in differ- ent languages means that it is very difficult for most re- searchers to keep abreast of the literature in more than a handful of countries. Third, different national academic traditions have brought about a considerable variation in how political scientists have approached the study of the EU.
Both the time period and the number of publications relevant for such an endeavor of European integration stu- dies in each country will differ considerably from chapter to chapter. Some new member states in the East hardly had any academic and scientific EU studies before the mid- 1990s, whereas other countries, most notably some of the EU founding members, present a long history of EU inte- gration studies. It is therefore impossible to develop a framework for analysis which fits all countries under inves- tigation, but we will try instead to outline in this introduc- tion some important dimensions which govern individual chapters.
The central units of observation for each chapter are individual academic journal articles, book chapters and books that contribute to our understanding of European integration published by political science scholars. In gen- eral, the scholars mentioned in the chapters are either na- tionals of the country in question or affiliated with an aca- demic institution in that country.
Another obstacle encountered in the writing of the individual chapters was the difficulty to define the concept of European integration studies in political science. It is difficult in many countries to separate between political science, law and history because several writers from these fields are writing in the same interdisciplinary traditions
and to a large extend with the same concepts, as is the case, for example, in Portugal. An even greater problem is to differentiate between European integration studies, and EU policy studies. This was a challenge that had to be met in order to ensure a balance in the coverage of the two in the different chapters. The evaluations of the national ex- perts were of vital importance here, because they were fa- miliar with the disciplinary traditions and understandings in the respective countries.
Considering the large number of works produced in the field in the various countries studied and the limited space allotted to each individual chapter, a selection and a special strategy had to be adopted in deciding which works to include. First of all, “publications” were considered to be both books and articles in scientific journals. A “con- tribution” was defined as a publication which made a sig- nificant impact on the study of European integration in the country in question. In most cases only publications which represented major contributions were included in the study, especially those that are more policy-oriented. Major national research programs, institutions and initiatives will also be covered, analyzing their impact on the overall pro- duction of European integration studies. Furthermore, the individual chapters do not generally cover text books and other publications which mainly summarize previous na- tional or European studies nationally. Exceptions have been made based on the context of each country or where, for example, it was useful to point out certain publications that would be part of the transnational literature men- tioned in the beginning.
This strategy implies that the proportion of all rele- vant European integration and European policies studies covered and referred to in each chapter is limited and will vary considerably from country to country. Many of the users of this volume will also be interested in an overview of the relevant contributions from a country they would like to know more about. Thus, in an attempt to make this volume more user-friendly, we have chosen to include bib- liographies after each chapter and not an integrated com-
prehensive bibliography at the end of the book.
In addition to the country chapters, and as a part of our strategy to make a comparative study of the contribu- tions to European integration and European policy studies in different European countries, we have two introductory chapters: one by Jonathan Moses on EU studies in the first decades of European integration, and one by Matti Wi- berg on contribution of scholars from different European countries in the three most relevant journals: JCMS, Euro- pean Union Politics and Journal of Common Market Stu- dies.
2. Dimensions of the study of European integration
As the chapters of this volume show, studies of EU politics and European integration may be classifies in a two-by-three table (below). The first dimension distin- guishes empirical from more normative studies: the rele- vant criterion here is the difference between analyses that are primarily designed to explain the phenomenon at hand (EU politics, European integration) and analyses that are primarily designed to provide policy advice or to shape the political debate (the normative level). Although much of the literature includes both elements, most of it can be classified as predominantly falling into one or another cate- gory.
Level of analysis
The goal of the EU
The second dimension distinguishes between three le- vels. At the macro level, the central research questions con- cern European integration: the dependent variable is the trajectory of European integration or its current level. More empirical elements of this research agenda includes for example the realists’ and neo-functionalists’ effort to
explain the dynamics and limits of European integration. Normative elements include the debates over what the goal of European integration ought to be, including for example the early debates between functionalists and federalists.
At the meso level, the central research questions con- cern the EU institutions: how they operate and how they can be improved. Empirical analyses include analysis of the operation of the Commission, Council etc.; normative stu- dies include for example the vast debate on the democratic deficit or debates about regulatory design.
At the micro level, the central research focus is on the operation of the political system of the EU: the dependent variables tend to be policy output, for example policy im- plementation in any given sector. Here many articles and books cross the border between empirical studies and normative recommendations, inasmuch as they offer both positivist analysis and use this as the basis for policy rec- ommendations. An important caveat here is that the present project is primarily concerned with case studies that have a direct bearing on European integration or offer relevant lessons; the field of policy studies per se is simply too wide to cover in this project. The selection of scientific works relevant for the focus of this volume on European Integration compared to more general policy studies is, how- ever, the most difficult task. One type of analysis we would like to include is studies of the relevant country and the EU, like Italy and the EU or Norway and the EU even if they are mainly policy oriented.
Obviously the cells in this matrix are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. The aim is only to use this matrix as a way to identify and differentiate contributions to the study of European integration. The importance of these different “types” of studies will vary from country to coun- try and over time. The matrix is not necessarily meant to be followed in each and every chapter but we find that it could add value to our comparative analysis.
3. The geographical dimension of this volume
As indicated, this volume covers most of the EU and EFTA countries, as well as countries and regions from around the world. In this sense, the present volume is high- ly ambitious and original. It offers a unique, and historical, perspective into how the EU has been seen and studied in various places of the world, some of them only indirectly affected by the European integration process.
Here we show the list of the different chapters and the countries they cover.
1. Introduction – Federiga Bindi (University of Rome Tor Vergata) and Kjell A. Eliassen (Norwegian School of Business - BI)
2. EU Studies until the 1990s – Jonathon Moses (Norwe- gian University of Science and Technology)
3. Who Produces European Studies?: A Bibliometric Study – Matti Wiberg (University of Turku).
4. Austria – Gerda Falkner (University of Vienna)
5. The Baltics – Tatjana Muravska (University of Latvia)
6. Belgium – Arnout Justaert and Karoline Van Den Brande and Tom Delreux (Katholieke Universiteit Leu- ven), Edith Drieskens (Netherlands Institute for Inter- national Relations Clingendael)
7. Bulgaria – Ivan Nachev (New Bulgarian University)
8. Denmark and Sweden – Salla Garski (University of Hel- sinki), Knud Erik Jorgensen (Aarhus University) and Ian Manners (Roskilde University)
9. Finland – Matti Wiberg (University of Turku) 10.France – Olivier Costa (University of Bordeaux) 11.Germany – Tanja Börzel and Torben Heinze (Free Uni-
versity of Berlin)
12.Greece – George Contogeorgis and Dmitris N. Chrys- sochoou (Panteion University of Athens)
13.Hungary – Edina Ocsko (Central European University) 14.Italy – Federiga Bindi (University of Rome Tor Vergata)
and Serena Giusti (Università Cattolica in Milan) 15.The Netherlands – Hylke Dijkstra and Maarten Vink
16.Norway and Iceland – Kjell A. Eliassen and Marit Sjøvaag Marino (Norwegian School of Business - BI) and Erikur Bergmann (Bifrost University)
17.Poland – Katarzyna Pisarska (Warsaw School of Eco- nomics)
18.Portugal – Paulo Vila Maior and Claudia Ramos (University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal)
19.Romania – Irina Angelescu (Graduate Institute of Ge- neva)
20.Spain – Francesc Morata and Izea Ollora (Autonomous University of Barcelona)
21.UK and Ireland – Nick Sitter (Central European Uni- versity and Norwegian School of Business – BI)
22.Canada – Sarah Dunphy and Finn Laursen (Dalhousie Arts and Social Sciences Faculty)
23.Central and Latin America – Joaquim Roy (Miami Uni- versity)
24.Russia – Alexander Strelkov (Russian Academy of Sciences), Mark Entin and Oleg Barabanov (Moscow State University, MGIMO)
25.US (East Coast) – Eleanor Zeff and Kelly B. Shaw (Drake University)
26.US (West Coast) – Davis Andrews (Claremont Colleges in California)
27.Conclusions – Federiga Bindi, Kjell A. Eliassen and Irina Angelescu
4. The Structure of the chapters
The volume begins with a historical chapter that presents the early history of European integration, up to the adoption of the Single European Act. The following chapters are the individual case studies, with each chapter providing an overall view of the literature on European integration and EU politics in the relevant EU and non-EU member states,. Each chapter will begin with a brief intro- duction of the history of the EU relations with the country
analyzed and how this interaction has affected the Euro- pean integration studies.
Each chapter then includes an analysis of the perspec- tive or perspectives that have shaped research on the EU in the relevant member states(s). The central disciplinary tra- ditions or theoretical approaches (including research pro- grams, institutions) are also covered.
A central point in the chapters is not merely to ac- count for the development of EU studies and its various strands, but also to assess the quality of the research and its central findings. The impact of the literature can be as- sessed in two ways: in terms of the impact on broader aca- demic debates as well as in terms of the impact on the poli- cy debate in the state in question (or in the EU), or even directly on policy making.
The chapters take into account the time dimensions, though it is often more pertinent to think in terms of pe- riods of time rather than chronologically. In some cases, as appropriate, it is be important to distinguish between the period before membership, the early phase of membership, the debates surrounding the adoption of the Single Euro- pean Act, the Treaty changes in the 1990s, enlargement, etc. In other cases, some of these periods coincide: candi- date period and the early membership period coincide with the 1990s reforms and enlargement for states that recently joined the EU. Or, for countries outside Europe, it is sig- nificant to note how the state of the discipline has been affected by transformations taking place far away from the country analyzed. A final point in each chapter is a com- parative assessment; the location of the research in the state(s) at hand in the broader literature.
We would like to extend a few words of gratitude to the people and institutions that have contributed to make this publication possible.
This publication is the result of almost four years of work in and around the University of Rome Tor Vergata. At the Jean Monnet European Center of Excellence of the University of Rome Tor Vergata we owe in particular to Marco Amici and Elena Cantiani for the precious adminis-
trative and organizational support and to Irina Angelescu for her invaluable editing work. We would also like to thank Pavlina Peneva for her help in the early phases of this project. This book could have not seen the light with- out the precious co-financing of the European Commis- sion: the ERASMUS Multilateral Networks program for the chapters about European countries and the Jean Mon- net Action for the chapters about non-European countries.
According to Michael O’Neill, «no single theory of regional integration can expect to offer a definitive account of the immensely complex international process that is European integration» [O’Neill 1996, 49]. He is right. Since the end of World War II, much ink has been spilled in a futile attempt to secure «bragging rights» for the best approach to understand European integration. The result is a hodgepodge of overlapping analytical approaches that continually reinvent themselves in light of new develop- ments on the ground, but too often fail to recognize the contribution and/or utility of competing approaches. While this analytical and conceptual overlap can be bewil- dering, it can also provide a useful key for interpreting contemporary discussions about European integration because many of these theories draw heavily from earlier approaches.
This chapter aims to provide that key. By examining the nature of early (pre-1990) integration debates, it aims to provide a common historical backdrop for the subse- quent national approaches to understanding European integration1. There are at least two reasons why this sort of historical introduction might prove useful.
First, much of today’s discussion about European in- tegration draws from the sort of contributions that domi- nated both political and academic discussions in the early post-war years. For this reason, many of the following chapters might present themselves against the background
1 Given the real constraints offered by a book chapter, this contribution will be brief. More elaborate introductions to European integration theory can be found in [Wiener and Diez 2003; Rosamond 2000; O’Neill 1996; and Michelmann and Soldatos 1994].
provided here, using it as a point of departure for their own – nation-based – depictions of recent developments.
A second justification can be found in the nationalist approach that motivates our anthology. By mapping out and comparing diverse national approaches to European integration we assume that European academics have con- tributed to analytical discussions about the nature of Eu- ropean integration. This is a rather remarkable turn of events, as most of the early analysis of European integra- tion was provided by American academics (whereas the European contribution was more often found among poli- ticians and activists).
Karl Kaiser suggested that this early American influ- ence was a result of the different ways in which Americans and Europeans learn political science. Writing in 1964, Kaiser believed that European political scientists did not have a systematic approach to the process of European political integration [Kaiser 1996, 157] and that:
Uninhibited by the Europeans’ feeling of uncertainty about the «new Europe» or the imposing presence of traditional values, the American scholars (whose European origin, incidentally, is mostly not very remote) have felt more freely able to investigate and theorize about political and social changes in Europe that go
«beyond the nation-state». To them, more than Europeans, Western Europe represents a huge laboratory of change that offers unique opportunities to the social scientist of searching into the nature of modern society by observing the process of change, experimenting with and testing a set of hypotheses that could help to explain it [Kaiser 1996, 158].
If Kaiser’s depiction is true (and there is little reason to think it is not), then the anthology that follows should provide a map of the changing nature of European political science. To retrace early analytical contributions to Euro- pean integration, the remainder of this chapter sketches four main approaches: federalism, functionalism, neo- functionalism and intergovernmentalism. In staking out the terrain in this way, it is important to emphasize that these four approaches are not the only ones for understanding
European integration, nor are they entirely exclusive (i.e. there is a great deal of overlap among them)2. Still, these approaches remain central to understanding contemporary discussions about the nature of European integration, and this four-part typology has become rather conventional.
Another caveat should be added before moving on. In presenting these four approaches, the reader might get the impression that the discussion about European integration has progressed in a linear or logical form over time. This impression of historical progression may have some heuris- tic value, but it is inaccurate. As we shall see, many of the most useful debates occurred amongst contemporaries across these disparate approaches. More importantly, each of these approaches still influence contemporary discus- sions about the nature of European integration. In short, it is important to bear in mind that both the typology and the order in which they are presented are analytical conve- niences more than accurate descriptions of a fixed histori- cal subject.
The chapter concludes with a short summary of the commonalities and differences of these four different ap- proaches across four distinct points of comparison: author- ship, agency, objectives, and the role of politics.
While the dream of a united Europe is not new to the 20th century (consider, most impressively, Charlemagne), it was reborn in more republican garb in the aftermath of the two world wars. With the failures of the League of Nations and its component nation states now evident to all, new schemes were needed to build a lasting international peace. To do this, it was generally assumed that a new type of
2 Other authors rely on different (albeit related) typologies. Consid- er, for example, Pentland’s  four-part distinction between federal- ism, pluralism, functionalism and neo-functionalism, and/or Mutimer’s (1994) division into federalism, functionalism, neofunctionalism and communicative interactionism.
political authority was needed. The most commonly pro- posed form of workable government was an international federation of states.
In its most basic form, federalism refers to a political compromise in which power is divided and shared between institutions representing a central government authority (on the one hand) and those of the component (regional) units (on the other). The objective of this sort of institu- tional arrangement is to provide the central authority with power over policy areas where the component units are held to be ineffective, while maintaining as much sove- reignty and power as possible at the lowest (component) level. In short, federalism is an institutional arrangement for limiting the power of the central government authority to those areas that are seen as necessary and common to the component political units. In the words of Brailsford:
In Europe, home to much of the bloodshed, this Federal Ideal was in great demand: What shall we have gained if we can realize anything resembling this project of Federation? Firstly and chiefly we shall abolish internecine war in Europe, the homeland of our civilization. That is a negative statement. In the positive sense we shall achieve vastly more: we shall rescue the priceless values of this civilization itself. It cannot survive the totalitarian corruption that assails all it prizes - truth and mercy, honest deal- ing and intellectual integrity. If the peoples of Europe can be led to erect this structure, it will be because they demand a political framework within which they may lead a social life governed by reason and humanity. If we abandon the old concept of the sove- reign state, it will not be because we have changed our views about a legal theory. It will be because we have reached an ideal of hu- man fraternity that embraces our neighbors, who in other languag- es think the same civilized thoughts. We can end war only by wi- dening patriotism. If that is what we intend, the rest follows inevit- ably. Our Federation will organize the democratic discussion and decision of our common affairs. It will respect the rich variety of a Continent, that has preserved many stocks, many cultures, many tongues, through all the vicissitudes of its history. It will end the anarchy of our economic life by orderly planning for the common good. In so far as it still must arm, it will arm for the common safety alone [Brailsford 1940].
The attraction to federalism can be explained, in part, by its remarkable philosophical pedigree. While the tradi- tion of federalist thought can be traced back to ancient Greece, and is evident in medieval European political thinking, there are two main modern sources of federalist thinking3. The first of these is the plethora of peace plans from the 17th and 18th century which aimed to eliminate war in Europe by introducing some form of pan-European political organization. While Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace  is perhaps the best-known of these, he was not the only (or the first) to put forward this proposal4.
The second source of modern federalist thinking is derived from the American experience. This experience has two elements. First, the debates over the nature and scope of federalism, as evidenced in the Federalist Papers, provide much of the theoretical foundations for European discussions about federalism, the role of the state, and its relationship to constituent individuals. At the same time, America’s use of a constituent assembly to produce a new constitution (and to generate the legitimacy needed for it to last) became a model plan of action for many European federalists.
Of course, drawing from the American experience is anything but straightforward, as the original model was not international in nature. Indeed, there are no successful cases of federations that have involved federating already- established and functioning sovereign states. Existing fed- erations have been constructed by means of joining recent- ly emancipated colonies, or in the case of Switzerland, small cantons with a very long history of political interac- tion. Consequently, there has always been disagreement
3I am, rather unfairly, excluding the broad body of European thought concerning small communities – which can be dated back to the Middle Ages – but which is best exhibited in the work of Rousseau and Proudhon.
4Similar views were held among several notable Frenchmen, includ- ing both diplomats — such as Maximilien de Bethune, Duc de Sully and Abbé Saint Pierre; and philosophers — most notably Saint-Simon and Proudhon.
about the appropriateness of the underlying (American) model, and the means by which a federal European state might be brought about.
In Europe, these differences might be depicted in terms of a split between bottom-up and top-down federal- ists. For the bottom-up federalists, a European federation needs to link political authority to the people. To do this, Europe needs an American-style constituent assembly, where a federal constitution can be drafted by a popularly- elected body, but then adopted and implemented by mem- ber states. Originally, many federalists hoped that the Council of Europe could bring about this type of constitu- ent assembly. When this failed to happen, hope was trans- ferred onto the European Parliament (which is at least elected by universal suffrage).
Top-down federalists, on the other hand, are less con- cerned about the institutional details of the eventual out- come (although they too envision a federal Europe, in due time). Instead, this approach seeks to bring about incre- mental institutional change in an effort to move Europe in the right direction. By realizing that much power lies in the hands of national officials, and that the creation of a feder- al state involves member states ceding sovereignty to a new federal government, top-down federalists embrace direct intergovernmental agreements as a means for integrating Europe. As a consequence, this group tends to hang their hopes on different agents of integration. While bottom-up federalists focus on the need to legitimate the new federa- tion with a popularly-elected body or constituent assembly, top-down federalists focus on the integrative role of the European Commission and Council of Ministers.
While both groups agree about the necessity of creating new pan-European institutions to overcome the shortcomings of the nation state, the first group tends to focus on one-stop institutional reform, the latter on the process of achieving incremental gains in the right direction (rather than securing a particular end). As a consequence (and as we shall see) top- down federalists offer a bridge to the second group of integra- tion approaches: the functionalist approach.
At the political level, a federalist approach to Euro- pean integration can draw on a long political tradition that covers a remarkably broad spectrum of supporters. After all, interwar advocates of federalism found support among a disparate community of political groups that stretched from the German Social Democrats, on the one hand, to the conservative Hungarian Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, on the other. Because of this breadth of support, federal- ism offered a useful banner under which the Allied Resis- tance could gather5. Indeed, one of the earliest (and highest level) calls for a federal solution came in 1940, when Wins- ton Churchill — advised by a group of British civil servants and French partisans in London that included Charles de Gaulle and Jean Monnet — called for a union of Britain and France6.
Many resistance fighters saw federalism as the only means for righting Europe’s apparent incapacity to resist dictatorship or invasion7. This hope found a home in a number of different venues, most of which were directly influenced by: the remarkable Altiero Spinelli8 in the Ven- totene Manifesto [Spinelli and Rossi 1941]; a wartime con- gress of European federalists (Switzerland, 1944); a post- war congress of European federalists (Paris, 1945); and the 1946 establishment of a transnational federalist movement, the Union of European Federalists (UEF). For many in the federalist movement, the 1949 creation of the Council of Europe promised an institutional foundation for a new
5 See Lipgens [Lipgens 1982, 44-58] for an account of the role of fe- deralism in the Resistance.
6 Following the war (and his electoral defeat) Churchill returned to the theme of a European federal union, calling for the creation of a
«United States of Europe» in a September 1946 speech in Zurich. Later, after returning to the Prime Ministership in 1951, he opposed Britain’s inclusion in a federal plan for Europe.
7 The leading voices in this movement were Altiero Spinelli, Ernesto Rossi, Henri Brugmans  and K.C. Wheare .
8 Altiero Spinelli (1907-1986) was a long-time communist, an Italian representative to the European Commission (for six years, with respon- sibility for industrial policy), a member of the European Parliament (for ten years), and an influential actor on the European political scene through his activities in the so-called Crocodile Club [Menéndez 2007].
federal Europe. Indeed, Spinelli solicited the Council of Europe to call for a pan European Constituent Assembly.
But cracks in the European federalist façade were al- ready evident in the 1946 founding of the UEF. The Union of European Federalists was anything but united — the group differed on tactics, about the nature of the federalist vision, and about the role of nation-states in bringing about a new, more integrated Europe. Worse, developments on the ground seem to be undermining federalist support, as national elites were repositioning themselves to offer more conventional, nation-based, approaches to reconstruction
— approaches that built on the redistributive politics of the Left.
This split became even more evident in the subse- quent publicity campaigns associated with the Montreux Congress of 1947, where “world federalist” and “integral federalist” factions differed over the appropriate scope of a European federalist design. In 1956, this apparent split became institutionalized as two distinct groups. The first group, the Mouvement Federaliste Européen (MFE) placed its faith in the European Parliament and hoped that it might act as a constituent assembly [Spinelli 1972]. In- deed, this hope almost came to fruition in 1984, when the Parliament adopted the Draft Treaty Establishing the Eu- ropean Union (a treaty drafted by Spinelli himself)— though this hope was eventually torpedoed by national interests. An alternative group of federalists formed the Action Européen Federaliste (AEF) in 1956, in support of any and all developments that contributed to furthering supranational integration.
To summarize, the federalist approach to integration asks us to focus on particular institutions as a means to overcome the inherent shortcomings of individual nation states. Although the original federal vision was not limited to Europe — it was global in nature — Europe’s evident difficulties, after two world wars, made it the most likely recipient of federalist attention. This attention was focused on making formal changes to political institutions and pro- cedures in order to bring about social harmony while pro-
tecting cultural/social diversity. For federalists, the driving force for change is implicit, but assumed to be a conse- quence of an underlying shift in the collective political imagination. As a consequence, federalists wanted to in- troduce institutions that can capture such a ground-level shift in perspectives, while avoiding intervening (and med- dling) political elites at the national level.
In 1943 — with the end of WWII in sight, and against the backdrop of the federalist vision for a post-war world government — David Mitrany proposed a functionalist alternative for international integration. His A Working Peace System argued for the need to create a new system, a network of transnational organizations sharing a functional core, which could constraint states and prevent war. The foundations for this argument were laid in the interwar period, when Mitrany published The Progress of Interna- tional Government, where he argued that civilized men
«should renounce the pagan worship of political frontiers as the source of our public law and morals» [Mitrany 1933, 118]. In short, Mitrany believed that the nation state should be replaced by a system of international (function- based) agencies9.
Mitrany had been impressed by a number of earlier arrangements that had been developed along strictly func- tional lines (be them national, bilateral or international). What interested him was the fact that the process of intro- ducing function-based institutions substantially altered what was traditionally understood to be the constitutional arrangements of states. More to the point, these sorts of changes were being secured without any formal constitu- tional bargains. Thus, in Roosevelt's New Deal:
9 See also Mitrany .
The significant point in that emergency action was that each and every problem was tackled as a practical issue in itself. No attempt was made to relate it to a general theory or system of government. Every function was left to generate others gradually, like the functional subdivision of organic cells; and in every case the appropriate authority was left to grow and develop out of actual performance. Yet the new functions and the new organs, taken together, have revolutionized the American political system [Mitrany 1943, 21-22].
By avoiding the need to introduce formal constitu- tional changes, functionalist designs were able to overcome the sort of strong political resistance that Roosevelt’s New Deal had met in the U.S. For many Europeans, Mitrany’s functionalist alternative provides a means for securing the sort of integration that is seen to be necessary, but being resisted by national elites. Rather than gathering states together to draw up a blueprint for political action, as fe- deralists would have it, functionalists encourage elites to build particular (functional) authorities to administer the provision of narrowly-defined services.
The utility of this approach lies in the transnational nature of international problems. For example, the integra- tion of once national railway or airline transportation sys- tems requires new organizations that can straddle national frontiers. At the same time, the spread of international exchange brings with it new types of transnational prob- lems (e.g., the spread of disease, investment, cultural ex- changes, etc.). In short, the increasingly transnational na- ture of human exchange creates a demand for increasingly transnational solutions. In recognizing this, functionalists aim to introduce function-based institutions with the au- thority to solve transnational problems. In so doing, they set the conditions for the spread of that authority in a way that can eventually undermine nation-based systems of regulation and authority: «states would, in other words, be tricked into ceding their sovereignty by having it emptied of meaning» [Mutimer 1994, 25].
For the functionalist, it is legitimate to undermine na- tional sovereignty in this way, as functionalists understand
politics to be intrinsically corrupt (while administration is seen to be the key to human cooperation). Because of this, functionalists are remarkably optimistic about the adminis- trative capabilities of elites who respond to a technocratic (rather than populist) logic. Indeed, for the functionalist, change is institutionalized and facilitated by the increased cooperation and exchange among technocratic elites.
The careful reader may have noticed that I have quiet- ly slipped away from using references to Mitrany and re- ferred instead to (more general) functionalists. The reason for this is that Mitrany was actually strongly opposed to regional integration (such as European integration) be- cause he feared that it would undermine — rather than transcend — global efforts of the state-based model of which he was so critical [Mitrany 1966]. For Mitrany, in- ternational or regional federations would create as many problems as they solved.
In the same way that Spinelli can function as an advo- cate for early federalist approaches, the efforts of Jean Monnet can be used to illustrate the functionalist ap- proach. The person of Monnet also functions as a useful bridge linking the federalist and functionalist approaches to European integration. For Monnet believed:
…in starting with limited achievements, establishing de fac- to solidarity, from which a federation would gradually emerge. I have never believed that one fine day Europe would be created by some grand political mutation… (that) the pragmatic method we had adopted would…lead to a federation validated by the people’s vote; but that federation would be the culmination of an existing economic and political reality, already put to the test…it was a bringing together of men and practical realities…[Monnet 1978, 346-7]
Indeed, Monnet is often held up as exemplary of the functionalist approach, as he — unlike so many of his compatriots — deliberately stood outside the nationalist corridors of power in order to better persuade others of the higher ideals of supranationalism. His bridging func- tion is evident in his advocacy for what he refers to as the
«new method of common action»:
This profound change is being made possible essentially by the new method of common action which is the core of the Eu- ropean Community. To establish this new method of common action, we adapted to our situation the methods which have allowed individuals to live together in society: common rules which each member is committed to respect, and common insti- tutions to watch over the application of these rules. Nations have applied this method within their frontiers for centuries, but they have never yet been applied between them. After a period of trial and error, this method has become a permanent dialogue be- tween a single European body, responsible for expressing the view of the general interest of the Community and the national governments expressing the national view [Monnet 1963].
By the late 1940s, it seemed as though functionalism held great practical promise for European integration. In the architecture of the Schuman Plan, which resulted in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), one can easily discern a functionalist logic: the Plan involved a li- mited surrender of national sovereignty over important areas in exchange for explicit economic and political ad- vantages to member states. As the French Foreign Minister who gave his name to the plan, Robert Schuman, told the Council of Europe:
Certain participating states will be abandoning some degree of sovereignty in favor of the common Authority, and will be accepting a fusion or pooling of powers which are at present being exercised or capable of being exercised by the govern- ments… Thus the participating nations will in advance accept the notion of submission to the Authority that they will have set up and within such limits as they themselves will have defined… The countries associated in these negotiations have indeed set their feet on a new road. They are convinced that, without in- deed renouncing traditional formulas, the moment has come for us to attempt for the first time the experiment of a supra-national Authority which shall not be simply a combination or concilia- tion of national powers [Schuman 1950].
The apparent success of the Schuman plan seemed to
offer a means for integrating Europe under the radar — a way to bring about integration, while avoiding a direct confrontation with national interests, identity and influ- ence. In hindsight, however, it is evident that this interpre- tation of events proved overly optimistic. The ECSC and its Authority never encroached on member state sovereign- ty to the extent that its founders anticipated. Indeed, when European functionalists tried to use the same trick to ex- tend the community’s authority in new areas (e.g. defense and foreign policy cooperation) they were stopped in their tracks10.
In short, the founding institutions of the European Union — the Coal and Steel Community (established in 1951) and the subsequent Common Market and Euratom (launched in 1958) — provide examples of the promise of functionalist approaches, but they also created the condi- tions that secured the rising popularity of neofunctionalist approaches in the late 1950s and 1960s.
The neofunctionalist approach is most commonly as- sociated with Ernst B. Haas’ project on the European Coal and Steel Community – in his book, The Uniting of Europe, 1958 – and his subsequent work on the International La- bor Organization – in his book, Beyond the Nation-State from 196411.
10 The Pleven Plan (named after the French Premier, René Pleven, presented to the French parliament in 1950) called for the creation of a European army, controlled by a European Council of Defense Ministers, a European Defense Minister, and a Supreme Allied Commander in time of conflict. The six ECSC member states responded favorably at first, signing another treaty in Paris in 1952, which was to pool their defense forces in a common security effort (rearming West Germany). But these efforts were repealed and the European Defense Community (EDC) treaty of 1952 could not be ratified by the French Parliament in 1954. Indeed, Mitrany resigned from the ECSC’s High Authority in protest/frustration.
11 This is, of course, a great simplification, as the work of his student,
Haas begins his work by rejecting two important parts of Mitrany's functionalist argument. First of all, Haas was willing to embrace regional processes of integration. This provided more legitimacy for the European (neo)functiona-list project. Second, Haas doubted the utili- ty (and reasonableness) of trying to separate the political from the functional. In the neofunctionalist approach that resulted, politics was to play a much more evident role. In Beyond the Nation-State, Haas noted that:
Power and welfare are far from separable. Indeed, com- mitment to welfare activities arises only within the confines of purely political decisions, which are made largely on the basis of power consideration. Specific functional contexts cannot be separated from general concerns. Overall economic decisions must be made before any one functional sector can be expected to show the kind of integrative evolution that the Functionalist describes...The distinction between the politician and the expert, simply does not hold because issues were made technical by a prior political decision [Haas 1964, 23].
To fill the conceptual gap that seemed to separate technical and political integration, neofunctionalists have developed the concept of «spillovers». The spillover con- cept rests on an assumption that states and regions are interconnected in such a way so that problems in one area will raise problems (or require solutions) in another. At the outset, it is assumed that such spillovers will occur only among different functional tasks, but as the center grows, more politically salient areas will become affected.
Ultimately, the expectation is that as the tasks and powers of the central institutions are increased through the operation of the spillover process, integration will gradually encroach on that politically sensitive area where vital interest are at stake. So, an embryonic political community will emerge and grow [Harrison 1974, 77].
Leon Lindberg , is also central. A similar sort of argument, though not directly applied to Europe, is Karl Deutsch’s  and Deutsch et al.’s  notion of security communities.
Neofunctionalists explain regional integration in terms of particular societal and market patterns that are pushing elites into building common supranational institu- tions. Their focus is trained on the functional interconnec- tivity of policy areas (areas of so-called «low politics» where the potential of spillover effects is greatest). For this reason, neofunctionalists often burrow down on economic policy, where it is easier to find functional spillovers across policy areas. Functional spillovers lead to cultural spillov- ers, and the creation of a new European identity (overcom- ing narrow national identities). As Europeans redefine their loyalties and identities — now as Europeans — they will come to support further political integration.
To discuss their conception of integration, neofunc- tionalists often refer to the notion of «supranationality», or the pooling of state sovereignty (as opposed to its transfer). The sovereign authority of a state is extended to a suprana- tional authority, where it is pooled with that of its fellow member states. The spillover process suggests that more and more of the states' sovereignty will be pooled in this manner, but the precise institutional form of the suprana- tional authority is usually not defined.
At the time of the publication of the Uniting of Eu- rope (1958), the prospects for a supranational Europe were perhaps better than ever. Haas had at least impeccable timing. He offered Europe a theory of social moderniza- tion, where the main agents of change were economic, po- litical and social actors (not reluctant nation states). Inte- gration was seen to be driven by technocratic imperatives, and the key actors were more open-minded, elites and su- pranational groups who were more amenable to transna- tional cooperation, and who were already involved in man- aging and directing a growing transnational political econ- omy.
Here, in contrast to Mitrany, is a strong argument for regional integration, couched in social scientific terms, but explicitly engaged with politics. Clearly, neofunctionalism is imbued with a strong normative commitment to the in- tegration of Europe. But this commitment was originally
steeped in the language of positive science. From the out- set, Haas was quite clear that the strength of his approach lie in its commitment to empirical verification. Over time, however, this position became somewhat of a liability as real world developments came to undermine his claim that
«the established nation state is in full retreat in Europe...» [Haas 1961, 366].
With the course of time, and the nature of develop- ments in Europe, neofunctionalist approaches have fol- lowed Haas’ lead in lowering their scientific sights. Much of the neofunctionalists’ early determinism has been tem- pered by the faltering progress toward integration in the late 1960s. European integration appeared more as a prob- abilistic — rather than a deterministic — outcome. By the mid-1970s, it was becoming increasingly evident that states were still playing an important role in the furthering of European integration.
Even at the height of its popularity, neofunctionalism was dogged by the realization that nation states continued to play an important role in forming the new Europe. While neofunctionalists understood the dynamics of Euro- pean integration in terms of a social process of moderniza- tion (the result, often, of technological developments), intergovernmentalists continued to focus on the role of national states in shaping and exploiting these develop- ments.
At the outset, of course, the progress of European in- tegration seemed to offer a frontal assault on the realist approach to international politics. Such an (realist) ap- proach understands states as self-interested, power- seeking, and rational actors that prioritize actions that maximize their chances of survival. States such as these are unlikely to freely cede sovereignty to some amorphous international body of function-based bureaucrats. Indeed, the initial attraction of neo-functionalism may have been its
ability to explain such apparently odd behavior (odd from the perspective of the dominant, realist, approach)12. Still, a state-centered approach to European integration was al- most always available and became increasingly influential as developments on the ground revealed the important role still played by states.
As early as 1966, Hoffman was criticizing what he saw to be the naïveté of functionalist and federalist approach- es13:
Europe cannot be what some of its nations have been: a people that creates its state; nor can it be what some of the oldest states are and many of the new ones aspire to be: a people created by the state. It has to wait until the separate states decide that their peoples are close enough to justify the setting up of a European state whose task will be the welding of the many into the one [Hoffmann 1966, 910].
The analytical leverage provided by an intergovern- mentalist approach was already evident in the Luxembourg Compromise of 1966 (which ended the impasse created by Gaullist resistance to creeping supranationalism, secured a national veto for member states, and showed the reluctance of Europe’s political elites to any project that would un- dermine their (nation-based) positions of power). The Council of Ministers had consolidated its hold on Com- munity affairs by developing its presidency functions and by extending the involvement of COREPER (the members’ permanent diplomatic corps in Brussels). In short, by the 1970s it would seem that there was a new balance of pow- er, and that power was controlled mostly by member states.
While often referred to as the «doldrum years» of in- tegration, or a period of «Euroslerosis», by advocates of
12 It is in this light that we can understand the utility of neo- functionalist-inspired approaches in tangential fields of research, such as Keohane and Nye’s  interdependence theory, Ruggie’s  regime theory, and Schmitter’s  neocorporatist approach.
13 Another influential, but subsequent, state-based approach is found in Milward [1984; 1992].
greater integration, researchers in Europe began to turn their attention to the way in which the new European insti- tutions were actually working [Wallace et al. 1977]. This new policy-oriented perspective began to reveal a distinctly confederal approach to Europe [Wallace 1982], as evi- denced by the introduction of tri- (later bi-) annual summit meetings of the European Council (which were aimed to curb the supranational ambitions of European officials, and where the Commission president was invited, but ob- viously played a subservient role to national elites).
By the late-1980s, intergovernmentalist approaches were in a position to take the offensive14. At the forefront of these was the liberal intergovernmentalist approach as- sociated with Andrew Moravcsik. Moravcsik’s aim was to show how the influence and power of national actors has been enhanced (not constrained) by Europe’s new supra- national institutions. In so doing, he provides a two-step, sequential, model of preference formation and internation- al bargaining.
In the first step, Moravcsik employs liberal interna- tional relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE) theories to show how national chiefs of government aggregate the interests of their domestic constituencies, meld them with their own, and articulate a national prefe- rence with respect to European integration. In the second step (international bargaining) Moravcsik draws from bar- gaining theory and Putnam’s two-level games to show how
14 First, in 1984, there was a sudden (and rather unexpected) end to the struggle over British budgetary contributions at the Fontainebleau European Council of 1984. At the same time, a new, more energetic, Commission was established (with Jacques Delors at the helm), and the rehabilitation of the Franco-German partnership proved a driving force for further integration. This new state-driven approach to integration seemed evident in the Milan Summit’s (1985) trade-off between national and supranational interests and a decision to complete the Single Market (in the subsequent Single European Act of 1986). While the focus here is on the role of intergovernmental approaches, it is important to emphasize that others have noted the role of supranational and non-governmental actors, (e.g., the Commission, informal processes within the COREPER, and the role of the European Roundtable of Industrialists).
national governments transfer their preferences (from stage one) to the EU’s intergovernmental bargaining table. Even- tual outcomes are then seen to reflect the relative power of each member state. Supranational institutions, such as the European Commission, are shown to exert little influence.
The result is an approach to European integration which does not seek to minimize the role of supranational institutions, but rather hopes to show how these institu- tions are consistent with member-state national interests — and can actually strengthen those interests. In short, inter- governmentalists remind us to bring the state back into explanations of the integration process in Europe.
By retracing the steps of earlier integration theorists we are reminded of the spread of approaches that continue to influence contemporary discussions. It is my hope that this reminder will prove useful as we move into more re- cent discussions about European integration in distinct national contexts. In this concluding section I would like to briefly compare these four approaches along four impor- tant dimensions, as summarized in Table 1.
The first dimension concerns the nationality and background of the headlining-proponents associated with early European integration approaches. As has been fre- quently noted, most early analytical approaches to Euro- pean integration were provided by American academics, while the different practices of integration have been led by influential Europeans on the ground, such as Spinelli, Monnet and Delors. This observation should be kept in mind as we canvass the more recent national literatures in the chapters that follow.
TAB. 1. Comparative Summary of the Four Early Approaches Approach Headliners Relevant
Means or ends
Role of Politics
Federalism Spinelli/Churchill We the Functionalism Mitrany/Monnet Technical Neo-functionalism Haas/Delors Transnational
Intergovernmentalism Hoffmann &
Source: Author’s own.
The second comparative dimension concerns the rele- vant actors under study. Each approach focuses on a dif- ferent type of actor for bringing about European integra- tion. For federalists this actor is most amorphously linked to the notion of a public will, situated in the people at large (and institutionalized in the form of a Constituent Assem- bly). The other three approaches focus on the role of elites in bringing about integration, whether they are technical (functionalists), transnational (neofunctionalists) or nation- al (intergovernmentalist) in origin. In light of this elite-bias in most integration approaches, it is perhaps not surprising that the European Union has such difficulty enticing public support for its more ambitious integration efforts.
The federalist approach also differs from the others in its focus on the institutional outcome of integration, as opposed to its process. Because of this, federalists are often characterized as being politically naïve — they tend to ig- nore the important ways in which technical development, international exchange and various incentives might be used to entice elites into bringing about greater integration. This brings us to the last point for comparing the four approaches: the role of politics. Given their unwillingness to focus on political processes, it is perhaps not surprising that politics remains a mostly latent variable in most fede- ralist approaches to European integration. This is particu- larly odd when one considers that the strongest thrust of
European federalism was provided by active politicians in Europe. Even more surprising, however, is the relatively low status of politics in the functionalist and neo- functionalist approaches. Among neo-functionalists in par- ticular, the role of politics is largely confined to the art of deception. Indeed, for political scientists interested in Eu- ropean integration, it is rather revealing that only the inter- governmentalist approach provides a clear and explicit appreciation of the role and utility of politics in bringing about political bargains that can secure (or limit) future European integration.
It is because of their different interests, ambitions, and levels of analyses that each of these four approaches remains salient. Another reason for this continued salience may be the unique nature of the European project itself. As William Wallace noted, the European Union is a new polit- ical creature that largely defies traditional typologies and experiences [Wallace 1982]. For this reason, it is not very reasonable to expect a single analytical approach to explain all the changes in the pace, structures and extent of Euro- pean integration. For better or for worse, we tend to draw on different approaches to highlight the various aspects of integration that interest us.
Brailsford, H. N.
1940 The Federal Idea (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/arch ives/brailsford.shtml - last visited on July 10, 2008).
1969 La Pensée politique du fédéralisme, Leyden, Sijthof. Deutsch, K. W.
1953 The Growth of Nations: Some Recurrent Patterns of Political and Social Integration, in «World Politics» Vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 168-195.
Deutsch, K.W., Burrell, S.A., Kann, R.A., Lee Jr., M., Lichterman, M., Lindgren, R. E., Loewenheim, F. L. and van Wagenen, R. W.
1957 Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: In- ternational Organization in the Light of Historical Expe- rience, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
1958 The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950-1957, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
1961 International Integration: The European and the Univer- sal Process, in «International Organization» Vol. 15, n. 3, pp. 366-392.
1964 Beyond the Nation State: Functionalism and Interna- tional Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1964 Technocracy, Pluralism, and the New Europe, in A New Europe?, edited by S. R. Graubard, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 62-88.
Harrison, R. J.
1974 Europe in Question: Theories of Regional International Integration, London, Allen and Unwin.
1966 Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe, in «Daedalus» Vol. 95, n. 3, pp. 862-915.
1995 The European Sisyphus: Essays on Europe, 1964-1994, Boulder, CO, Westview.
1996 L’Europe des savants: European Integration and the Social Sciences, in The Politics of European Integration. A Reader, edited by M. O’Neill, London, Routledge.
1795 Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, in Kant: Politi- cal Writings, edited by H. Reiss, Cambridge, Cam- bridge University Press, 1991, pp. 93-116.
Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S.
1977 Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transi- tion, Boston, Little, Brown.
1982 A History of European Integration: Volume One 1945- 1947, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
1963 The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integra- tion, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Menéndez, A. J. (ed.)
2007 Altiero Spinelli: From Ventotene to the European Con- stitution, in «ARENA Report» N. 1(http://www.recon project.eu/main.php/RECONreport0107.pdf?fileitem= 4325406 – last visited on May 19, 2011).
Michelmann, H. J. and Soldatos, P. (eds)
1994 European Integration. Theories and Approaches, Lan- ham, University Press of America.
Milward, A. S.
1984 The Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1945-51, Lon- don, Routledge.
1992 The European Rescue of Nation-States, London, Rout- ledge.
1933 The Progress of International Government, London, Allen and Unwin.
1943 A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Func- tional Development of International Organization, Lon- don, Royal Institute of International Affairs.
1948 The Functional Approach in Historical Perspective, in
«International Affairs» Vol 24, pp. 350-61.
1966 The Prospect of Integration: Federal or Functional, in
«Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 4, n. 2, pp. 119-149.
1963 A Ferment of Change, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 1, pp. 203-211.
1978 Memoirs, London, Collins. Moravcsik, Andrew
1991 Negotiating the Single European Act. National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Communi- ty, in «International Organization» Vol. 45, n. 1, pp. 19-56.
1993 Preferences and Powers in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 31, n. 4, pp. 473-524.
1998 The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY, Cornell Uni- versity Press.
1994 Theories of Political Integration, in European Integra- tion: Theories and Approaches, edited by H. J. Michel-
mann and P. Soldatos, Lantham, University Press of America, pp. 13-42.
1996 The Politics of European Integration. A Reader, Lon- don, Routledge.
1973 International Theory and European Integration, Lon- don, Faber and Faber.
2000 Theories of European Integration, Houndmills, Ba- singstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave.
Ruggie, J. G.
1975 International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends, in «International Organization» Vol. 29, n. 4, pp. 557-83.
Schmitter, P. C.
1974 Still the Century of Corporatism?, in «Review of Poli- tics» Vol. 36, n. 1, pp. 85-131.
1941 The Ventotene Manifesto, in Altiero Spinelli: From Ventotene to the European Constitution, in «ARENA Report» N.1, edited by J. Ménédez (http://www.recon project.eu/main.php/RECONreport0107.pdf?fileitem= 4325406 – last visited on May 19, 2011).
1972 The European Adventure—Tasks for the Enlarged Community, London, Charles Knight.
1982 Europe as a Confederation: the Community and the Na- tion-State, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 21, pp. 57-68.
Wallace, H.,Wallace, W. and Webb, C. (eds)
1977 Policy-Making in the European Community, London, Wiley.
Wheare, K. C.
1990 What Federal Government is, in Studies in Federal Planning, edited by P. Ransome, London, Macmillan, pp. 23-24.
Wiener, A. and Diez, T. (eds)
2003 European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford Univer- sity Press.
1995 Institutional Interaction and European Integration: To- wards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Intergovernmen- talism, in «Journal of Common Markets Studies» Vol. 33, n. 4, pp. 597-609.
WHO PRODUCES EUROPEAN STUDIES? A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY
This chapter presents a bibliometric1 study of the ar- ticles published in three leading journals of European stu- dies. We answer the following research question: «Which countries did the articles come from?». We have chosen
«European Union Politics» (EUP), «Journal of Common Market Studies» (JCMS), «Journal of European Public Policy» (JEPP) as case studies2. The analyses cover the years 1990-2009 for JCMS, 1994-2009 for JEPP, and 2000-
2009 for EUP. The survey covers the whole period for the first and third journals and the latest 20 years for JCMS.
We will address the following questions: How many articles were published in these journals? How many dif- ferent individuals published in them? Which countries did they represent? How large was the contribution of the dif- ferent countries in producing the scientific output pub- lished in the three selected journals?
It is, of course, unrealistic to assume that countries in one way or another contributed to the cumulative scientific output. It was the individual researchers who produced the output, not the countries. The nationality of scientific out- put is, of course, absurd because science is communistic in the original Mertonian sense3.
1 Bibliometrics is the application of statistics to texts. The term was coined by Alan Pritchard (1969) to replace «statistical bibliography».
2 Others could have been chosen. It is open to debate whether some other journals represent European studies better.
3 The notion of national representation is problematic, to put it mildly, as a particular scholar who just happens to work in country X may not even necessarily want to represent that country. This paper stands in a certain sense in blatant contradiction to at least some of the
The chapter is organized as follows. First we set the scene. Second, we analyze the contribution of the article producer countries and answer our research question. Third, we end the chapter by taking a look forward and suggesting a few bibliometric research questions.
2. Preliminary remarks
This part will set the framework for analysis more clearly. A few words are in order on our subject field, basic unit of analysis, the dependent variable, categories of analy- sis, metrics of measurement, and sources for the data.
The notion of «European studies» is vague, to say the least. It could refer to a variety of entities and in the scien- tific literature many alternatives of this concept have been presented and discussed. We do not go into these consid- erations in this modest chapter. Here the concept of «Eu- ropean studies» is operationalized to represent any article published in the journals under study without paying any attention to the scholarly discipline the articles represent. Nor do we take any strong substantial stand on the crucial question of the true intellectual value of these articles to the
Mertonian norms of science, often referred to by the acronym CUDOS: communism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality (novelty in research contributions), and skepticism. (Merton did not refer to origi- nality in the essay that introduced the norms). The set of ideals that are dictated by what Merton takes to be the goals and methods of science and are binding on scientists include:
communism: the common ownership of scientific discoveries, ac- cording to which scientists give up intellectual property rights in ex- change for recognition and esteem;
universalism: claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality or the like;
disinterestedness: which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless;
organized scepticism: all ideas must be tested and are subject to rig- orous, structured community scrutiny.
field of European studies. For the purposes of this analysis, we simply make two (rather unrealistic) assumptions:
a. All articles contribute to European studies
b. All articles contribute to it equally.
Our unit of analysis is represented by the original
scientific article published in the EUP, JCMS or JEPP. Only original articles are included. Notes, introductions to thematic issues, book reviews, discussion contributions and the like are excluded4. Our dependent variable is the num- ber of articles coming from different countries. We are, in other words, interested in the country of origin of every article. This is operationalized by the institutional affilia- tion of the authors as given in the articles5. There are 32 countries included in our study: the 27 EU member states, as well as Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. This follows simply from the fact that these coun- tries are represented in the SENT-project. All other coun- tries are grouped together as the 33th group and called, perhaps ironically, «the Others».
The metrics of measurement is very basic: every single article is given a value of 1. If authors from more than one country co-authored6 a particular article, its value is divided among them equally7. We use the following straight forward
4 Those pedants who are disturbed by this exclusion are gladly in- vited to do their own more comprehensive analyses. Good luck!
5 To reiterate (cf. note 3): this assumption is not without problems. It could be unfair to claim that author A coming from country X and staying abroad in country Y during the time of the publication of her article really contributes to the scientific output of Y rather than to the output of X. To control for the «real» origin of all authors would be a huge task for any detective and is surely beyond the competence and interest of the current author. Anyway, whose opinion should be the decisive here? Is a Briton that has lived in, say, Norway, more a Brit than a Norwegian? We could easily drown in the murky seas of identity poli- tics, a field that is happily left to others.
6 Or, to be a bit more precise: at least jointly published as it is a well- known dirty secret that authors may contribute in different amounts.
7 An alternative way would be to give 1 point to all authors, i.e. to credit every author with 1 point. This would, however, lead to different values for different articles, which in itself would be unfair, without
formula: 1/N of authors. So, for instance, if one Greek, one Italian and one Latvian published together an article, the same score goes to Greece, Italy and Latvia: 1/3 = 0,33.
Now we will offer a brief presentation of the three chosen academic journals. JCMS was launched in 1962 and it has established itself as one of the leading journals in the field of European studies. It is currently published in asso- ciation with UACES, the University Association for Con- temporary European Studies. According to the journal’s website:
«Journal of Common Market Studies» is the leading journal in the field, publishing high quality, and accessible articles on the latest European Integration issues. For 40 years it has been the forum for the development and evaluation of theoretical and empi- rical issues in the politics and economics of European integration, focusing principally on developments within the EU. JCMS is committed to deepening the theoretical understanding of Euro- pean integration and aims to achieve a disciplinary balance be- tween political science, economics and international relations, including8the various sub disciplines such as international political
JEPP was launched in 1994 and it has also established itself as one of the leading journals in the field of European studies. It is currently published by Taylor & Francis. Ac- cording to the journal’s website:
The primary aim of the «Journal of European Public Policy» is to provide a comprehensive and definitive source of analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of European public policy. Focusing on the dynamics of public policy in Eu- rope, the journal encourages a wide range of social science ap-
really weighting every article’s scientific weight. Here we assume in an ultra-naïve fashion that all articles are of equal value. It is open to any- one to allocate appropriate weights to all articles. As the current author does have neither a proper theory nor justified metrics, this challenging enterprise is not done here.
8 http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0021-9886 (last visited on June 7, 2011).
proaches, both qualitative and quantitative9.
Finally, EUP was launched in February 2000 and in a short period of time it managed to establish itself as one of the leading journals in the field of European studies. It has always been published by SAGE. The journal’s web site offers more information about its understanding of the mission of European studies:
«European Union Politics» is an exciting international jour- nal that provides the forum for advanced research on all aspects of the processes of government, politics and policy in the European Union. Launched by a global editorial team and with a commit- ment to the highest scholarly standards, «European Union Poli-
tics» adopts a transnational approach to the challenge1s0 that the
project of European integration faces in the 21st century .
There are several ways for ranking, evaluating, catego- rizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the aver- age article in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The annual impact factor is simply a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. Thus, the im- pact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the num- ber of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years.
TAB. 1. Ranking according to Impact Factors and Impact Factors of EUP, JCMS and JEPP for the year 2008 (latest available) according to Journal Citation Re- ports® (Thomson Reuters, ISI
Ranking in political science
Ranking in public administration
Ranking in international relations
Ranking in economics
5 year impact factor
Source: Author’s own.
9 http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/routledge/13501763.html (last visited on June 7, 2011).
10 http://eup.sagepub.com/ (last visited on June 7, 2011).
During our research period 181 articles11 were pub- lished in EUP, 870 in JCMS and 674 in JEPP for a total of 1,725 articles in all three journals. Who was responsible for producing them? Altogether 239 different authors contri- buted for EUP alone or together with someone else, 910 for JCMS, and 927 for JEPP. Of these, 17 authors contri- buted to all three journals (Ben Crum, Gerda Falkner, Vir- ginie Guiraudon, Henrik Enderlein, Simon Hix, Madeleine
O. Hosli, Bjorn Hoyland, Christoph Knill, Tapio Raunio, Berthold Rittberger, Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Susanne
K. Schmidt, Frank Schimmelfennig, Torsten J. Selck, Ro- bert Thomson, Andreas Warntjen, Richard Whitman).
Which countries did these authors represent at the moment of the publication of these articles? Four SENT- countries, namely Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania did not contribute at all to this output. All remaining coun- tries got at least one point.
The institutional affiliation of the author as expressed in the articles is taken as the information revealing the country the article comes from. It should be pointed out that this criterion is not unproblematic, for several reasons. People move around, now more than ever, and this could contribute to a bias in the data in an asymmetric way. Countries send and receive scholars in different magni- tudes and proportions. A single prolific Briton working in country with a small population could easily impact the data in a large measure as the N’s are so small. Also the supply of articles should not be thought of as a constant for every country as for certain reasons of realpolitik the pro- duction conditions were not constant, either. Incentives to publish are not evenly distributed [Gleditsch 2007].
The following analysis focuses on the output of only SENT-countries alone, i.e. excluding the output of the
11 The raw data was collected by research assistant Jussi Kinnunen at the Political Science department of the University of Turku, Finland.
TAB. 2. Number of articles in JCMS, JEPP and EUP by country (only SENT- countries)
Source: Author’s own
These are absolute figures. Does the picture change if we control for population size? One should obviously ex- pect that large scientific communities produce more ar- ticles than small ones. We could take this into account by considering the size of the research community in all rele- vant countries. Due to lack of reliable data, this cannot be
done here. The easily available total population figures12 are used instead as proxies for the respective size of the national scientific community. Although not absolutely certain, it is rather safe to assume that there is a strong pos- itive correlation between the size of the population of a country and the size of the respective scientific community.
FIG. 1. Y = each country's share of articles (%) and X = share of population (%) of the SENT-countries.
Source: Author’s own
FIG. 2. Ordinal presentation: Y = each country's share of articles (%) and X = of population (%) of the SENT-countries.
Source: Author’s own
12 We use the CIA World Factbook 2010 population data.
FIG. 3. Linear regression curve estimations of article share and population share.
Source: Author’s own.
What do these figures tell us? European studies seem to mostly have a North-West European origin. Small coun- tries do seem to be rather productive given their popula- tion size, but still the UK stands out. The East-European countries' small share is understandable as they have only small political science communities and they have had a very short time to orient themselves into European studies.
One should be careful in reading and interpreting these results. Very little can be claimed in terms of repre- sentativeness. We do not know how large of the total out- put of the European studies these particular articles represent. It is rather safe to assume that the articles in these journals represent only a small portion of the total cumulative output of European studies. But how small? We simply do not know. Neither do we know what the share of books compared to that of scientific journals is as part of the total volume of European Studies. There is no widely accepted formula for comparing books with articles. How many articles amount to the same contribution as a
monograph or anthology? Or how many books amount to the same information as an article?
To be able to answer these kinds of questions we should use as the basic unit of analysis an intellectual con- tribution instead of a scientific article. But this opens up a new research program and must thus be left here.
Nevertheless, the results of this paper may be of some interest. If the journals are as «leading» as they themselves claim to be, they might represent reliably, if not the total output, somehow, perhaps, still the best output in some particular sense. In order to know this, we need more anal- ysis.
At least the trivial results of this modest paper gener- ate new research questions of some interest. Here are some obvious ones:
a. Why do country shares differ from each other?
b. What explains the magnitude of these differences?
4. Ways Forward
Bibliometric studies of European studies could take many forms and they could proceed in many directions. If the «country variable» is important13, one could ask oneself for instance the following:
1. Are there any interesting geographical differences in the topics, themes, research questions, methods or data used, results covered in the relevant articles? This could easily be studied by either a keyword analysis of the articles or, say, a content analysis of the articles.
2. Is the amount of articles coming from member states somehow interestingly correlated to the number of years the countries have been members of the EU? Is out- put an interesting function of the time a country has been a member of the EU?
13 An assumption that certainly can be questioned on many grounds, indeed.
3. What kind of quotation patterns are there? For in- stance, which countries (read: scholars from different coun- tries) are most quoted?
Gleditsch, N. P.
2007 Incentives to Publish, in «European Political Science» Vol. 6, n. 2, pp. 185-191.
1973 The Normative Structure of Science, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by R.K. Merton, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND THE STUDY OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION IN AUSTRIA
This chapter shows that during the initial years of Austrian membership in the European Union, academic research on EU topics largely focused on the special inter- ests of the country. Researchers covered the impact of Eu- ropean integration on the federal, regional and local gover- nance of the Austrian federal state; the impact of integra- tion on agricultural and transport policy; and the changes in social policy and the specific Austrian system of corpo- ratism. Somewhat later, the enlargement of the Union to- wards the central and east European countries shifted the attention to a new focal point of EU research (section 2).
Among the research institutes in Austria, there are on- ly few with a focus on researching European integration from a political science lens. The Institute for European Integration Research at the Austrian Academy of Sciences is entirely devoted to European integration and puts par- ticular emphasis on various EU-level policies and their comparison. The political science unit of the Institute for Advanced Studies focuses on comparative European poli- tics and multi-level politics, increasingly with a national- comparative focus. Both institutes will be briefly presented to highlight the status quo of EU studies in Austria (section 4), and so will be the Austrian universities covering Euro- pean integration within their political science curricula (section 3).
This chapter will begin by taking a brief look at the history of Austria’s relations with the European Union (section 1).
1. The EU in the history of Austria
In Austria, controversies regarding a potential mem- bership in the European Communities (EC) have a long- standing history. When the process of European unifica- tion started in the early 1950s, the then occupied country of Austria faced a conflict between, on the one hand, its interest to participate in (Western) European co-operative organizations, and, on the other hand, a desire not to con- front the Soviet Union and thereby endanger Austria’s aspirations for the restoration of a sovereign state. Finally, following the Swiss model, Austria committed itself to permanent neutrality in the Moscow Memorandum and the Soviet Union agreed to the Austrian Independence Treaty (Staatsvertrag) on May 15, 1955. For a long time, neutrality and membership of the European Communities were gen- erally seen as incompatible. Consequently, Austria decided to restrict itself to a tariffs agreement with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It stayed away from the negotiations of the Treaties of Rome despite the fact that Henri-Paul Spaak had invited all Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC)-countries to participate. However, when the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) was established in 1960 for the seven OEEC coun- tries that were not part of the European Economic Com- munity (EEC), Austria became a founding member1
During the second half of the 1980s, the EEC’s Inter- nal Market Program revived Austrian debates on the coun- try’s relations with the European Communities2 Full mem- bership was first demanded by the (then liberal and pro- European) Freedom Party and by the Association of Indu- strialists in the spring of 1987. The major conservative par- ty, ÖVP, followed suit in early 1988. The then Chancellor Franz Vranitzky, a social democrat, made a statement to
1 Alongside Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.
2 For details on the Austrian path towards membership see Luif 1995.
that effect in summer 1988. Soon thereafter, the interna- tional law department of the Foreign Ministry advocated membership with a reservation on grounds of neutrality. A further crucial step was the government’s report to Parlia- ment of April 17, 1989 which recommended membership under the conditions of upholding neutrality, federalism, the Austrian social system, an offensive environmental pro- tection policy, an area-wide peasant agriculture3 and, final- ly, of solving the problem of transit through the endan- gered Alpine regions. On July 17, 1989, the formal letter of application was submitted in Brussels.
However, negotiations on the European Economic Area (EEA) were already under way, and the forthcoming Maastricht Treaty also delayed any immediate follow-up to this request. Formal accession negotiations between the EC and Austria began only on February 1, 1993. Agriculture, real estate markets and transit proved to be the trickiest chapters. The negotiations were concluded after only 13 months, having been significantly eased by the fact that the EEA agreement had already transferred sizeable parts of the EC’s economic acquis to the EFTA states. In the Aus- trian referendum on EU membership of June 22, 1994, 67 percent voted pro and turnout to the referendum measured 82 percent.
During the years preceding Austria’s accession to the EU, studies on the likely effects of membership predicted manifold changes due to the significant differences be- tween the political systems of the EU and of Austria [see Gerlich and Neisser 1994]. A focal point of these studies was the expectation that the government and the adminis- tration would gain in political weight to the detriment of the Parliament. A change in terms of the horizontal distri- bution of functions was expected since the government was to have its action capacity increased via privileged access to EU decision-making, at the dispense of a decisive say for political representatives who are directly legitimated.
3 This showed that an industrialisation of agriculture was not desired in Austria where small units and family management were still common.
To counteract these expected effects, the Austrian constitution was changed to give the directly elected first chamber of the Austrian Parliament powers to control the government in matters of EU affairs. These powers even exceed those of the Danish case [for an international com- parison see Bergman 1997; Morass 1996]. In this sense, article 23 of the Federal Constitution states that the Natio- nalrat must be informed in due time with respect to all EU- related projects. The Nationalrat may issue an opinion which binds the Austrian members of government in EU- level negotiations and votes. This regards projects for man- datory law in areas which before would have needed na- tional legislative scrutiny, e.g. when new EC Directives or Regulations are negotiated4. In practice, however, the Aus- trian parliament has not been able to control the govern- ment effectively in EU affairs [Pollak and Slominski 2003].
The same is true regarding the federal units. Austria is a federal state with nine provinces (Länder). Although the legislative powers of the Länder were already quite limited before 1994, EEA and the subsequent EU membership eroded them even more. The fact that the level of decision- making changed from the subnational to supranational level was not the only concern of Austrian Länder politi- cians and political scientists dealing with matters of federal- ism. Another issue was that the decision-makers at the su- pranational level would not be representatives of the Länder, since there is no co-decision power for the subna- tional regional entities at the EU level. In turn, a reform of the national distribution of competences between the cen- tral and the regional level was demanded to counter-
4 Exceptions exist for «compelling reasons of foreign or integration policy». It is important to note that the accession-related constitutional reforms stem from a period when the Austrian grand coalition govern- ment did not have the two-thirds majority needed to adopt laws of con- stitutional quality in parliament (1994–1996). The members of the minor Green and Liberal parties asked for far-reaching parliamentary partici- pation and control. The latter were not a core feature of the Austrian political culture at all. That has certainly contributed to the very low number of binding opinions issued by the Austrian Nationalrat, only 34 by summer 2001 [Blümel and Neuhold 2001, 319].
balance losses of the Länder in the multi-level political sys- tem of the EU. The reform was never adopted [Dachs 1994]. The participation of the Länder (and, to some ex- tent, even districts) in domestic EU-related decision- making has been regulated in Article 23.d of the Austrian Constitution and in a special state-Länder agreement. The procedure resembles the participation of the Nationalrat. In practice, however, unanimity is a big hurdle and binding opinions of the Länder are very rare [Steiner and Trattnigg 1998, 164]. Furthermore, the deadlines and time pressures of Euro-politics impinge on the Länder even more than on actors at the federal level.
All in all, the Austrian case shows how difficult, if not impossible, it is to counterbalance on domestic level the structural dynamics of the European integration process.
2. Research topics in Austria
This part of the chapter relies in part on previous em- pirical research with Irina Michalowitz and Eric Tajalli funded by the CONNEX consortium [Falkner et al. 2006]. These stock-taking activities covered research on «EU mul- tilevel governance in Austria», as defined by the project guidelines, and were exercised in parallel in a large number
of countries5 Intense efforts of the team and multiple re-
quests to all known researchers in Austria resulted in 80 collected research projects. Nearly all of the research projects were funded, inter alia, by the European Commis- sion, the Austrian Central Bank’s Jubilee Fund, and the Federal Chancellery. Particularly during the >node< pro- gram (new orientations for democracy in Europe6), up to 2008, the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Cul- ture also played a significant role. Because the definition of
6 http://www.node-research.at/ (last visited on May 12, 2011).
EU multilevel governance under the CONNEX project was somewhat narrow, not all Austrian projects could be
included7 Despite this limitation, I still refer to these data
here since no other empirical study is available.
The projects collected indicate that both national Aus- trian and European questions entered the research agenda on EU multilevel governance in Austria. However, there was some shift over time with a strong focus on the special interests of the country to be replaced by particular empha- sis on aspects of EU enlargement.
During the first 1.5 decades of EU membership, Aus- trian researchers covered mainly the impact of European integration on the Austrian state and its policies. The ef- fects of accession on the Parliament, the provinces, and the social partners were vividly discussed. Aspects of the Aus- trian version of «neutrality» and its vulnerability to Euro- pean integration and, particularly, EU membership, were also high on the agenda. Moreover, the implications of multilevel politics on national policies in the social, envi- ronmental or transport fields were analyzed in depth.
Another focus was on the effects of multilevel gover- nance on democratic societies and democracy, at large, and on related aspects such as a European «public sphere», the transparency and accountability of European and national institutions, the discussion about a common European identity, etc.
Increasingly, however, the major topic of steadily growing salience became the enlargement of the European Union towards the central and east European countries. A relatively substantial amount of research concentrated on this development, especially focusing on Austria’s neigh- boring countries (Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slo- venia). The implementation of EU legislation in those can-
7 But this hardly concerned our focus here, political science, which as a discipline leans comparatively more towards the «governance» perspective. An overwhelming majority of the projects collected in the database reported here were, in any case, carried out from a political science perspective (71 percent including PhD theses, 87 percent with- out doctoral projects). For details, see Falkner et al. 2006.
didate states, the evaluation of community programs to assist enlargement (PHARE), and the transformation of institutions, economics and civil society in the respective countries were the main research topics in this field.
Regarding the theoretical and methodological ap- proaches used in the studies collected, they varied to a very large extent. The theoretical foundations of the Austrian research projects covered the most prominent political science approaches overall. The classic approaches to Eu- ropean integration theory were present, as well as other various theories of collective action, policy networks, polit- ical cleavages, principal-agent relationship, and many more. A clearer picture could be seen on the level of metho- dological choices. Most of the research projects made use of qualitative methods and practiced expert interviews, group discussions, document analysis, and various forms of discourse analysis. Qualitative approaches were much more widely used than quantitative approaches. Most projects had a strong empirical orientation. Theoretical research – understood in the strict sense as analysis, interpretation and further development of scientific theory – was hardly pre- sented in the collected projects. Within this overall diagno- sis, it is worth mentioning that PhD-projects contributed more to theory formation than most funded research. Still, by far most projects could be subsumed as «basic research» orientation, as opposed to applied research geared towards direct usability in terms of political or economic practice. We related this to the fact that most research was carried out in academic institutions (the study did not include in- house research firms or consultancies) and funded by pub-
lic or semi-public institutions.
Already between 1995 and 2005, most Austrian re- search was carried out in English (more than 65 percent of the research projects, excluding PhD-projects). The rest was in German except for one single project using French. Dissertations, however, were to an overwhelming extent still written in German back then (82 percent) [Falkner et al. 2006]. It is worth mentioning, though, that a switch to English appears to have taken place in very recent years.
In terms of publication output, the study noted that more than half of the Austrian projects in multilevel gover- nance did not result in any publication. A change has been taking place since then. The comparatively larger number of younger and international scholars active in Austria has led to more of a «publish or perish» attitude.
3. Austrian universities focusing on European integration issues
While in most countries, the majority of research projects is carried out at universities [Edler-Wollstein and Falkner 2009], Austria’s European integration research – as opposed to teaching – clusters in two political science units for basic research: the Institute for European Integration Research (EIF) at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Department of Political Science at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS). Additionally, a few members of the three political science departments of the Universities of Innsbruck, Salzburg, and Vienna are also active in the field. Other research and teaching units have at times also been involved in EU-related research8, but their overall focus is not in that field and hence they won’t be discussed here.
Austrian universities are so-called «mass universities» without any access requirements apart from an A-levels accomplishment and without entrance exams for most schools and disciplines, including political science. This brings about massive teaching loads in disciplines with a wide appeal to students, such as political science, and it means that in practice, there is often a lack of both material
8 For example, the Austrian Institute for International Politics (OIIP) studies international aspects of Austrian EU politics (see www.oiip.ac.at). Further institutes that devote at least a part of their research to European multi-level governance include the Institute of Conflict Research, the Europaforum Wien, the Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences (ICCR) or the Demok- ratiezentrum Wien.
and time resources for research, in particular for demand- ing basic research. At the level of teaching, most explicit focuses on European integration take place at the Universi- ties of Innsbruck and Salzburg.
The Innsbruck School of Political Science and Sociol- ogy offers a full curriculum in European Politics and Socie- ty with a particular concentration at the Master’s level9 One out of nine research areas mentioned on the website of the unit for political science at Innsbruck University is poli- tics of the European Union10. The sub-topics mentioned focus on the processes of widening and deepening the EU, with particular emphasis on the practical capacities of both the EU to accept, and of additional countries to become members. The list of ongoing funded research projects at present shows none in the field of European integration11, but important earlier projects were directed by the now retired professor Heinrich Neisser. In any case, the recent professorial appointment of Simona Piattoni to teach Eu- ropean integration issues promises to bring about more activity in this field again very soon.
The University of Salzburg is also very dedicated to teaching European integration issues12 The core of its rele- vant curriculum is the interdisciplinary Master’s degree (MA EUS) operating since 2005. There is also an EU- funded interdisciplinary Jean Monnet specialization mod- ule in European Union Studies open to all Salzburg stu- dents regardless of their chosen subject of studies, for basic education in matters of European integration. In addition, the Vice President of the University, the political scientist Sonja Puntscher Riekmann, successfully managed to estab- lish an interdisciplinary doctoral program funded by a pri-
9 http://www.uibk.ac.at/fakultaeten/politikwissenschaft_und_soziolo gie /forschung/index.html.en (last visited on February 8, 2011).
10 http://www.uibk.ac.at/politikwissenschaft/forschung/ (last visited on February 8, 2011).
11 http://www.uibk.ac.at/politikwissenschaft/forschung/forschungs projekte.html.de (last accessed on February 8, 2011).
12 http://www.uni-salzburg.at/portal/page?_pageid=465,164185&_ dad =portal&_schema=PORTAL (last accessed on February 7, 2011).
vate source13 In existence since 2008, SCEUS funds eight
doctoral students in economics, history, law and political science. Under the heading of «European social model»14 they research issues of European integration as well as of national politics.
Finally, political science in Austria can also be studied at the University of Vienna, where this discipline is jointly represented by two departments, the Department of Politi- cal Science and the Department of Government. Heinrich Schneider deserves mentioning here in particular, as the
«doyen» of European integration research in Austria15. European integration studies in Austria essentially began when the German citizen Heinrich Schneider was ap- pointed the first political science professor at the University of Vienna. By the end of the 1960s, a first debate about Austrian accession to the EU had been conducted and quickly concluded again – without practical effect. Schneider consequently focused his teaching on political theory. European integration only became a popular topic in political science curricula at the beginning of the 1990s. The Department of Government at the University of Vien- na was very active in political science research on European integration already during the 1990s. Some of its members
14 The definition offered on the internet is: «We understand a social model to structure and at the same time reflect the relationship between individual life worlds and political/legal systems shaping the socio- economic activities in a community. A social model provides the frame- work within which individuals can interact as citizens in the public sphere. Basic components of any social model are responses to socio- economic challenges in terms of specific concepts of social justice, forms of organization of public spaces as well as of the protection of private sphere and individual freedom in relation to concepts of security. In this sense, a social model reflects concepts of “humanity” and “the good life”. It is part and parcel of any modern concept of democracy».
15 See the bibliography of Schneider’s work until 2000 [Thiemer 2010].
co-edited major volumes on Austria's EU adhesion [Tálos and Falkner 1996; Gerlich and Neisser 1994; Falkner and Müller 1998]. The late Krzysztof Glass and Peter Gerlich co-edited a number of books on Central and Eastern Eu- rope and its transition [Gerlich et al. 1995; Gerlich and Glass 1998].
4. Austrian research units focusing on European integration issues
Non-university research centers have developed into a stronghold of Austria's research on European integration and on multilevel governance in Austria during the last decade.
The Department of Political Science at the Institute for Advanced Studies in has been a training institution of outmost importance for Austrian political science since the early 1960s because the universities developed political science curricula only much later. The IHS has traditionally offered a postgraduate degree in political science, later reformed to be a tailor-made PhD training program, for eight students (currently)16. Recent groups focus on Euro- pean integration issues.
In addition, the Department’s three assistant profes- sors have been doing research in the field of European integration since the turn of the millennium. Since 2008, the focus has shifted towards «contemporary politics in Europe» and lately towards «multilevel politics in Europe» with an increasingly national-comparative focus. The latest projects include topics such as the citizens’ weight of vote in selected federal systems, political radicalization using the internet in Europe and the United States, and the nationa- lization of political parties and party systems in post- communist Eastern Europe.
16 See http://ihs.ac.at/vienna/IHS-Departments-2/Political-Science- 1/Team-2/Team-3/staffType:Student.htm (last accessed on February 11, 2011).
The Institute for European Integration Research (EIF) is fully dedicated to basic research in the field of European integration17. It had existed under various names and orien- tations at the Austrian Academy of Sciences since 199818. In 2007, the Austrian Academy of Sciences initiated a reform of the EIF and the 2008 research program now focuses on European integration issues exclusively. Within that, the theory-driven empirical analysis and comparison of the EU’s policies is central. The fact that there are signif- icant differences between individual EU-level policies is an integral characteristic of European integration. In-depth systematic as well as comparative analysis of various activi- ties of the EU is hence employed to better understand the European integration process overall, and to further devel- opment of theories of political steering and problem- solving in multilevel systems. Additional focuses are the direct and indirect effects of EU policies on both the na- tional and global levels, as well as aspects of EU policy implementation and adjudication.
With its approximately 15 staff members, the Institute for European Integration Research in Vienna is the only research institute in Austria dedicated to political science basic research in the field of European integration. Its working language is English and it cooperates with re- searchers and networks worldwide.
17 See http://www.eif.oeaw.ac.at/institute (last accessed on February 11, 2011).
18 Over time, the focus had included various themes of institutional change, migration, and aspects of technological development, next to European integration issues. Within that, issues of democratic govern- ance as well as the emerging European public sphere and citizenship were initially stressed.
Antalovsky, E., Melchior, J., and Puntscher Riekmann, S. (eds.) 1997 Integration durch Demokratie. Neue Impulse für die
Europäische Union, Marburg, Metropolis.
Bapuly, B. and Kohlegger, G.
2003 Die Implementierung des EG-Rechts in Österreich. - Die Gerichtsbarkeit, Handbuch für Justiz, Rechtsan- wälte, Staatsanwälte, XVI, Wien: Manz.
1997 National parliaments and EU Affairs Committees: notes on empirical variation and competing explanations, Journal of European Public Policy Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 373-387.
Bischof, G., Pelinka, A. and Gehler, M. (eds.)
2002 Austria in the European Union, New Brunswick, Trans- action Publishers.
Blümel, B. and Neuhold, C.
2001 The Parliament of Austria: Big Procedures with Little Implications, in National Parliaments on their ways to Europe: Losers or Latecomers?, edited by A. Maurer and W. Wessels, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 304-30.
Blümel, B., Neuhold, C., and Pollak, J.
2005 The Parliament of Austria: A Large Potential with (as of yet) Little Implications, in National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe: Losers or Latecomers?, edited by W. Wessels and A. Maurer, 2 ed., Baden-Baden, Nomos.
1994 EU-Beitritt und die Bundesländer. EU-Beitritt als Herausforderung. Peter Gerlich and Heinrich Neisser, Wien, Signum.
Edler-Wollstein, S. and Falkner, G.
2009 Small countries with vivid social science traditions (Aus- tria, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and
19 Since it is impossible to include all of the writings of all Austrian political scientists touching the field of European integration, I tried to select (in addition to entries cited in the text) two items from my own Endnote database related to the Austrian EU-membership for each author with EU focus. Full and up-to-date lists of references for most Austrian political scientists can be found on the internet.
Finland, in European Multi-level Governance. Con- trasting Images in National Research, edited by B. Koh- ler-Koch and F. Larat, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
2000 How Pervasive are Euro-Politics? Effects of EU Mem- bership on a New Member State, in «Journal of Com- mon Market Studies», Vol. 38, n. 2, pp. 223-250.
2004 Österreichische Politikwissenschaft und EU, in Politik- wissenschaft als Emanzipations- und Demokratiewis- senschaft. 40 Jahre Politikwissenschaft in Österreich, edited by H. Kramer, Wien, Peter Lang, pp. 247-274.
Falkner, G., Michalowitz, I., and Tajalli, E. (2006), Research on EU multilevel governance in Austria: A state of re- search, CONNEX, 27 http://www.connex- network.org/govdata/reports/Report-Austria.pdf (last visted on May 12, 2011).
Falkner, G. and Müller, W. C. (eds.)
1998 Österreich im europäischen Mehrebenensystem: Konse- quenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft für Politiknetzwerke und Entscheidungsprozesse, in «Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Angewandte Politikforschung» Vol. 17, Wien, Signum.
2002 Europäisierung, Föderalismus und Regionalismus: Die Auswirkungen der EU-Mitgliedschaft auf bundesstaat- liche Strukturen und regionale Politik, in Europäis- ierung der österreichischen Politik. Konsequenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft, edited by H. Neisser and S. Puntscher Riekmann, Wien, WUV-Universitätsverlag, pp. 201-230.
2002 Der Hauptausschuss des österreichischen Nationalrates als Instrument der Willensbildung in Angelegenheiten der Europäischen Union, in Pflicht und Verantwortung: Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Klaus Arndt, edited by B. M. Kraske, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 39-49.
Gerlich, P. and Glass, K. (eds.)
1998 Vergangenheit und Gegenwart Mitteleuropas, Wien, Poznan, Österreichische Gesellschaft für mitteleu- ropäische Studien.
Gerlich, P., Glass, K., and Serloth, B. (eds.)
1995 Neuland Mitteleuropa. Ideologiedefizite und Identität-
skrisen, Wien, Torun, Österreichische Gesellschaft für mitteleuropäische Studien.
Gerlich, P. and Neisser, H. (eds.)
1994 Europa als Herausforderung. Wandlungsimpulse für das politische System Österreichs, Wien, Signum.
Glatz, H. and Moser, H. (eds.)
1989 Herausforderung EG-Binnenmarkt: Kopfüber in die EG?, Wien: SERVICE Fachverlag an der Wirtschafts- universität.
2000 Coping with Economic Integration: Corporatist Re- sponse Strategies in Germany and Austria in the 1990s, in «West European Politics» Vol. 23, n. 3, pp. 67-96.
2001 Austria: Confronting Controversy, in The European Un- ion and the Member States. Cooperation, Coordination, and Compromise, edited by E. E. Zeff and E. B. Pirro, Boulder and London, Lynne Rienner, pp. 267-284.
Höll, O., Pollack, J. and Puntscher Riekmann, S.
2003 Austria: domestic change through European integration, in Fifteen into one? The European Union and its member states, edited by W. Wessels, A. Maurer and J. Mittag, European Policy Research Unit Series, Manchester and New York, Manchester University Press, pp. 337-354.
Hummer, W. (ed.)
1994 Der Europäische Wirtschaftsraum und Österreich: rechtliche und ökonomische Auswirkungen des EWR, in «Europarecht - internationales Wirtschafts- und Währungsrecht, Völkerrecht» Vol. 4, Wien, Böhlau.
1995 Austria in the European Union, in «Journal of Com- mon Market Studies» Vol. 33, n. 3, pp. 411-425.
Karlhofer, F. and Tálos, E.
1996 Sozialpartnerschaft und EU. Integrationsdynamik und Handlungsrahmen der österreichischen Sozialpartner- schaft, Wien, Signum.
Karlhofer, F. and Tálos, E. (eds.)
1999 Zukunft der Sozialpartnerschaft: Veränderungsdy- namik und Reformbedarf, Wien, Signum.
1995 Demokratieabbau durch EU-Regierungsgesetzgebung?, in «Österreichische Parlamentarische Gesellschaft» (ed.), 75 Jahre Bundesverfassung, Wien, pp. 271-288.
Kittel, B. and Tálos, E.
1999 Interessenvermittlung und politischer Entscheidung- sprozeß: Sozialpartnerschaft in den 1990er Jahren, in Zukunft der Sozialpartnerschaft: Veränderungsdy- namik und Reformbedarf, edited by F. Karlhofer and
E. Tálos, Wien, Signum, pp. 95-136. Luif, P.
1995 On the Road to Brussels. The Political Dimension of Austria's, Finland's and Sweden's Accession to the European Union, Wien, Braumüller.
1998 Austria: Adaptation through Anticipation, in Adapting to European Integration. Small States and the Euro- pean Union, edited by K. Hanf and B. Soetendorp, London and New York, Longman, pp. 116-30.
1996 Österreich im Entscheidungsprozess der Europäischen Union, in EU-Mitglied Österreich. Gegenwart und Per- spektiven: Eine Zwischenbilanz, edited by E. Tálos and
G. Falkner, Wien, Manz, pp. 32-50. Müller, W. C.
2000 Austria, in The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level, edited by H. Kassim, G. B. Peters and V. Wright, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 201-218.
2001 Ministerial Government at the European Level: The Case of Austria, in The National Co-ordination of EU Policy. The European Level, edited by H. Kassim et al., Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 229-255.
2002 Die Funktionen des Parlaments im Wandel, in Eu- ropäisierung der österreichischen Politik: Konsequen- zen der EU-Mitgliedschaft, edited by H. Neisser and S. Puntscher Riekmann, Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Angewandte Politikforschung 26, Wien, WUV-Univ.- Verl., pp. 133-152.
Neisser, H. and Puntscher Riekmann, S.
2002 Österreichs Bilanz nach mehr als sieben Jahren Mit- gliedschaft in der Europäischen Union, in Europäis- ierung der österreichischen Politik. Konsequenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft, edited by H. Neisser and S. Puntscher Riekmann, Wien, WUV-Universitätsverlag, pp. 397-425.
1988 Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte eines Beitritts Österreichs zu den EG, Wien.
1994 Öffentliche Verwaltung, in Europa als Herausfor- derung. Wandlungsimpulse für das politische System Österreichs, edited by P. Gerlich and H. Neisser, Wien, Signum, pp. 113-132.
1996 Österreich: EU-Mitgliedschaft als Katalysator, in «Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, B 10/96», 1. März 1996, pp. 10-17.
1999 The (In)Compatibility of Corporatism and Federalism: Austrian Social Partnership and the EU, in «West European Politics» Vol. 22, n. 2, pp. 116-129.
Pollak, J. and Slominski, P.
2002 Die österreichischen politischen Parteien und die eu- ropäische Integration: Stillstand oder Aufbruch?, in Europäisierung der österreichischen Politik. Konse- quenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft, edited by H. Neisser and S. Puntscher Riekmann, Wien, WUV- Universitätsverlag, pp. 187-199.
2003 Influencing EU Politics? The Case of the Austrian Par- liament, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 41, n. 4.
2004 Europäische Angelegenheiten im österreichischen Na- tionalrat, in «Forum Parlament» Vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 11-15.
Puntscher Riekmann, S.
2003 Aufständisches Österreich? Der Konvent, seine Ergeb- nisse und die politische Rezeption in Österreich, in «In- tegration» 26. Jg., Heft 4, pp. 383-389.
Puntscher Riekmann, S. and Slominski, P.
2002 Bürokratie und Demokratie. Die Rolle der natinalen Verwaltung in der Europäischen Union, in Europäis- ierung der österreichischen Politik. Konsequenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft, edited by H. Neisser and S. Puntscher Riekmann, Wien, WUV-Universitätsverlag, pp. 153-76.
2000 Koordinationsinstrumente der österreichischen Länder, Institut für Föderalismus - Schriftenreihe, 78, Wien, Braumüller.
2001 Mitgestaltungsinstrumente der Länder in Angelegen- heiten der europäischen Integration, in Legistik und Gemeinschaftsrecht, edited by P. Bußjäger and C. Kle- iser, Schriftenreihe / Institut für Föderalismus, 84; Wien, Braumüller, pp. 77-87.
Scherb, M. and Morawetz, I.
1988 Der un-heimliche Anschluß - Österreich und die EG, Wien, Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik.
1990 Alleingang nach Brüssel. Österreichs EG-Politik, ed. Institut für Europäische Politik, «Europäische Schriften» Vol 66, Bonn, Europa Union Verlag.
2000 Österreich in Acht und Bann - ein Schritt zur politisch integrierten "Wertegemeinschaft", in «Integration» Vol. 23, n. 2, pp. 120-148.
2003 Österreich als Mitglied der Europäischen Union: Si- cherheitspolitik zwischen Neutralität und Allianzbei- tritt, in Österreich in der Europäischen Union. Bilanz seiner Mitgliedschaft, edited by M. Gehler, A. Pelinka, and G. Bischof, Wien, Böhlau, pp. 333-77.
Steiner, G. and Trattnigg, R.
1998 Sektorstudie Umweltpolitik, in Österreich im eu- ropäischen Mehrebenensystem, edited by G. Falkner and W. C. Müller, Wien, Signum, pp. 139-171.
Tálos, E. and Karlhofer, F.
1996 Austrokorporatismus und EU, in EU-Mitglied Österreich. Gegenwart und Perspektiven: Eine Zwischenbilanz, edited by E. Tálos and G. Falkner, Wien, Manz, pp. 67-82.
Tálos, E. and Falkner, G. (eds.)
1996 EU-Mitglied Österreich. Gegenwart und Perspektiven: Eine Zwischenbilanz, Wien, Manz.
2001 Verzeichnis der Veröffentlichungen von Heinrich Schneider (Stand Frühjahr 2000), in Europäische Leit- bilder. Festschrift für Heinrich Schneider, edited by R. Hierzinger and J. Pollak, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 201-220.
1996 Der Föderalismus, in EU-Mitglied Österreich. Gegen- wart und Perspektiven, edited by E. Tálos and G. Falkner, Wien, Manz, pp. 50-66.
EUROPEAN STUDIES AS AN EXAMPLE OF A MULTI- AND INTER-DISCIPLINARY EDUCATION MODEL IN THE BALTIC STATES
1. International background for the development of European studies in the Baltic States
In recent years the world economy is becoming ever more integrated - more global- and interaction of political, economic, social and other dimensions in these processes strengthens mutual ties between national, regional and in- ternational communities. In addition, during the past years qualitative changes in regional integration arrangements have taken place. Developments in the European Union (EU) are the most significant ones compared to the other regional schemes, especially after the last EU enlargement rounds in 2004 and 2007, and the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Changes in European political, economic and social environment imply a growing demand for know- ledge of EU economic, political, social and legal matters. Higher education and research must respond to the chal- lenges and effects of international and European integra- tion and, consequently, to the increased demand for skills and knowledge relevant to today’s environment.
This is specifically important for all the new member states since these countries have undergone serious political and socio-economic changes both before the accession to the EU and during the post-accession period. These changes embrace virtually all aspects of daily life and will have long-term results.
Among the countries of the last enlargement are the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They had to integrate their higher education systems into the European
Higher Education Area, which required reforms in higher education to comply with the so-called «Bologna process»1 During the current period particular attention is given to the three cycles of curriculum development, workload- based credits as units to be accumulated within a given program, curricular design that takes into account qualifi- cation descriptors, level descriptors, skills and learning outcomes and promotion of mobility in Europe. To meet challenges of the above-mentioned themes, a number of European studies courses and programs have been launched in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The development of multi- and inter-disciplinary pro- grams in higher education system to which European stu- dies programs belong was an obvious strategy for the high- er education institutions (HEI). This trend offered an op- portunity to students and young researchers to acquire a solid knowledge about Europe and the European Union. Implementation of such programs also contributed to crea- tion of a stimulating research environment. Development of analytical skills of graduate students and specialist know- ledge promoted by European studies is an asset in areas where profound knowledge of contemporary European Union matters is required. In other words, European stu- dies prepared academically educated qualified specialists in the fields of vital importance for the EU and their home countries. Graduates are able to perform in public sector and non-governmental institutions at the EU and national levels and they can make an objective analysis of the ongo- ing processes of European integration. European studies programs also contribute to civil society development by combating, for example, such issues as corruption and sug- gesting anti-corruption initiatives, safety and justice me- chanisms.
European studies programs in the HEI have been de- veloped up to the second cycle level. Programs lead to mas- ter’s degree in European studies in most cases. Principal cores disciplines in these programs are history, economics, law and political science/public administration as well as regional science. The inter-disciplinary European studies master’s programs were envisaged as a continuation of the first level programs mainly in economics, political science and law. However, the growing importance of providing information through all the media about EU matters, influ- ence strongly the demand for translators and journalists, especially in the post-accession period. Development of advanced skills and knowledge for these groups of students resulted in recent years in admission of students who had previously majored in foreign languages or communication studies. The basic knowledge acquired during those studies is deepened by theoretical and practical studies, as well as complemented by studies in the related fields.
The design and implementation of the European stu- dies courses and programs in the Baltic States are consis- tent with European studies programs in other HEI in the EU countries. However, as the experience shows, the dy- namic developments of the EU imply that such multi- and inter-disciplinary studies need to be regularly reviewed, upgraded and refined.
The European studies programs are therefore charac- terized by the specific methodology used both in teaching specific courses and in research. The common feature of all European studies programs is the focus on the European integration process and more generally, the development of the European Union. Relevance for the European Union and applicability for decision-makers especially in public administration are important features for these programs. According to the common knowledge, the development of the European Union is only understandable through a
combination of various disciplines in social science and humanities (see Figure 1)2.
FIG. 1. Key features of European studies Program programs.
This trend reveals that European studies courses and programs are both multi- and inter-disciplinary. The multi- disciplinary trend represents a combination of disciplines relevant to European studies that are studied in parallel. At the same time, when the disciplines studied are aimed, for example, at problem-solving that requires knowledge of different disciplines, this references the inter-disciplinary approach in studies. The move from multi-disciplinary to inter-disciplinary teaching and learning is a core element in the development of the curriculum of European studies at the HEI in the Baltic States.
2 D. Hansen and T. Muravska, European Studies Master Programs Development in the Baltics, EuroFaculty, Riga, 2003.
3. Demand and supply of European studies programs
After more than 10 years of existence, European stu- dies programs show in practice that establishment of this type of programs and courses at various universities in the Baltic States is a result of demand and supply. Demand for programs is caused by the need for in-depth knowledge about the European Union and the need for academic re- search with results about the integration process in Europe, which deeply influences the society in Europe at all levels. This education is especially important for future civil ser- vants, as they require a profound knowledge of policies in the European Union and the role of decision-making in a governance system where the EU, national governments and local government are the main players. Knowledge about the EU is also valuable in non- governmental organi- zations, as well as for social partners and the business world.
Entrance exams at the universities might limit supply of students in the European studies programs. Institutional barriers should be lifted if the governmental bodies at the universities are reluctant to allow multi-disciplinary activi- ties to be developed. It might require willingness to estab- lish centers with some competences to organize teaching and research if such barriers are to be removed. Natural barriers exist in the form of «scale economies» i.e. efficien- cy of specific programs increase more than proportionate with the resources devoted to the program. Core program disciplines such as history, economics, political science and law should be represented if the program is to provide stu- dents with relevant and up to date information on the
«state of art» in this area. When all relevant courses are to be offered at the given university the cost per student might be too high. To mitigate this economy of scale prob- lem, cooperation with other universities might help by, for example, establishing mobility schemes for student and staff.
These will in many cases only be possible if teaching and research activities are offered in English language as a
tool that is commonly exempted. Most teachers and re- searchers involved in European studies programs accept the considerations above. At the same time, there are more diverging views when it comes to the specific outline of the programs and especially the balance between specific EU- courses and methodological courses at the master’s level program. There are also differences in the structure, con- tent and approach to teaching/learning both according to national traditions and departments in which the program are implemented. However there are also similarities in the objectives of the degrees and competences3. European stu- dies courses and programs have been developed in the Bal- tic states predominantly as the graduate level or at the second cycle (graduate) level.
There are several academic and professional bodies in the area of European studies, such as, for example, Esto- nian, Latvian and Lithuanian European Community Stu- dies associations (ECSAs). Representatives from these as- sociations meet regularly at the national levels and at peri- odic ECSA World Conferences. The Jean Monnet Program of the European Commission m supports multi- and inter- disciplinary education and research in European Union integration. European Commission representations in each of the Baltic states interact with academics to provide in- formation and assistance on this subject matter. Stakehold- ers in the public and private sector and NGOs interested in cooperating with European studies students, researchers and faculty members have been growing in recent years.
4. European studies at the University of Latvia
The European Studies master program at the Univer- sity of Latvia was launched in 1996 in the frame of the Tempus project JEP-11389-96 (completed in 1999) in co- operation with Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium),
3 J. Gonzales and R. Wagenaar, Tuning Educational Structures in Eu- rope, Bilbao, Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto, 2005, pp.93-98.
University of Hull (UK), Università degli studi di Genova (Italy), Université de Droit, d’Economie et des Sciences d’Aix-Marseille (France), Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa (Portugal). The main objective of the project was to create a two-year master’s program in political science with a mi- nor in European studies at the Department of Political Science the University of Latvia. The project was focused on curriculum development, advanced studies and research at the master and doctoral levels, student and staff mobili- ty, as well as library upgrading.
When Latvia expressed its wish to become a member of the European Union, the Jean Monnet Program, sup- ported by the European Commission, was of unique value. It allowed Latvian scholars to continue education focused on European dimension in social sciences and to begin di- alogue with their counterparts in different countries on common and fundamental issues for integration before ac- cession to the EU.
During the pre-accession period different Jean Mon- net grant schemes have been launched in the country. This was a starting point for an inter-disciplinary approach to education, and to theoretical and applied research on the themes related to European integration. The Jean Monnet program was helpful in the development of human capital in Latvia and other Baltic States.
Since 2000 the Center for European and Transition Studies (CETS) and European studies master’s program, successfully function at the University of Latvia. The mas- ter’s program is incorporated at present within the Faculty of Economics and Management. The aim of CETS and the master’s program is to promote and support interdiscipli- nary studies, academic and applied research on European issues involving master and doctoral students from both European Union member states and third countries. The main focus of CETS encompasses research in economics, political science, law, public administration and regional policy issues. The CETS hosts Jean Monnet and Marie Cu- rie projects and provides advice to public institutions on economic and social development in the context of Euro-
pean integration. When CETS was founded 10 years ago, its mission was to support education and research in the area of European and transition studies and well as to be a forum for interdisciplinary education and research licked to developments in the European Union and associated countries.
Today, the Center is recognized internationally as an innovative institution in inter-disciplinary studies in the Baltic States. CETS represents a forum of debate for aca- demics, postgraduates and practitioners on current trends concerning European development as analyzed from the perspective of a new member state.
European Commission Jean Monnet program and the Marie Curie project give additional strength to the Center and to the European studies master’s program Further- more, the Center has regular Canadian interns within the framework of the cooperation with the Canadian universi- ties network for European Studies and European Union Canadian Study Tour and Internship program.
The European Studies master’s program, as was men- tioned above, provides an interdisciplinary approach to an all-round high-level understanding of the evolution of modern Europe and of the European Union. The principal constituent disciplines are economics, law and political science and public administration with components from history, international relations, regional science and other relevant disciplines. Particular stress is laid to the deepen- ing of integration process from the perspective of the new member states. Students from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, France, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, as well as from third countries such as Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and the U.S. have graduated from this European studies master’s degree program. Some of these students received support from the European Commission DG Education and Culture project «Master Courses in Euro- pean Integration Studies – Scholarships for ENP Countries and Russia», and from the Faculty of Economics and Man- agement.
To ensure a combination of theoretical knowledge
gained with practical applications related to the issues dis- cussed in classes about the functioning of the EU institu- tions a possibility is offered to students to participate in a practical seminar week in Brussels and Luxemburg. This practical seminar covers visits to EU key institutions and NATO in Brussels, and provides an opportunity to contri- bute to discussions on current topics with experts. Brief- ings at the Court of Justice of the European Communities, EUROSTAT and DG for Translation in Luxemburg are also included in the study visit.
European studies master’s program at the University of Latvia is an example of successful implementation of the multi- and inter-disciplinary dimension on the European mattes. More than 500 graduates of the program work in the EU, as well as in national public and private institu- tions. They serve as political economic and legal advisors and they work in diplomatic services, in the area of com- munication and international journalism.
5. Third level cycle in European studies
Many of the graduates continue their studies at the third cycle (doctoral) level to embark on a career in acade- mia. As was pointed out in European SAG documents4, a European studies doctorate is desirable because in general there is no PhD cycle in European studies and students have to study for doctorates in other subjects. The discus- sion should take place in academia at European level in general, and at the national level in particular, about the desirability of introducing European studies PhD pro- grams. However, there are many doctorates on topics with- in the field of European integration, drawing on more than one discipline. It is recommended by SAG to work on es-
4 Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programs in European Studies, in Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, edited by
J. Gonzales and R. Wagenaar, Bilbao, Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto, 2008, pp.43-44.
tablishing a joint program with two universities from dif- ferent countries. Another requirement asks doctorate stu- dents to have a first or second level degree in European studies.
Preliminary discussions to have a joint doctoral pro- gram in European studies, for example, have taken place between Kaunas University of Technology European Insti- tute and University of Latvia European studies masters program.
Recently a doctoral school, the European Integration and Baltic Sea Region Studies (EIBSRS), was launched at the University of Latvia to support young scholars during their research training5. Most doctoral students here get
«real» research experience by contributing to research projects implemented at the Center for European and Transition Studies. However, doctoral programs retain the responsibility for the academic admission of a PhD pro- posal, regular doctoral studies and preparation of the PhD thesis for its defense. The school carries out activities re- lated to the international dimension of the doctoral degree and helps enhance their value on the labor market, in socie- ty and in the researcher’s personal career. Research training at the school is associated with processes of deepening and widening of European integration. Special attention is giv- en to the integration of the Baltic States in the EU, as well as regional cooperation and development in the Baltic Sea area. Participation in the school activities helps to improve skills in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. The school cooperates with different research structures at the University of Latvia, other educational and research establishments in the country, partners from the EU and non-EU countries. This cooperation provides a solid plat- form for advanced studies that offer added value within and outside the discipline of a young researcher. Doctoral
as well as master’s students from different subject areas and study programs such as economics, law, politics, communi- cation, management, culture, geography, European studies and Baltic Sea Region studies are involved in the activities of the School. .
The doctoral school organizes guest lectures, semi- nars, regular discussions and Jean Monnet doctoral collo- quia, as a part of the European Commission project Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Latvia, and doctoral stu- dents’ working groups aimed at facilitating research-related activities. The School arranges information sessions, pro- motional events and interaction with industry, keeping ab- reast of the pulse of external stakeholders.
6. Tuning methodology as a platform for further development
The European studies program at the University of Latvia together with similar programs in Lithuania has been involved in the European studies subject area group (SAG) in the European Commission project: Tuning Edu-
cational Structures in Europe6 The project aims to offer
additional strength in expertise for successful teaching of European studies students at all three cycle levels, in line with the methodological approach of implementation of Bologna reforms. Since European studies program are usually organized according to the main subjects of the fa- culty departments in which the program is based, students should gain the core competences in any European studies program.
The common methodology developed by the Euro- pean Studies SAG in relation to subject specific compe- tences and the core competences is helping to establish an effective network among institutions providing European studies programs based on agreement on the core compe-
6 J. Gonzales and R. Wagenaar (eds.), Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Bilbao, Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto, 2005, pp.93-98.
tences. One of the advantages of being aware of the core competences would maximize students’ ability to move to another European university, approaching the subject area from a particular specialization they wish to pursue. They would be able to do this in confidence that a period spent abroad would both achieve full recognition towards the degree award from their home university and that this de- gree would also enable them to move to another country to study at a higher level. Successful mobility will positively influence the individual competitiveness of students and will impact on the competitiveness of the higher education at the national and EU levels.
The SAG came to the conclusion that European stu- dies graduates gain in employability, since they are able to work in many different tasks, agencies and productive structures. European studies’ graduates are by definition multi-disciplinary, mobile, flexible and highly competent human resources, adaptable to the new structures of em- ployment and economy in a constantly changing and chal- lenging international socio-economic context. In addition, their linguistic competencies strengthen their ability to work in a multicultural context.
The Baltic States have undergone ambitious reforms based on the European Higher Educational Area objec- tives. One of the new dimensions in higher education and research is related to the focus on multi- and inter- disciplinary programs. The Universities in the Baltic States have implemented European studies courses and programs that have common characteristics, but still reflect the na- tional socio-economic and legal environments.
Developments in the European political, economic and social environment imply a growing demand for know- ledge of EU matters. The establishment of European stu- dies programs at a university level is an obvious strategy for higher education institutions as this will give students an
opportunity to acquire a solid knowledge about Europe and the European Union. Implementation of European studies programs contributes to building a stimulating re- search environment and therefore developing third cycle level in European studies is highly recommended. The ana- lytical skills developed by graduate students and the specif- ic knowledge promoted by European studies is an asset in areas, where profound knowledge of contemporary Euro- pean Union matters is needed.
Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education 2003 Realising the European High Educational Area, Com-
Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences and the Associa- tion of European Universities (CRE)
1999 The Bologna Declaration, June 19. (http://ec.europa.eu
/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf - last visited on May 27, 2011).
Dovladbekova, I., Muravska, T. and Paas, T.
2005 Higher Education in the Baltic States, Temas De Integracao, G.C. – Grafica de Coimbra, LDA, Portugal.
2006 Changes and Challenges in Higher Education as the Pre- condition for Sustainable and Competitive Development in the Baltic States in The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, edited by S. and E. Talmor, Journal of ISSEI,UK
2003 2010. The Success of the Lisbon Strategy Hinges on Ur- gent Reform, Education and Training, Brussels, COM(2003) 685 final, November 11.
2003 The Role of the Universities in Europe of Knowledge,
COM(2003) 58 final, February 5.
2003 Researchers in the European Research Area: one profes- sion, multiple careers COM(2003) 436, July 18.
Hansen, D. and Muravska, T.
2003 European Studies Master Programs Development in the Baltics, in edited book Congress of European Studies Centers in the Baltic Sea Region, Riga, EuroFaculty.
2005 European Studies Development in Latvia: Before and After the Accession, Kaunas, Lithuania, Technical Uni- versity, European Institute.
2005 Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programs in European Studies, in Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, edited by J. Gonzales and R. Wa- genaar, Bilbao, Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto.
ARNOUT JUSTAERT, EDITH DRIESKENS, KAROLINE VAN DEN BRANDE AND TOM DELREUX
THE GOVERNANCE TURNS IN EU STUDIES IN BELGIUM
In line with the purpose of the volume, this chapter analyses the focus of Belgian scholars to what constitutes the object of European integration studies. Because of the federal structure of the Belgian state, Belgian scholars seem to have had an almost natural interest in multilevel gover- nance research. In the very beginning most scholars fo- cused on domestic multilevel governance within the Bel- gian state. However, since the early 1990s, a growing group has been applying those insights to the study of the EU. Moreover, in the past ten years, scholars have broadened their focus to include the global level.
Setting the scene, the second part of this chapter looks into the Belgian state structure, which is federal in nature. Building upon the academic literature on governance, the third part suggests that two governance dimensions have been dominating EU studies in Belgium: multilevel and global governance. Supporting the conclusions on the mul- tilevel and global governance turns in Belgian EU studies, the fourth part provides empirical data of the research conducted at Belgian universities in the past two decades.
The chapter builds upon data that was gathered by the authors within the framework of the European Net- work of Excellence CONNEX (Connecting Excellence on European Governance) [Kerremans et al. 2006]. Addition- al empirical research was done as to evaluate the more re- cent research activities of Belgian EU scholars.
1. Belgium in the EU
1.1. Pro-European consensus
Belgium is traditionally seen as one of the most «pro- EU» member states, to such degree that it has been identified as «the best student in the European class» [Delreux 2006, 326], being even «more European than the European Union itself» [Beyers and Kerremans 2001, 126]. That European orthodoxy can be explained by practical factors like the omnipresence of European and international institutions in Brussels, but also by economic and political factors. Belgium’s open, export-oriented economy and its federal state structure have made it a front-runner in the process of European integration. Being a founding member state, it also played an important role in the establishment of the European construction. In fact, Belgian politicians, such as Paul-Henri Spaak, Leo Tindemans, Etienne Davignon, Jean-Luc Dehaene and Guy Verhofstadt all played key roles at crucial moments of the European history, trying to deepen integration.
All Belgian political parties tend to prefer a more supranational, even federal EU, including a more clear-cut division of competences between the EU and the member states, as well as an enforcement of the communitarian elements. Advocating those principles, Belgium played, and still plays, a front-runner role, including during the negotiations leading to the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty [Bursens 2005; Delreux 2006]. Those pro- European preferences are shared among all Belgian political parties, except for the Flemish extreme-right party Vlaams Belang, which did never assume government responsibility and is not likely to do so in the near future. Even if the large political families (christian-democrats, liberals, social-democrats and greens) may have different rationales for their «pro-Europeanness» [Beyers and Kerremans 2001] and the new big Flemish nationalist party (N-VA) prefers to present itself as Euro-realist rather than pro-European, they agree that a strong EU is in the
country’s interest. The absence of hard eurosceptic political parties supports that image [Kopecky and Mudde 2002]. The political pro-European consensus also manifests itself by the lack of parliamentary debate on European issues, including when it comes to high politics issues like treaty amendments.
Importantly, the pro-European consensus can also be found in the public opinion. Whereas there is no general mobilisation around EU issues, the public opinion in Belgium is one of the most pro-European ones [Beyers and Bursens 2006a]. Even if some signs of erosion can be detected, the «permissive consensus» [Beyers 1998] is still robust. That positive attitude may be explained by the Belgian state structure [Delmartino and Pattyn 2007]. Indeed, being multilevel polities, Belgium and the EU share a number of characteristics [Swenden 2005], making the EU structure look rather familiar. That brings us to the second characteristic of EU politics in Belgium: the Belgian federal state structure.
1.2. Cooperative federalism
In 1993, Belgium became a federal state divided in Regions (the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region) and Communities (the Flemish Community, the French-speaking Community, German- speaking Community). Following the in foro interno, in foro externo principle, the Belgian subnational entities have become active players on the European scene. Following that principle, they can develop their own external relations for those policy issues for which they are domestically responsible. That not only has an impact on the implementation of European legislation and on the ratification of constitutional and accession treaties, but also on the representation of Belgium in the Council of Ministers.
The Belgian state structure and its representation in the Council of Ministers in practice take the form of
«cooperative federalism» [Swenden 2006]: unlike in many domestic political processes, the European integration process «forces» the various governments to cooperate [Beyers and Bursens 2006b]. The 1994 Cooperation Agreement governs the representation of Belgium in the Council of Ministers. Following this Agreement and based on principles like coordination and consensus, no single government (federal or subnational) dominates in Belgium. The different entities have to reach consensus on the Belgian position for the Council of Ministers and coordinate that position within the Directorate-General for European affairs (DGE) of the Foreign Affairs Ministry [Kerremans 2000]. Only when consensus is reached internally, a position can be expressed in the Council. Importantly, following internal agreement, Belgium can also be represented in the Council by ministers of the subnational entities, who can express the Belgian position in the Council. Importantly, whosoever occupies the Belgian seat in the Council and expresses the Belgian position, he/she represents a single position. In fact, the outcome binds the entire country, because the Council of Ministers comprises member states. For the same reason, it is Belgium (and not the Regions or the Communities) that is legally liable for violation of the acquis communautaire.
The Belgian representation in the Council is organised on the basis of the internal division of competences [Beyers et al. 2004]. When competences are shared between the federal and the subnational level (such as the environmental, industrial and education policy), a six- monthly rotation system is followed for the representation by the subnational entities. Moreover, subnational ministers can also chair the meetings of the Council of Ministers when Belgium is holding the EU Presidency. By contrast, for issue areas covering exclusive federal competences, the federal government represents Belgium. That is the case for the ECOFIN, the Justice and Home Affairs, the External Relations and General Affairs Council configurations.
Subnational ministers cannot represent the Belgian
state in the European Council or at intergovernmental conferences (IGCs). The federal government predominates in those settings. Yet, there is a clear impact possible for the subnational entities, for example because they have to ratify treaty amendments. Whereas the above-mentioned Cooperation Agreement does not explicitly refer to IGCs (or the European Convention), it does inspire the internal Belgian cooperation at IGCs [Beyers and Bursens 2006b]: the subnational entities participate in the Belgian delegation when subnational competences are discussed or subnational interests are at stake.
Unsurprisingly, the Belgian subnational entities have been trying to enhance their domestic status at the level of the EU on various occasions [Kerremans and Drieskens 2002; Kerremans and Drieskens 2003]. For instance, the 2001 Belgian Presidency was the first one in which subnational entities played an active role on behalf of a member state. In addition, the stint provided a unique opportunity to put the role of constitutional regions on the European agenda. Also during the 2010 Belgian Presidency, those entities played a prominent role. In fact, their involvement was one of the reasons explaining the fact that Belgium assumed the Presidency with a caretaker federal government for the complete duration of its term did not prohibit success [Drieskens et al. 2011; Drieskens 2012].
2. EU studies in Belgium
2.1. Governance turns
A stock-taking exercise of research reveals that Belgian scholars are studying the EU as a multilevel system of governance in a global world. Introducing their volume on European Multi-Level Governance, Kohler-Koch and Larat write that the governance concept is well established in political science in Germany and the UK, where it originated, and that it has been incorporated in the «north-
western belt», which is characterized by a strong social science tradition [Kohler-Koch and Larat 2009, xxv].
We found that also in Belgium the study of the EU has followed the «governance turn» [Kerremans et al. 2006]. Since the mid-1980s, scholars no longer take the European polity as their «dependent variable», but accept it as a given, looking into its impact on national and European politics and policies [Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006; Diez and Wiener 2010]. They no longer look into «integration», but focus on «the ways and means of governing the EU» and on «the interdependence of EU and national systems of governance» [Kohler-Koch and Larat 2009, xxiii]. In particular, we found that the
«multilevel governance» perspective has been the dominant angle for studying the EU in the last two decades, stressing that policy-making and policy- implementation are multilevel activities, involving not only national governments, but also subnational ones. In their contribution to the volume by Kohler-Koch and Larat, Edler-Wollstein and Falkner explain that focus by referring to issues that are «closely related to internal affairs», in the Belgian case its federal structure [Edler-Wollstein and Falkner 2009, 118]. Yet they are also concerned that EU governance research in smaller countries like Belgium is
«absorbed» by the international research agenda.
We found that the agenda of Belgian EU scholars has broadened, but that those changes can mainly be explained by external factors. Indeed, in the past five years, the group of scholars focusing on the EU as an international actor in global governance, especially in multilateral settings, has steadily expanded, complementing the multilevel governance focus with a «global governance» one. That turn does not only reflect the conviction that the EU is crucial for Belgium having an impact on global politics, but also the EU’s growing external competences and relations. Indeed, without saying that the EU is (perceived as) a full-fledged actor on the international stage, its role in foreign, security, defence and external economic policy has grown over time, reinforced by treaty amendments and external developments.
In consequence, the evolution of academic thinking about the EU in Belgium can – at least to a large extent – be explained by «pull factors» [Wessel 2006, 236-237] or
«external drivers» [Rosamond 2007a, 23 ]. Such reading emphasizes external elements and explains the change in focus by referring to developments in European integration and governance, like the enlargement process. The field of EU studies is pulled into a particular direction by changes in the EU system. By contrast, a reading explaining the evolution of EU studies by internal elements stresses the impact of disciplinary factors, i.e. of concepts, methods and epistemologies in political sciences, social sciences and EU studies (so-called «push factors» or «internal drivers»).
As discussed below, the pull factors or external drivers defining EU studies in Belgium are the intersection of the EU «with the member state system» and «with the international system» respectively [Rosamond 2007b, 238]. Explaining the initial focus on multilevel governance, the first intersection refers to the domestic adaptation to EU inputs, to member state involvement in EU politics, and to the domestic politics of European integration. Explaining the recent global governance turn, the second intersection points to the importance of ramifications of EU external action and to the influence of global factors upon the conduct of European integration and politics.
2.2. Multilevel and global governance
Reflecting Belgium’s multilevel nature, research has not only focused on the involvement of Belgium within the multilevel setting of the EU, but also on the specific role of the Belgian subnational entities. Taking a predominantly institutional focus, scholars looked into their representation and participation at multiple levels, reaching the conclusion that they enjoy the status of «second-level players» [Kerremans and Beyers 1997], enjoying member state priviliges, especially in terms of direct access to the Council of Ministers. Scholars enriched the conceptual
debate on multilevel governance with insights from comparative federalism. Their work has been influenced by federalism research and literature, with scholars comparing the Belgian case with other federal(ized) member states. More recently, those insights also proved a useful starting point for studying the constitutionalisation process of the EU. Also, throughout the 1990s Belgium’s poor implementation of European legislation, especially as regards the transposition of directives, has been explained through a multilevel perspective, which showed the role of the subnational entities.
Towards the turn of the century, the governance dimension became more important for Belgian scholars, as they moved from a mainly «vertical» definition of multilevel governance, emphasizing the multilevel component, towards a more «horizontal» one, stressing the governance dimension. While initially concentrating on the increased interdependence of governments operating at different territorial levels, they started to look into the growing interdependence between governmental and non- governmental actors at those levels. In addition, the low popular identification with the EU integration process put the question of «legitimacy» more prominently on their agendas.
Many of the Belgian scholars who have been exploring the EU in international relations have been looking into the institutional aspects of those relations, focussing on questions of representation and coordination. Small wonder then that the impact of the Lisbon Treaty has become a popular topic. Their intrest cannot only be explained by the modifications introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, but also by the facilitating role that the Belgian Presidency played, ensuring full implementation by the end of the term. Other scholars have concentrated on specific policy areas, such as trade policy or external environmental and climate change policies. Those areas have taken a very prominent and visible place on the international agenda. Scholars have also evaluated the EU’s performance in various negotiations, exploring its effectiveness in and
impact on various formal and informal settings, including the WTO, the UN and the G20. Importantly, whereas the initial focus was on the EU – with scholars defining the EU as a «structural power» [Keukeleire 1998; Keukeleire and MacNaughton 2008; Telò 2005] and a «positive power» [Biscop 2006], awareness has been growing that the EU is also a «structured power», i.e. a power structured by the external context in which it(s) (representatives) operate(s) [Drieskens 2009; Delreux et al. 2011]. Finally, the EU’s relation with Russia remains an important research focus,
,but EU scholars in Belgium also have jumped onto the (even more) eastern train, looking into the EU’s relations with the Asian continent, and with China in particular. Witin that context, scholars have also looked into the BRIC (Brasil, Russia, India and China) reality and what the (re)emergence of those powers means for the EU’s foreign policy.
3. Mapping and quality assessment
3.1. The research context
Because research and education are strongly intertwined, most research in Belgium on European integration and European policies is university-based [Kerremans et al. 2006]. EU studies are conducted at the Dutch-speaking universities of Antwerp (Universiteit Antwerpen, UA), Brussels (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB), Ghent (Universiteit Gent, UGent) and Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, K.U.Leuven) and at the French-speaking universities of Brussels (Université libre de Bruxelles, ULB, and the Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis à Bruxelles, FUSL), Liège (Université de Liège, ULg), Louvain-La-Neuve (Université catholique de Louvain, UCL), and Namur (Facultés universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, FUNDP). In addition, the United Nations University in Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS), the Royal Institute for International Relations (EGMONT)
and the College of Europe in Bruges provide a significant contribution to Belgian EU studies, especially with regard to studies on the EU in global governance.
Like in most EU member states, EU research in Belgium has been supported by the Jean Monnet Lifelong Learning (LLL) Action. Several Belgian universities host a Jean Monnet Center of Excellence, a Jean Monnet Chair or participate in a Jean Monnet Research Network, dealing with the multilevel governance nature of the EU or with the EU’s external activities in global governance. At the Institute for International and European Policy and the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies of the K.U.Leuven, for instance, the Jean Monnet program of the European Commission supports research that concentrates on the EU, foreign policy and global governance. That research is conducted within the framework of an interdisciplinary Center of Excellence, a multinational Research Network and various Chairs. Other Jean Monnet Centers of Excellence were recognised at the Institute for European Studies (UCL), the Institut d’études européennes (ULB), the Europacentrum Jean Monnet (UA), the UGent Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence (UG) and the Institute for European Studies (VUB). Those Belgian universities also hold several (ad personam) chairs in European integration studies, in foreign policy or in teaching methods. Moreover, the Bruges/Natolin-based College of Europe is supported by the Jean Monnet Action because of its «specific contribution» to the EU integration process through education and training. At the College of Europe, eleven Jean Monnet Chairs have been assigned, of which five in European law, three in European political integration, two in European history and one in European economics.
Most scholars aim to valorise their research activities to the largest extent possible by publishing their findings in internationally refereed journals, often after having them first discussed at international conferences and workshops. Examples of more general journals are the «Journal of Common Market Studies», the «Journal of European
Public Policy», the «Journal of European Integration» and
«Regional and Federal Studies». Furthermore, researchers have published in journals that are law-oriented (e.g. «Eu- ropean Journal of Law Reform»); environment-oriented (e.g. «Environmental Policy and Governance»); security- oriented (e.g. «European Security») or have a geographic area focus (e.g. «Journal of Southern Europe and the Bal- kans»). Belgian researchers also regularly contribute to international edited volumes.
At the same time, they publish their preliminary findings in national language (refereed) journals, such as Res Publica (the Flemish-Dutch Journal of Political Science), or in their university’s proper (working paper) series. Especially for researchers focussing on Belgian aspects of multilevel governance, those are relatively fast and attainable publication venues. Whereas those Belgian journals welcome contributions on EU policy- and decision-making, their main focus is Belgian politics. Studia Diplomatica being an exeption, the Belgian publication venues for EU research are in fact rather limited.
The publication language of particularly the younger generation of Belgian EU researchers, and especially the Flemish ones, is English [Keading 2005]. Although that language has also be winning ground in the French Community, a balance has been kept there between native (French) and foreign (English) language publications. For the French-speaking researchers, Annuaire français des relations internationales remains the most important Francophone journal on the EU, its foreign policy, and international relations in general.
In Belgium, EU information resources are closely linked to the teaching and education structure. Most of the institutions mentioned above host library collections that are based on investments in reference works on EU institutions and policies, especially in function of the topics researched at the institution. Practically speaking, Belgian researchers have the advantage of conducting their research within a stone’s throw of the Brussels-based European institutions. That not only simplifies the
organisation of interviews with EU officials, but also the extensive library collections of those institutions, including databases, which are literally within reach.
The information for the research mapping in this fourth section is based on empircal research conducted in the framework of the CONNEX report (cf. supra) and an analysis of the information on research activities currently provided by the different university websites. As most of the institutions make the academic bibliography of their researchers (including the research topic and publications) available through the internet, it has become relatively easy to get an idea of the research being conducted. The second part of the section briefly discusses the research that has been conducted on EU studies in Belgium, following the turns and focuses unfolded in the previous section.
3.2. Multilevel governance in Belgian EU Studies
EU scholars in Belgium have applied multilevel governance insights to the study of the EU since the mid- 1990s, focusing not only on institutions and policies, but also on interdependency, participatory governance, and more normative questions.
Within this first focus, researchers deal with the institutional architecture of the multilevel setting of the EU. They pay attention to the representation and participation of subnational entities in EU policy- and decision-making, and especially to the involvement of those entities in the determination of the Belgian position for the Council of Ministers. An important research focus is the practice of coordination, especially the domestic coordination mechanisms in policy domains like environment, agriculture and social policy. In particular, subnational involvement in EU policy-making on
environmental issues became a popular case to study, attracting attention from political scientists at the universities of Antwerp (UA), Ghent (UG) and Leuven (K.U.Leuven). Research started with rather descriptive work on the formal characteristics of subnational involvement and evolved into analytical research paying attention to the differences in the involvement of Belgian subnational entities in EU decision-making across different policy sectors. In later years, research also looked at the Belgian case from a broader perspective by comparing it with the experiences of other federal(ized) EU member states, drawing on the examples of Germany, and, to a lesser extent, Austria and Spain. Also, researchers examined Belgium as a level within the EU, concentrating on the Belgian civil servants in the EU and on the Belgian Presidencies of 2001 and 2010 (cf supra).
We already indicated that Belgium is everything but at the top of the class when it comes to the implementation of EU legislation into national law [Bursens and Helsen 2005]. According to Bursens and Helsen, not only a low degree of Europeanization of the Belgian political actors, but particularly the complex political and administrative structure of the Belgian state explains the implementation deficit. Indeed, the Belgian government has often been condemned because the Regions and Communities did not implement EU legislation properly. As a result, during the 1990s, the focus on the involvement of Belgian subnational governments in (Belgian) EU policy-making has been extended to include multilevel governance ramifications for Belgium’s implementation record, and research on Europeanisation and its consequences for the subnational entities. Research on the topic also developed from a mere observation and description of the problem to theory- driven analysis from a comparative perspective.
In addition, the research has been characterized by a
marked policy-oriented approach. Both the research carried out on the involvement of the Belgian subnational entities in EU decision-making and the research on the Belgian transposition deficit are usually part of large research projects funded by the federal or subnational governments. The Flemish government, for example, provides 5-yearly funds for research carried out by consortiums of Flemish universities, working on topics such as Flemish foreign policy, environment and sustainable development. Those centres show that research funding by the government has been an important incentive to provide a bridge between fundamental and policy-oriented research.
It is worth stating that the Belgian implementation deficit aroused interest in both Flanders and Wallonia. That clearly differs from the research on the role of the subnational entities in Belgian EU policy-making mentioned above, which is more prominent in Flanders. Equally important is the fact that on the implementation question, research cooperation between legal scholars and political scientists has been quite intensive. That is also the case for research on the involvement of the Belgian Communities and Regions in Belgian EU policy-making in general. Indeed, the challenge of determining a European policy in a multilevel setting and the capacity of the Belgian intergovernmental system to play a role in the EU raised questions about both legal competence and the political costs of not reaching an agreement.
3.2.3. Interdependency and participatory governance
Towards the turn of the century, scholars also started to focus on the horizontal dimension of multilevel governance, looking no longer only into the increased interdependence of governments operating at different territorial levels, but also into the growing interdependence between governmental and non-governmental actors at those levels. An important focus became the involvement
of civil society in European governance, including the question how public and private actors try to impact upon policy-making in the EU as a multilevel governance system [Beyers 2000]. The decreasing trust in the European institutions, the declining attendance of the European elections, the difficult ratification procedures of the Maastricht and Nice Treaties and a rising amount of protest generated by EU policies and politics, also put the legitimacy problem on the Belgian research agenda [De Jonge and Bursens 2003]. Likewise, the Convention for the Future of Europe and the subsequent Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe not only resulted in various Belgian politicians taking an active role, but also in a lively academic debate on the questions of participation and legitimacy. That being said, when seeing subnational involvement as a means for enhancing the democratic character of European governance, one could also argue that the topic has been on the Belgian research agenda since the beginning of the 1990s.
3.2.4. Normative dimensions
A final focus within the first wave of multilevel gover- nance is the normative dimension in contemporary aca- demic research on the EU. Even if EU policy-making has been evolving down-wards, integrating subnational entities and citizen’s initiatives in its policy process, citizens have become more critical towards the European project. De- bates on the political finality of the European project, its legitimacy, and the European identity have not only be- come more public, but also more stringent – as crystallized by the discussions surrounding the Constitutional Treaty and the subsequent referenda. Research concentrated on the existence (or absence) of a European identity and the political finality of the European project. The «European public space» has been the object of numerous research projects, focusing on specific policy domains or on shared values, beliefs and norms.
3.3. Global governance in Belgian EU studies
Since the beginning of the 21st century the governance focus in Belgian EU studies has been expanding, with the second wave of research shifting the attention upwards, i.e. towards the EU in global governance.
Many studies on the EU in global governance focus on the institutional dimension or architecture of the EU as a player in global governance. Belgian scholars have con- centrated on coordination, preference formation, policy networks and the way in which the EU is externally represented in international institutions and global gover- nance, including in the WTO and UN contexts. With the EU having developed its own security and defense policy, researchers have been analyzing the EU in international security organizations like NATO or the OSCE. Doing conceptual research on policy networks and core groups, they also looked into the involvement and contributions of EU member states to (military or civilian) coalitions.
When levels of governance become more interdepen- dent and interconnected, also policies become increasingly intertwined. A consequence is then the exteriorization of traditional «internal» policies. Scholars have been explor- ing policy areas such as EU migration policy, EU trade policy, EU security and defense policy, EU development policy (focusing on Africa, human rights and gender), EU neighborhood policy (towards both Central- and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean) and EU international envi- ronmental policy. They also looked into the horizontal policy integration of environment and climate issues in the other EU policy areas.
What characterizes those policy studies is their focus on the interconnectedness of policies and specific policy instruments at the European level. For that reason, they are not only closely related to the previous focus, but also to the following one, which clusters studies conceptualizing the EU as an actor or power in international relations.
3.3.3. The EU in global governance
Partially overlapping with the previous two research foci, the role and impact of the EU in global governance is also examined by Belgian scholars of EU affairs. Those scholars have been looking into various international nego- tiations, agreements, regimes and policies. Conceptualizing the EU as a normative, civilian, economic, positive, struc- tural and structured power, many of them have contributed to the academic debate.
Examples of research topics are the role of the EU in global climate negotiations and the EU as a promoter of democracy in the world. The EU’s role in international financial and economic institutions has also gained signifi- cant attention. Unsurprisingly, the weight and the possible impact of the EU in the G7/G8 and the G20 has also be- come a more prominent research focus.
3.3.4. Area focus: EU-Asia relations
Finally, Belgian studies are increasingly concerned with the relations between the EU and Asia, with China in particular. Not only economically but also politically, Chi- na constitutes a (relatively new) power centre in world poli- tics, which is reflected in contemporary Belgian research on the EU in global governance. The EU-Asia and EU-China relations are investigated in both general and specific terms. In general research projects, the focus lays on the EU and China in global governance, the relations between them and the place of the EU in a world order where China
takes a more prominent place, including as part of the BRIC format. More specific topics include the EU and China in environmental politics and global climate gover- nance, the question of cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan, the human rights issue in China, and the Chi- nese development and trade politics in Africa and its rela- tions with and impact on the EU’s policies therein.
A remarkable increased cooperation between Belgian universities and Asian – especially Chinese – universities, can be noticed in that regard, leading to common research projects, such as the EU and China in the Congo, or the EU, China and Vietnam in global climate politics. In addi- tion, two Belgian universities (K.U.Leuven and UCL) as well as the College of Europe hold an EU-China Chair, supported by the company Inbev. The latter also supports research on the EU’s relations with Russia, sponsoring the Chair Inbev-Baillet Latour Europe and Russia, which is jointly hold by K.U.Leuven and UCL.
This chapter looked into the perspectives that Belgian scholars have used for studying the EU and its integration process, concluding that EU studies have followed the go- vernance turn happening in Belgium. Reflecting Belgium's federal state structure, most scholars have researched the EU as a multilevel system of governance. More recently, scholars looked into the global context in which the EU acts, adding thus an extra layer of analysis to their work. Their research agenda has not only widened, but also dee- pened, and research is now conducted in a more systematic and analytical way. Theoretical approaches, concepts and insights are part of mainstream EU research. With various scholars taking prominent places in the academic debates on multilevel and global governance, the evolution of the current state of the art of Belgian research into the EU is not only positive, but also promising.
1998 Permissieve consensus, maatschappelijk debat en het draagvlak van de Europese Unie bij Belgische maatschappelijke organisaties, in Res Publica Vol. 6 n. 2, pp. 329-348.
2000 Het maatschappelijk draagvlak van het Europees beleid en het eidne van de permissieve consensus. Een empirisch onderzoek over politiek handelen in een meerlaging politiek bestel, Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Beyers, J. and Bursens, P.
2006a Europa is geen buitenland. Over de relatie tussen het federale België en de European Unie, Leuven, Acco.
2006b The European Rescue of the Federal State: How Europeanisation Shapes the Belgian State, in «West European Politics» Vol. 29, n. 5, pp. 1057-1078.
Beyers, J., Delreux, T. and Steensels, C.
2004 The Europeanisation of Intergovernmental Cooperation and Conflict Resolution In Belgium: The Case of Agriculture, in «Perspectives on European Politics and Society» Vol. 5, n. 1, pp. 103-134.
Beyers, J. and Kerremans, B.
2001 Diverging images of consensus: Belgium and its views on European integration, in Nationality versus Europeanisation. The National view of the nation in four EU countries, edited by K. Goldmann and K. Gilland, Stockholm, Stockholm University – Deparment of Political Science, pp. 126-159.
2005 The European security strategy: a global agenda for a positive power, Aldershot, Ashgate.
2005 Het Europese beleid in de Belgische federatie. Standpuntbepaling en vertegenwoordiging van de Belgische belangen, in Res Publica Vol. 47 n. 1, pp. 58-79.
Bursens, P. and Helsen, S.
2005 Waarom België maar een middelmatige Europese leerling is, Burger, Bestuur & Beleid: Tijdschrift voor
Bestuurskunde en Bestuursrecht, Vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 114-
De Jonge, K. and Bursens, P.
2003 The Quest for more Legitimacy in the European Union as a Multi-Level Political System: A Conceptual Framework, paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Edinburgh, March 28 – April 2, 2003.
Delmartino, F. and Pattyn, V.
2007 Federal-type arrangements in the European Union: a quest for a new paradigm, in «Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai» Vol. 7 n. 2, pp. 167-192.
2006Nog steeds de beste leerling van de klas? België en het Europees constitutionaliseringsproces, in «Internationale Spectator» Vol. 60, n. 6, pp. 326-331.
Delreux, T., Drieskens, E., Kerremans, B. and Damro, C. 2011 The external institutional context matters: a principal-
agent explanation of EU respresentation, in The Influ- ence of International Institutions on the European Un- ion, edited by O. Costa and K. E. Jørgensen, Hound- mills, Palgrave.
Diez, T. and Wiener, A. (eds.)
2010 European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2009 Non-permanent Members Searching for an EU Perspective at the UN Security Council, in Belgium in the UN Security Council: Reflections on the 2007-2008 Membership, edited by J. Wouters et al., Antwerp, Intersentia, pp. 175-185.
Drieskens, E. et al.
2010 The 2010 Belgian Presidency: Driving in the EU’s Back Seat, Stockholm, SIEPS.
2011 Ceci n’est pas une Présidence: the 2010 Belgian Presiden- cy of the EU, in «Journal of Common Market Studies», forthcoming.
Edler-Wollenstein, S. and Falkner, G.
2009 Small Countries with Vivid Social Science Traditions: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, in European Multi-Level Governance. Contrasting Images in National Research, edited by B.
Kohler-Koch and F. Larat, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 107-120.
2005 Dutch and Flemish Political Science and the Study of the European Union, in «Journal of European Public Policy» Vol. 12, n. 4, pp. 751-761.
2000 Determing a European policy in a multi-level setting: the case of specialized co-ordination in Belgium, in «Regional & Federal Studies» Vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 36-61.
Kerremans, B. and Beyers J.
1997 The Belgian Sub-National Entities in the European Union: ‘Second’ or ‘Third Level’ Players, in The Regional Dimension of the European Union, edited by Jeffrey, London, Frank Cass, pp. 41-55.
Kerremans B. and Drieskens, E.
2002 The Belgian Presidencies of 2001, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 40, n. 3, pp. 49-51.
2003 The Belgian Presidency of 2001: Cautious Leadership as Trademark, in European Union Council Presidencies. A Comparative Analysis, edited by O. Elgström, London, Routledge, pp. 155-172.
Kerremans, B., Drieskens, E., Van den Brande, K. and Delreux, T.
2006 Research on EU multi-level governance in Belgium: A state of research, Mannheim, available at: http://www.connex- network.org/govdata/reports/Report-Belgium.pdf.
1998 Het Buitenlands Beleid van de Europese Unie, Kluwer, Deventer.
Keukeleire, S. and MacNaughtan, J.
2008 The Foreign Policy of the European Union, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Larat, F.
2009 Introduction: Research on EU Multi-Level Governance, in European Multi-Level Governance. Contrasting Images in National Research, edited by B. Kohler-Koch and F. Larat, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. xix-xxvii.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Rittberger, B.
2006 The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 44, pp. 27-49.
Kopecky, P. and Mudde, C.
2002 The Two Sides of Euroscepticism: Party Positions on European Integration in East Central Europe, in
«European Union Politics» Vol. 3, n. 3, pp. 297-326.
2007a The Political Sciences of European Integration; Disciplinary History and EU Studies, in Handbook of European Union Politics, edited by K.E. Jorgensen, et al., London, SAGE, pp. 7-30.
2007b European Integration and the social sciences of EU studies: the disciplinary politics of a subfield, in
«International Affairs» Vol. 83, n. 2, pp. 231-252.
2005 What – if anything – can the European Union learn from Belgian federalism and vice versa?, in «Regional and Federal Studies» Vol. 15, n. 2, pp. 187-204.
2006 Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe. A Comparative and Thematic Analysis, Hampshire and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
2005 A Civilian Power? European Union, Global Governance, World Order, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
2006 Cleavages, controversies and convergence in European Union studies, in European Union Studies, edited by M. Cini and A.K. Bourne, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233-246.
The first part of the present text briefly outlines the Bulgarian political science literature in the area of Euro- pean integration. The second part outlines Bulgarian histo- ry in the context of European integration. Bulgaria estab- lished diplomatic relations with the EU after the fall of the communist regime in 1989. After a long period of asso- ciated membership it became a full member in 2007. The third part outlines the academic traditions with respect to European topics in Bulgaria.
Section four makes a qualitative assessment of the Bulgarian literature using a conceptual tool that distin- guishes empirical from normative contributions, on the one hand, and between macro, meso and micro levels, on the other. A different source of qualitative assessment emerges in section five. Major inputs to political science literature on European integration are examined in the context of the impact on EU policy at the national level. Section six fo- cuses on a temporal dimension. The literature is analyzed through three periods: the first, from the Maastricht Treaty to 1999, when Bulgaria signed EUROPE agreement estab- lishing an association between Bulgaria and European Communities by 1993; the second, when Bulgaria started accession negotiations, and the third period, after Bulgaria became a full member state.
Finally, section seven provides a comparative assess- ment, trying to capture whether Bulgarian political sciences literature in European integration goes hand in hand with the literature abroad.
1. Overview of Bulgarian-EU relations and of EU studies
Bulgaria establishes diplomatic relations with the EU in 1990. Initially, the efforts were directed toward signing an association agreement. As a result, publications about European Union and its functioning started to be trans- lated into Bulgarian. This trend continues to this day. For the entire period from 1999 until today, literature in Bulga- rian from Bulgarian authors does not exceed more than 100 titles. However, the selected texts are the most signifi- cant and popular ones and they are the most used in prac- tice, in teaching university disciplines related to European integration. In this sense one of the aims of this chapter is to represent not only the main directions of the texts, but also the possibilities for developing this literature in view of the country’s joining of the EU.
In the beginning, the editions focused on two types of approaches: on the one hand, general information about the history of European integration, the EU institutions, the common market, the freedoms of movement and the common policies, and, on the other hand, the legal system of the Union. In this sense the beginning is inaugurated by Dzhagarov , Marinov , and Bakardzhieva  who tried to introduce an overview on the proble- matique. For the scientific circles the EU still appears as something too distant and incomprehensible as far as its structure, institutions and procedures for decision-making are concerned. In the following years texts appeared which introduced a detailed review of supranational institutions, the common policies and the community law. After the signing of the European Association Agreement and its enactment in 1995, students needed to be taught about the various domains of integration processes. The books by Borisov [1996, 1999], Borisovand Lekov , Dimitrova
, Ivanova , Karaivanova , Panushev and Genov  analyzed the institutional development of the EU through the established institutional dialogue be- tween Bulgarian and European institutions. At the same time, the internal debates and the Union’s development
presented an interest related not only with its enlargement, but also with the its place and role in the 21st century.
Nachev  systematically presented the relations between Bulgaria and the EU. He identified the main polit- ical problems Bulgaria had to resolve before beginning membership negotiations. The relations between the two actors and their consequences in the domains of politics, economics, human rights protection, the condition of dif- ferent types of minorities in the country, and the necessity of constitutional change were all analyzed.
After the accession negotiations began in 2000, La- breva and Dobichina  paid special attention to the political parties’ agenda in the process of European integra- tion. The process of identification of main political subjects with western parties and party families had finished, which gradually imposed the notion that political parties’ activi- ties should be conformed not only with the agenda of the society, but also with that of the various party families. These notions affect the working of European institutions and, more especially, of the European Parliament, as well as that of the Bulgarian Parliament and of the various polit- ical forces represented in it.
Popova  focused on the EU law as a basis for the functioning of institutions in common policies. The memory of Bulgaria’s participation in the so-called «com- munist camp» under the dictate of the Soviet Union (USSR) makes a strong case for explaining the distinction between imposing EU rules and Soviet Union rules respec- tively, on Bulgaria.
Dinkov  and Nedelchev  proposed a new approach directed at the necessity for institutional change in Bulgaria and at developing political institutions in the country in the context of conducting negotiations, prepar- ing for full membership and functioning after the country’s accession in the EU.
Todorov  and Zacharieva  made an at- tempt to systematize a number of texts directed at the po- litical debates after the Treaty of Nice and the possible agreement for a European Constitution. The texts pre-
sented in their volumes are the result of discussions con- ducted in different universities throughout the country on the future of the EU.
After the conclusion of Bulgaria’s accession negotia- tions in 2004, Simeonov  presented research on the price Bulgaria would pay as a full member and the benefits of this membership in the context of the four freedoms. Baykov  asked the question of national identity in the condition of transition and its future in an ever more multi-faceted Union, and Nachev  researched Bulga- rian political elites through the lens of Europeanization and globalization.
After Bulgaria’s accession to the EU a new set of lite- rature developed, including that of Zacharieva and Nikolov  that discussed the necessity of constitutional and institutional change. Their aim was to better the work of political institutions and the development of debates and processes for a new EU Agreement.
It is just in the following years that texts appeared which were oriented towards different kinds of policies. However, they did not encompass all common European policies, or all the new sector policies of the Union. Much of the texts were concerned with the main issues to be solved by Bulgaria in the first years of accession. For ex- ample, Mateeva  dealt with the recourse manage- ment of EU funds and programs. Georgieva and Simeonov  looked at the rapid integration and the issues that the country could bump into. Hadzhinikolov  ana- lyzed the place of Bulgaria in the market inside and outside the Union in the country’s process of transformation into a global market actor. Nikolov  analyzed the possibili- ty of furthering the economic and political role of Bulgaria at the external border of the Union and the country’s place in the Black Sea cooperation.
Borisov, Hubenova and Kostova  put an em- phasis on the freedom of movement in the EU and the op- portunities for the Bulgarian citizens in the process of inte- gration and full membership. In this way the various as- pects of freedom of movement of Bulgarian citizens and its
political consequences were analyzed.
Kolarova  and Tomova  paid attention to the political system of the EU and of European organiza- tion. Kolarova made an analysis of the governance systems in the EU member states without going into the issue of managerial processes in the Union. Tomova concentrated her attention on the increasing role of governments in the management process when it came to policies where the community law is not involved. In this way she also treated the relationships between European institutions and na- tional governments in the context of the deepening integra- tion and horizontal methods of interaction in the process of policy-making.
In We in the European Union , Shivergeva made an integral attempt to present the main challenges for European and Bulgarian citizens. This publication reviews all the theories and views that have dominated European debates from the Union’s creation to the present, the polit- ical issues challenging the Union, the development of polit- ical institutions and the main policies of the EU.
2. Bulgarian-EU relations from a historical perspective
Bulgaria became a EU member state on January 1, 2007.The relations of Bulgaria with the European Union have a short but dynamic history. Bulgaria established dip- lomatic relations with the European Community (EC) on August 9, 1988. By then the European Community was ready to immediately begin negotiations with Bulgaria for signing an Agreement for trade and trade-economic coop- eration. The development of the relationships was halted due to the political situation in the country. After the fall of communist and the coming to power of the Todor Zhivkov government, the relations intensified very fast. Negotiations were conducted and on May 8, 1990 an Agreement for trade and trade-economic cooperation was signed between Bulgaria and the European Community. Although of li- mited impact, this step created the framework to further
the development of relations between Bulgaria and the EC. On the September 17, 1990 Bulgaria was included in the PHARE Program and it began to receive annual help from the EU in for the reforms and the preparations the country had to undergo for full membership.
Despite this intensification of relations, the signed agreement exhausted its potentialities very fast. In the au- tumn of 1991 a decision was made to begin negotiations with Bulgaria for an association agreement with the EC. The agreement was signed on the March 8, 1993 and was enacted after being ratified by the National Assembly of Bulgaria, the European Parliament and the Parliaments of the member states on the February 1, 1995. The implemen- tation of the agreement led to the increase of stock ex- changes between Bulgaria and the EU member states and to more intensified contacts and cooperation in a number of economic, cultural and financial areas.
In contrast to other eastern European countries, the state largely maintained its control over the economy until the second half of the 1990s. Privatization was limited and affected by corruption, which led to the so called «grey» or
«shadow economy». The first symptoms of reviving ap- peared in 1994, when the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) increased and the inflation slumped. The biggest downfall came at the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1997, during the socialist government of Jean Videnov. The economy contracted again by up to half, because of the hyperinflation and the collapse of the financial system and banking.
The next phase of the development of relations was Bulgaria’s official application for membership in the EU in December 1995. In the spring of 1996 the European Commission presented a special questionnaire to the Bul- garian government. It served as the basis for preparing the Commission opinion concerning the future prospects of Bulgaria’s application for accession and the beginning of negotiations. The questions posed encompassed all areas of economic and social life in the country.
The new Bulgarian government, which took office in
the spring of 1997, introduced a package of economical reforms supported by the International Monetary Fund Board and the World Bank, including a currency board regimen; after this the economy began to stabilize. Bulgaria has been on its way to economic stability ever since: the GDP increased by 4-6 percent per year, and macroeco- nomic stability was maintained. The direction taken by the government towards EU and NATO membership brought about an increase in investors’ trust in the Bulgarian econ- omy. The national currency, lev (BGN), was successfully pegged to the German currency and later to the Euro.
The European Commission’s opinion on Bulgaria’s membership application was ready in July 1997. It con- cluded that Bulgaria was on its way to implementing the political criteria for membership. However, the country still did not have a functioning market economy and so it would not be able to deal with the competition inside the EU in the mid-term.
A national strategy for Bulgaria’s preparation for full EU membership was prepared. The strategy was based on the understanding that Bulgaria’s joining the family of Eu- ropean democracies was a matter of national interest. In November 1998 the first regular report of the European Commission for the progress of applicant states was pre- sented. The report noted that Bulgaria had made signifi- cant progress but still did not meet the Copenhagen criteria and was not ready to begin negotiations.
The official start of negotiations for EU membership was set for February 15, 2000 at the first meeting of the inter-governmental conference for Bulgaria’s accession to the EU by the government of Ivan Kostov.
The government elected in 2001 pursued – albeit with less energy – the economic reforms path set by its prede- cessor. Market economy was eventually achieved, closely linked to that of the EU countries. The government still faced problems related to high unemployment, mismatch of skills, low living standards and corruption within the state administration. The EU remained heavily critical of the inefficiency of the legal and law-enforcement system.
In December 2002 the European Union supported the efforts of Bulgaria and Romania for membership. In 2007 it voted for «road maps» for their accession. In 2004, during the rule of Simeon Sax-Coburg-Gottha, Bulgaria managed to close all of the 31 negotiation chapters for joining the EU. On the April 25, 2005 Bulgaria signed the Agreement for joining the European Union, and on May 11, 2005 the Bulgarian National Assembly ratified the Agreement for joining the European Union. Bulgaria received the right to participate in the works of the European Parliament, and as of January 2007 Bulgaria participates as a full member to the works of all European institutions.
Bulgaria is the only European ex-Warsaw Pact coun- try that failed to make the transition in one leap. It went through two economic collapses, caused by the govern- ments of ex-communists. It consequently carried out two political revolutions – first in 1989-1990 and then in 1996-
7. Only then did Bulgaria turn seriously to the business of reform, in a situation of virtually zero resources and com- plete economic exhaustion.
Unfortunately, the government still faces problems re- lated to high unemployment, mismatch of skills, low living standards and corruption within the state administration. The EU has been heavily critical of the inefficiency of the legal and law-enforcement system.
Bulgaria’s accession process in the EU set the begin- ning of the interest in integration processes among Bulga- rian academic circles. Unfortunately, serious political de- bates did not take place here before the country’s accession to the EU.
A great deal of the literature related to European inte- gration was directed towards the presentation of three main areas of integration processes – the community law, institutions and common policies. It was just after 2007 that a literature directed towards the search for national
specifics in the conditions of full membership appeared.
A big part of the texts are published either by publish- ing houses unrelated to academic circles or by print houses, where the print costs’ funding is at the expense of the au- thor. The reason for this circumstance is based on two fac- tors: on the one hand, the absence for a long period of time of EU studies academic programs at bachelor and master’s level, and, on the other hand, the financial crisis of many higher education institutions which led to diminishing their publishing activity. Publishing concentrates mainly on textbooks or referential literature and translations.
The interest towards European issues was concen- trated for a long time on post-graduate specializations de- vised for jurists, economists or public administration civil servants. Initially, the topic was included as separate courses in the programs of different discipline. Only with the beginning of the negotiation process were bachelor programs in European studies established (at Sofia Univer- sity, Ruse University and New Bulgarian University), and master programs were related mainly with European eco- nomic and political integration. Only one master program (at NBU), created after 2007, is oriented towards the processes of European governance. To this day, there is no PhD program in this area, there is only one Jean Monet Center of European politics and only one Jean Monet pro- fessor in the whole country.
As a result, a great deal of studies in European inte- gration did not come from circles related to political science. Lawyers provided the first input, although incor- porating a methodology that owed much to political science. Therefore, the EC was not assessed through a ge- nuinely political science lens. The explanation lies in the fact that political science has been seen as a second-order social science in the Bulgarian academy until present. Law- yers and economists dominated political analysis for a long period, and that was particularly noticeable in European integration analysis. A considerable amount of political science output on European integration was influenced by other social sciences.
During this early stage, the dominant school of politi- cal science received a mixed French and German influence. The French tradition fed legal-institutional analysis. Politi- cal analysis was permeated by the German tradition of po- litical science focusing the theorization of the state. The reason for this situation is that many Bulgarian scholars have specialized in French or German universities.
A new generation of scholars went abroad to carry out their research projects. These scholars took their doctoral degrees or postdoctoral specializations mainly in British and U.S. universities. They were educated according to political science paradigm inspired by political philosophy, reflecting a concern to produce political empirically based political analyses. Thus, the new generation of scholars introduced new insights, promoting interdisciplinarity.
This circumstance determines the interdisciplinary character of both bachelor and master’s programs, domi- nated by the educational body and its views. The programs could be found mainly in faculties related to political science and economics. In reality these programs created for the first time specialists in the area of European integra- tion and integration processes.
The first operational criterion used to map Bulgarian political science literature on European integration distin- guishes empirical from normative studies. Empirical studies provide an explanation of European integration while normative studies seek to influence policy-making or at least to contribute to the political debate on European in- tegration. The literature sample shows a slight dominance of empirical over normative studies. The second level of classification engages on a threefold categorization: macro studies emphasizes European integration as the indepen- dent variable; meso studies look at EU institutions; and micro studies pay attention to the political system of the EU, with a particular emphasis on policy implementation.
The intersection of both levels brings interesting re- sults. The goal now is to give additional consistency to lite- rature mapping. In other words, the combination of the normative/empirical with the macro/meso/micro levels provides a detailed account of how political sciences litera- ture on European integration evolved in Bulgaria.
TAB. 1. The distribution of references within the working categories
Baykov , Bakardzhieva
Simeonov , Hadz-
, Borisov and Lekov
, Georgieva and Simeonov
, Dinkov , Ivanova
, Nachev , Karaiva-
nova , Panushev and
Dzhagarov , Kolarova
Dimitrova , Na-
, Nedelchev ,
Todorov , Shikova, Zaha-
rieva and Nikolov , Zacha-
Marinov , Borisov, Hube-
Borisov , Karaiva-
nova and Kostova , Shi-
nova , Labreva and
vergeva and Nachev ,
Dobichina , Ma-
teeva , Nachev
, Nikolov ,
Popova , Veleva
, Zacharieva and
Source: Author’s calculations
Macro empirical studies tended to emphasize explana- tions of European integration examining the historical sources of European integration. Bakardjieva , Georgieva and Simeonov , Ivanova  and Ka- raivanova  looked at the origins and characteristics of the EU, but took a political-economic approach. Borisov and Lekov  looked at the basic European Union treaties, but took a juridical approach. The few academics who engaged with theories of European integration tried to provide a systematic overview of the state of the art of the previous fruitful debate, but among them, Nachev 
looked at political theory debate after the 1990s, and Din- kov  analyzed the economic theory debate. Also at the macro level, there is a considerable amount of norma- tive literature. On the one hand, scholars reflected about European integration. On the other hand, macro studies paid attention to the EU treaties.
At the meso level the majority of literature concen- trated on empirical studies. This category covers the fol- lowing aspects: present an overview of EU institutions; how these institutions interact and their competencies; who has a say in the institutions. Only Kolarova  explained the institutional architecture of the member states on the one hand, and of the EU, on the other. The specific con- text of constitutional and institutional changes dominates normative literature on meso level (Dimitrova  on the base of the Treaties and Nachev  in the context of Constitutional Treaty).
On micro level, normative texts dominate the litera- ture, as they are predominantly oriented towards the poli- cies, the political elites, citizens and identities [Labreva and Dobichina 2000; Nachev 2004; Zacharieva and Nikolov 2007]. A small part of these studies, such as Nikolov  and Karaivanova  pay attention to the com- mon policies, including the possibility of Bulgaria being included among them, their advantages and disadvantages. Only Mateeva  focuses attention on the practical benefit from the usage of structural EU funds and the pos- sibilities for development of various policies. At the ex- pense of this, there are not many texts on the micro level that are empirical
5. Quality assessment
This section aims to find out whether scholars influ- enced national decision-making related to European inte- gration. It is intriguing to note that some of the scholars exert influence on the country’s politics such as scholars of political science (Dinkov, Ivanova, Nachev, Karaivanova,
Kolarova, Todorov, Shikova, Nikolov, Shivergeva, Tomo- va, Labreva, Dobichina, Mateeva, Veleva), economics (Georgieva, Simeonov, Panushev, Genov and Hadzhiniko- lov) and law (Borisov, Lekov, Hubenova, Kostovaq Zacha- rieva and Popova).
The greater part of publications are written by people who have or continue to participate in European projects, various research and academic networks or who have worked or work in non-governmental organizations.
Unfortunately, none of them has managed to become a politician or to participate in the decision-making process. None of them has been member of the Bulgarian Parliament, in the executive or local administration, or in any of the European institutions.
Only Shikova had the position of director of the in- formation center of the Delegation of the European Com- mission in Bulgaria before ultimately engaging in academic work. Consequently, all publications belong to university teachers in disciplines such as law, economics, political science, European integration and cultural studies. In terms of academic hierarchy, Margarita Shivergeva became the only Jean Monet professor in the country and founded a Jean Monet Center of Excellent in European policies.
After Bulgaria’s signing of the European agreement in 1993, there was a big growth in political texts analyzing the European Union. After the beginning of negotiations in 2000 the interest in the integration processes intensified. However, it is only after the full membership in 2007 that the search began to determine the influence of integration processes over Bulgarian political reality, political actors and political institutions as well as the development of pol- icies in the context of the community law’s restrictions and the possibilities with respect to participation in the various sector policies. This is the time when publications research- ing not only the vertical, but also the horizontal integration
in the EU appeared.
TAB. 2. Empirical and normative studies of the EU
Borisov and Lekov
, Ivanova ,
Nachev , Karaiva-
nova , Panushev
and Genov 
Baykov , Dinkov
Georgieva and Simeonov
Todorov , Shiko-
va, Zaharieva and Niko-
lov , Zacharieva
Zacharieva and Nikolov 
Borisov, Hubenova and Kostova , Shiver- geva and Nachev , Tomova 
Source: Author’s calculations.
Nikolov  2007-2010
Table 2 organizes the literature according to the aforementioned criteria. There is a regular pattern across all categories and throughout the periods under examina- tion. In all cases the majority of literature concentrates on
the second period (2000-2007).
In the period 1993-2000 the dominating literature dealt with empirical studies on the macro level. The follow- ing period (2000-2007) was dominated by studies on the meso-empirical and micro-normative levels. The last period (after 2007) has so far been dominated by studies on ma- cro-empirical level. This outlines the trend towards the increasing of interest and studies in the area of practical application of policies in the EU member states in particu- lar and in the EU in general.
In the context of all of these years, the normative stu- dies dominate the process of writing and distribution of political literature in the area of European studies. This is the result of the fact that the integration processes were not known in Bulgaria for a long time, and its European and Euro-Atlantic orientation after the fall of the communist regime in the country in 1989 predetermines also the inter- est in the history, institutions and policies of EU.
After the beginning of the negotiations in 2000 the li- terature is dominated by texts dealing with the main agreements and the contractual basis of the common poli- cies. Only after the accession of Bulgaria to the EU in 2007 are they dominated by processes of policy-making and the interest in the system for European management and the participation in national institutions in this process, as well as possibilities for participation in various sector policies.
7. Conclusion: a comparative perspective
A small part of the literature deals with the relation between the leading political theories and debates in Euro- pean integration. For example, the debate on what the Union should be like – more federal, more inter- governmental or more functional – is dealt with on various levels in the texts of Nachev and Shivergeva.
A majority of the texts are related with the legal or his- torical sides of the European processes’ development. Eco- nomic debates remain in the background, presenting the
common economic policies, the economic and monetary union, the common market and the four freedoms of movement. Today Bulgarian scholars pay more attention to policies and proposals to the government in the context of the world economic crisis, the full membership challenges, the impossibility to adopt European funds and the misgiv- ings from intensification of populism and Euroskepticism in the country.
The literature in the pre-accession period in most of the cases is dominated by Euro-optimism while political or economic issues arising after the membership are rarely discussed. After all, the country’s problems in the first few years of membership led to increasing interest in various management strategies and tactics inside the EU, towards the decision-making system and towards the changing role of national institutions in a situation of community restric- tions, common policies and monetary board in the country. The debates for the place and the role of the EU in the changing world remain in the background.
Finally, the discussion about joining the Euro-zone is hardly incorporated in scientific literature. Unfortunately, most debates take place in the pages of the press or on television and radio stations and do not leave a lasting track in Bulgarian society. At the same time in the scientific cir- cles various kinds of conferences, round tables and other events are organized, but this does not lead to systematized scientific products.
Probably this is one of the adaptation issues of Bulga- rian society in general and of the scientific circles in partic- ular. Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, however, and the pos- sibilities that have emerged for the young people, profes- sors, researchers and Bulgarian experts not only in Bulgaria but also in the EU, will lead to a gradual specialization of the literature and the appearance of scientific texts mostly on the micro level of the literature researched.
Bakardzhieva, A. (ed.)
1994 European Integration Fundamentals: proceeding of post- gratuate course lectures, Sofia, Center for European Studies.
Baykov, B. (ed.)
2004 National Identity and European Integration: scientific and practical conference, 5-6 June, Sofia, Gorex Press.
Borisov, O., Hubenova, T. and Kostova, M.
2009 Freedom of movement in European Union, Sofia, Sofia University Press.
1999 The Fundamental Treaties of the European Union, Sofia, Parallax.
Borisov, O. and Lekov, V.
1997 Basic European Union Treaties, Sofia, Center for Euro- pean Studies.
1996 European Union Law, Sofia, Ciela. Georgieva, E. and Simeonov, K.
2008 European Economical Integration, Sofia. Dimitrova, A.
1998 From the European Community to the European Union: From Institutional Reform to Constitutional Develop- ment, Sofia, Sofia University Press.
2002 Bulgaria and the European Integration, Sofia. Dzhagarov, L.
1992 European Community: History, Structure and Policy, Sofia, Technology.
2008 European Union as a Global Trading Power, Sofia, Alba- tross Publishing House.
1998 Fundamentals of the European Integration, Sofia, Center for European Studies.
1998 Fundaments of the European Union, Sofia, Sofia Univer- sity Press.
2009 European Governance, Sofia.
Labreva, S. and Dobichina, I.
2000 Agenda of the Political Parties and the Public Agenda in the European Integration, Sofia.
1993 The Internal Market of the European Community, Sofia, UNWE.
2007 Development and Management of Projects within the EU Programs, Sofia, EuroConsult 06.
2006 Bulgaria in the European Union: Constitutional and Insti- tutional Change, Sofia.
2004 Bulgarian Elites in the Process of European Integration and Globalization, in La mondialisation et les nouvelles limites du politique. EON-2000, Sofia.
1999 Bulgaria – European Union: Political Problems of the Integration, Sofia.
2002 Institutional Change and European Integration, Sofia, Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Edition.
2008 European Neighborhood Policy: Time for Reflection, So- fia, BECSA.
Panushev, E. and Genov, D.
1999 For a Bigger and More Powerful European Union, Sofia. Popova, J.
2001 Fundamentals of the European Union Law, Sofia, Planet- 3.
Shikova, I., Zaharieva, U. and Nikolov, K.
2003 European Union: History, Institutions, Policies, Sofia. Shivergeva, M. and Nachev, I.
2010 We in the European Union, Sofia, NBU. Simeonov, K.
2004 Benefits and Cost of the Bulgaria’s Membership in the European Union, Sofia.
Todorov, A. (ed.)
2003 Construction of the Enlarged European Union, Part1, Sofia.
2010 New modes of European Governance: is the Executive
authority’s role changing, in Bulgarian Political Science toward the challenges of the time, Sofia, Sofia University Press.
2006 History of the European Integration 1945-2005, Sofia, Sofia University Press.
Zacharieva, J. (ed.)
2003 Construction of the Enlarged European Union, Part2, Sofia.
Zacharieva, J. and Nikolov, K.
2007 From the Treaty of Rome to the Future of the EU: Consti- tution, Citizenship and Identities, Sofia, BECSA.
SALLA GARSKY, KNUD EIRK JORGENSEN AND IAN MANNERS1
EU STUDIES IN DENMARK AND SWEDEN
In this brief chapter we take stock of Danish and Swedish scholarship on the European Union (EU). We intend to analyze and evaluate Danish and Swedish scho- larship on EU issues, using a mixed methodology inte- grated into the analysis of this chapter. The method inte- grates a secondary analysis of leading literature by Garský; an extensive comparative bibliometric survey building on Manners ; and the comparative assessments of EU studies by Jørgensen and Manners based on their profes- sional experiences of EU studies across Europe. The chap- ter points out controversies on research perspectives, and suggests new EU research questions that collaborative projects could address.
Viewed from the outside, the idea of Scandinavian commonality and community is undoubtedly powerful. During the Cold War, the impact of Scandinavian scholar- ship and membership in the European Union (EU), as represented by Denmark, was limited. With the 1995 en- largement of the EU and the entry of Sweden and Finland, there was much expectation of a more powerful role for Nordic policy ideas and analysts. This chapter attempts to take stock of this scholarship by undertaking the particu- larly difficult task of analyzing and evaluating Danish and Swedish political science research on European integration and governance. This task is demanding because the chal- lenges of critical self-evaluation and reflection have re- mained strongly present over several decades of Danish and Swedish EU membership, like in most member states.
1 Network for European Studies, University of Helsinki; Department of Political Science, Aarhus University; Roskilde University.
Literature reviews on the EU of Nordic scholarship in general, and Danish and Swedish scholarship in particular, are limited in many respects. First, the number of such surveys is restricted, and the most relevant include the work of Jørgensen , Miles and Mörth , Angström, Hedenström, and Ström , Ruin , Breitenbauch and Wivel , Friedrichs , Kinn- vall , and Manners . Second, these surveys are somewhat limited by the embeddedness of the authors, i.e. the inherent difficulties in being objective about one’s own research community. A good example is the review of Nordic political science by Lee Miles and Ulrika Mörth. They identify six areas of Nordic strength in the study of European integration – the relationship between the «na- tion-state» and European integration; «Europeanization»; non-alignment; small states; council presidencies; and Nor- dic cooperation. However, the survey is limited by the lack of identified weaknesses in Nordic scholarship on the EU [Miles and Mörth 2002].
In general it is possible to identify two different gen- eral trends in Danish and in Swedish research on the EU. Danish EU research is characterized by being an older and more internationalized body of work from a relatively large number of scholars working in a smaller member state and, moreover, working predominantly in English. In contrast, Swedish EU research is characterized by being a younger and less internationalized body of work, stemming from a relatively smaller number of scholars working in a larger member state.
1. The EU history of Denmark and Sweden
Among the Nordic countries, Denmark was the first to join the European Community (EC), in 1973. Given the country’s dependence on export, in particular of agricul- tural products to the UK, accession made economic sense. A referendum in 1972 showed a fairly comfortable majority in favor of Danish membership. However, the referendum
also showed the Danes and their politicians were split into two groups on political and cultural matters. In fact, Den- mark is widely perceived as belonging among the most skeptical of further deepening of the EC/EU [Egeberg 2003]. A number of features exemplify this complex atti- tude towards Danish EC/EU membership. Nordic cooper- ation, for example continued to be perceived as a potential alternative for multilateral engagement, and within the EC, successive Danish governments pursued a strict intergo- vernmental mode of cooperation. Four political parties – social democrats, liberals, social liberals and conservatives
– entered into a consistent alignment, thus securing a par- liamentary majority in favor of but not necessarily enthu- siastic about Danish membership.
The Danish parliament was largely opposed to the 1986 Single European Act (SEA). An informative referen- dum overruled the majority of parliamentarians and Den- mark ratified the treaty. The Danish approach to EU poli- tics is to go for minimalist cooperative schemes and subse- quently comply with commitments. This position is pre- ferred to maximalist strategies no one complies with. The 1992 referendum on the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), where Denmark rejected the treaty, made it an «ex- ceptionalist» member state, an informal status that was somewhat toned down after the subsequent referenda in France, the Netherlands and Ireland in 2005 and 2008 respectively. However, the four opt-outs, hammered out in Edinburgh in 1993 secure that charges of exceptionalism have not entirely disappeared.
Finally, since 2001, the Danish government has been dependent on a very outspoken nationalist party in the parliament. Rhetoric is strong, yet the party votes in favor of more than 80 per cent of laws having a European origin.
Sweden’s relationship to the rest of Europe and the European integration process has been ambivalent over time. Before and partially after the EU-accession, Sweden balanced between, on the one hand, its long self-perception of neutrality, the desire to protect the Swedish welfare state, and disinclination to supranationalism, and, on the
other hand, the economic necessities of its export-oriented economy and growing globalization. Subsequently, until the 1990s Sweden preferred to develop bilateral and multi- lateral (EFTA, EEA) trade agreements with the EC and stay outside the political or military commitments of the EC and NATO.
Without underestimating the impact of the changed security situation of the 1990s, it was nevertheless mostly for economic reasons – and the pressure from the powerful business community and labor unions – that Sweden be- came an EU member state in 1995 [Klasson 2004; Ingebrit- sen 1998; Miles 2005]. Sweden has often been portrayed as euroskeptic [Lubbers and Scheepers 2005], federal-skeptic [Miles 2005], or a reluctant European [Gstöhl 2002]. However, its participation in Schengen, the European po- lice cooperation, and other internal and external issues, not to speak of its active role in the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) tells a different story [Lee-Ohlson 2008; Miles 2005].
Sweden has been particularly active and successful in supporting integration in the areas of transparency, envi- ronmental and social issues, the Baltic Sea region, as well as the development of crisis management and peace keeping [Langdal and Sydow 2009; Johansson 1999; Miles 2005]. However, while Swedish law, central government and po- litical bureaucracy are Europeanized, popular opinion has remained mixed towards the EU [Silander, Wallin and Bryder 2004; Pettersson 2000]. Popular opinion has also resisted European monetary integration; in the Swedish Euro referendum of 2003, 55.9 percent voted against and
42.0 percent for Swedish participation in EMU [Valmyn- digheten 2003].
In general, Swedish EU-scholars do not seem to share the Euro-skepticism or anti-Europeanism of popular opi- nion. However, there are other factors such as Sweden’s geographical location at the periphery of the EU, its rela- tively small population size, and its tradition of consensus- seeking politics, which may have shaped European integra- tion studies in Sweden. It is therefore not surprising that
early studies by Swedish scholars tended to treat EU mem- bership in ways similar to Swedish membership of other international organizations [Tallberg 2003; Elgström and Jönsson 2004].
In general, while the universities of Gothenburg and Lund have led the way in establishing centers for EU re- search, European studies have evolved in a much broader way across Sweden. European integration research is con- ducted in nearly all Swedish universities, including Uppsa- la, Stockholm, Malmö, Linköping, Örebro and Umea, and there seems to be a particular interest in eastern Europe, the Baltic countries and Russia all over the country [Hydén et al. 2002]. The first international degree program in Eng- lish was created in 2003 with the international program for European studies (IPES) at Malmö University. This pro- gram is part of the research environment at the School for Global Political Studies at Malmö which has a particular focus on the Öresund region, in the context of the EU.
Both Gothenburg and Lund universities have the sta- tus of Jean Monnet Centers of Excellence, with the Go- thenburg Center for European Research (CERGU) and the Lund Center for European Studies (CFE). The political science departments have been important entrepreneurs of these centers, even though CERGU and CFE both have multidisciplinary scopes; the CFE comprising social sciences, humanities, and law and the CERGU economics, business, law, social sciences, arts, and education. As both centers cover a wide range of topics, CERGU has focused on the eastern expansion of the EU, the study of the poli- tics and economics of the Baltic states, and the Swedish opinion on the EU, while CFE’s main emphases are negoti- ations, informal networks, and formal institutions2.
Since 1998 Swedish universities cooperate within the Swedish Networks for European Research in political science (SNES), economics (SNEE) and law (NEF), which have helped to create a critical mass of international policy research for wider public and democratic debates. In par- ticular, the Swedish Network for European Studies in Po- litical Science (SNES) organizes Swedish seminars, confe- rences and post-graduate education3. The disadvantage of these well-funded networks is their tendency to focus EU research inwards in Sweden, rather than encourage out- ward-reaching international networks.
In addition to the universities, two policy research in- stitutes are of importance for EU studies in Sweden. The Swedish Institute of International Affairs (UI) is a political- ly-independent public service institution and its Europe program covers policy-relevant topics related to the Euro- pean integration from the EU institutions and specific poli- cy areas to EU foreign and security policy4. The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS) was estab- lished by the Swedish government in 2002 to conduct and promote research and analysis of European policy affairs. Its research covers economic issues, the external dimension of the EU, and institutional and legal developments in the EU. The SIEPS publishes semi-annual papers on the EU presidencies and it regularly provides the Swedish parlia- ment and government with briefs on issues concerning EU institutions, law and economics5.
While it is challenging to evaluate the influence of EU-research on Swedish society, it is easier to assess its impact on the policy makers. Swedish scholarship has close ties to the political society not only because the universities and research institutions are publicly funded, but also be- cause of the relatively small size of the country. The estab- lishment of the SIEPS and its assignment to provide policy analysis for the government and other political actors
shows that Swedish political actors are particularly inter- ested to involve scholars in EU-related decision-making.
In terms of wider publications, Swedish scholarship can be characterized by two trends: a smaller body of re- search in English intended for reading by the international academic community and a larger body of publications in Swedish intended for teaching and for stimulating the do- mestic public debate. The first body of literature is domi- nated by Lee Miles’ numerous works, which have made a major contribution to Anglophone research on Swedish EU politics. By advancing the framework of Wessel’s fusion perspective, Miles sheds light on the Swedish adaptation to the EU in his latest book, Fusing with Europe. According to Miles, the Swedish state apparatus, balancing between Eu- ropean integration and a federal-skeptic public opinion, is the defender of the EU. Thus, the Swedish political elite has adopted the fusion perspective. However, due to na- tional necessities, Swedish EU politics remains conditional and often favors national interests over further integration [Miles 2005, 307].
The second body of Swedish literature is more diverse, in general led by the teaching books of Karl Magnus Johans- son and the annual EU reviews of the SNES. Johansson’s edited volume on Sverige i EU («Sweden in the EU») de- clared in 1999 that it is the nation-state logic that characte- rizes Sweden’s membership and relationship to the EU [Jo- hansson 1999]. Five years later, Svensk politik och den Euro- peiska Unionen («Swedish politics and the European Un- ion») [Bryder et al. 2004] explored how Europeanization has influenced the organization and contents of Swedish politics. Both edited books approach Sweden’s relationship to the EU through different policy areas, such as environ- mental, social, monetary, or foreign policy. However, Jo- hansson’s book also addresses cooperation problems as well as formal and informal institutions. The SNES annual vo- lumes attempt to capture the Swedish-EU discussions from a variety of perspectives with, for example, the most recent volume edited by Oxelheim, Pehrson and Persson (2010) on EU och den globala krisen («The EU and the Global Crisis»).
Denmark and Sweden both have theoretical diversity and strength in EU studies, although there are differences which reflect their particular engagements with the rest of the EU. In general, the traditional importance given to theoretical insights in political science has a parallel in EU studies, reflected by the relatively strong influence of inter- national social theories in the region. Six theoretical areas can be identified where Danish and Swedish EU- scholarship is important, if not leading in the field: systems theory, Euro-skepticism and non-participation, negotiation theory, social constructivism, post-structural theory, and the study of EU foreign policy.
Following in the footsteps of David Easton and Leon Lindberg, systems theory analysis was led by Morten Kel- strup’s work on the EC as a political system [Kelstrup 1990; 1993]. While the political system approach was sub- sequently taken up again by scholars outside the region in the mid-1990s, the work of Jonas Tallberg and Daniel Nau- rin on executive implementation and the Council of Minis- ters broadly continues in this tradition of treating the EU as a political system with clear-cut executive, legislative and judicial branches of government [Tallberg 2003; Naurin and Wallace 2010].
The historically contested relations of Denmark and Sweden with the EU/EC have provided the foundation for the second area of theoretical strength on the study of Eu- ro-skepticism and non-participation of member states. While the 1992 Danish referendum on the Maastricht Treaty provides the starting point for this theoretical strength, the much longer history of Danish and Swedish suspicion and reservation towards the rest of Europe should not be underestimated. This perspective can be found particularly in the work of Danish scholars working on Euro-skepticism [Sørensen 2007], EMU [Marcussen 2000], and the Danish «opt-outs» [Adler-Nissen 2009; Manners et al. 2008].
Theories of negotiation, cooperation and bargaining
are particularly strong in Swedish EU studies, with the work of scholars at Lund and Stockholm universities ex- amining the roles of the Swedish 2002 EU presidency and European Council meetings in general. Especially Tallberg has contributed to the understanding of the politics, power relationships and the influence of institutions and actors participating to the decision-making of the EU [Elgström 2003; Elgström and Jönsson 2004; Tallberg 2006].
Social constructivist theory has an intellectual home in Denmark and Sweden, with the edited volumes by Knud Erik Jørgensen [Jørgensen 1997; Christiansen, Jørgensen and Wiener 1999] playing an important role in introducing social theory into EU studies. Social theory and interpretive approaches more generally can also be found in EU scho- larship at Copenhagen University (Marlene Wind, Martin Marcussen, Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Ben Rosamond), Lund University (Ole Elgström, Annika Björkdahl), Stockholm University (Kjell Engelbrekt, Niklas Bremberg) and Swe- dish National Defense College (Magnus Ekengren).
Based on critical social theory, Ian Manners’ concept of the EU’s normative power has significantly shaped the discourse on the EU’s role in world politics. Building on the power of ideas, «normative power» introduces an al- ternative source of power: the ability of the EU to shape the conceptions of «normal» of third states through legiti- mate opinions and normative justification [Manners 2002]. The social theory approach deepens the relevance of EU normative power for the study of European integration, as it offers an explanation for European identity construction [Diez and Manners 2007]. Norms as tools of influence have also been applied by Ingebritsen and Björkdahl in their analyses of Scandinavian countries’ policies in the EU. They argue that Scandinavian countries act as norm entre- preneurs in the EU [Björkdahl 2008] and in world politics [Ingebritsen 2002]6.
The area of post-structural theory is one area in which
6 We are well aware that Ingebritsen is Seattle-based and of Norwe- gian origin, yet her work fits thematically.
Danish EU scholars can genuinely claim to lead interna- tional scholarship. The impact of scholars such as Ole Wæver, Lene Hansen, Pertti Joenniemi, and Henrik Lar- sen, in leading post-structural scholarship in EU studies is significant. Here the role of the Copenhagen securitization school has encouraged post-structural insights into the EU in a way found nowhere else in the Europe. Originally lo- cated in the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (CO- PRI), the Copenhagen school has subsequently diversified with Wæver’s move to establish the Center for Advanced Security Studies (CAST) at Copenhagen University. Exam- ples of post-structuralist approaches would include Kel- strup and Williams , Wæver , Joenniemi , as well as non-COPRI/CAST work by Larsen  and Haahr [Walters and Haahr 2006].
4. Quality assessment
In terms of quality assessment, it appears that Danish and Swedish EU scholarship has been particular strong in at least three areas, namely sustainable development, gend- er issues, and aspects of foreign policy. These are tentative observations that remain difficult to disaggregate from wider processes that pre-date the 1995 EU enlargement, but we still feel the Nordic impact important.
As regards the first area, i.e. sustainable development, its principles was introduced to the EC/EU already back in 1987 (Bruntland) towards the 1992 Rio Conference. Never- theless, the 1995 enlargement appears to have swiftly en- hanced the process and overall focus of the clause [Jordan and Liefferink 2004]. The immediate impact of Nordic activism appears to have been the mainstreaming of the sustainable development clause in the 1997 Treaty of Ams- terdam, together with a much greater emphasis on sustain- able development in EU literature and Framework Fund- ing programs. The area of gender empowerment accele- rated in a similar manner in the later 1990, although by far pre-dating the 1995 enlargement. In particular, the practic-
es of gender mainstreaming in the EU institutions and the activities of gender scholars and campaigners contributed to this process [Kronsell 2005; Lenscow 2006]. The final area(s) of immediate impact appear to be in EU external relations in the aspects of the «northern dimension» and civil-military intervention. The relative emphasis given to the «northern dimension» of EU external relations clearly reflects the concerns of Nordic and Baltic states regarding the EU’s emerging asymmetrical interdependence with Russia [Ojanen 2001; Browning 2005]. Similarly, the impe- tus given to civil-military humanitarian interventions by the Finnish and Swedish EU Presidencies is reflected and re- flects similar academic and policy-relevant activism [Hjelm- Wallén and Halonen 1996; Duke and Ojanen 2006; Lindstrom 2007].
In terms of bibliometric and peer assessments of Da- nish and Swedish EU studies, it appears that two patterns emerge (Manners 2007 provides bibliometric foundation, updated for this chapter)7. Danish scholarship is primarily focused on four centers of research, including Aarhus Uni- versity, Copenhagen University, Roskilde University and Copenhagen Business School (CBS). At Aarhus University the work of Palle Svensson, Carsten Daugberg, Jens Blom- Hansen, Knud Erik Jørgensen, Adrian Favell, Gert Ting- gaard Svendsen, and Derek Beach has been important, while at Copenhagen University newly arrived Ben Rosa- mond, together with Martin Marcussen, Lykke Friis, Mar- lene Wind, Henrik Larsen, and Dorte Martinsen are im- portant. At Roskilde University, work on the EU and the world by Ian Manners and Gorm Rye Olsen is leading their respective fields, while at CBS Susanna Borras and Ove Kaj Pedersen do the same. In total, approximately two-dozen Danish-based EU scholars are having an international im- pact in their work.
7 The bibliometric assessment draws on both monograph and arti- cle-based metrics, using Amazon, Google Scholar, and the US Social Science Citation Index. None of these bibliometric means are able to capture peer assessment and reputation.
Compared to Denmark, Swedish scholarship is more evenly spread around a larger number of universities and research institutes. In this respect, leading Swedish EU researchers are to be found at Stockholm University (Jonas Tallberg and Ulrika Mörth), Lund University (Ole Elgström and Rikard Bengtsson), Sodertorn University (Karl Magnus Johansson and Nick Aylott), Umea Universi- ty (Torbjörn Bergman), the Swedish Foreign Policy Insti- tute (Mark Rhinard), and Gothenburg University (Daniel Naurin). In total, approximately a dozen Swedish-based EU scholars are having an international impact.
As briefly discussed here, there are some areas of strengths and weaknesses of Danish and Swedish EU stu- dies which can be discussed in terms of quality assessment by drawing briefly on the four previous discussions. First, as the previous discussion illustrated, the two areas of theory and external actions appear to be subfields of study where there is genuine international impact. In terms of external relations, a 2010 Nordic Council project bid led by Walter Carlsnaes (Uppsala University) illustrated the strengths of Nordic scholarship. To illustrate, the project included from Sweden and Denmark Mark Rhinard and Hanna Ojanen (both the Swedish Foreign Policy Institute), Kjell Engelbrekt (Stockholm University), Magnus Ekeng- ren (SNDC), Annika Björkdahl (Lund University) with Annika Bergman-Rosamond (DIIS) and Ian Manners (Roskilde University).
Second, there seem to be a number of areas of Danish and Swedish EU studies where scholarship is not at the level one might expect for a variety of reasons. With a few exceptions, Danish and Swedish studies on social models and welfare policy in an EU context seem almost entirely absent (see Dorte Martinsen’s work for an exception). Si- milarly, studies of the Eurozone are hard to find, which seems odd given the presence of two non-Euro members (Martin Marcussen’s work is an exception). Despite the previous comments, Danish and Swedish scholarship on the EU, environment and global warming is an area where we might expect to find more work (exceptions include
Annica Kronsell and Karin Bäckstrand’s work). Again, despite the strengths discussed in the previous sections, Danish and Swedish EU work on gender mainstreaming is not as broad as one might expect (although see Annica Kronsell’s recent work on Nordic militaries). Strangely, the area of external relations where we might expect Danish and Swedish EU scholarship to be very well developed – development policy – also appears to be relatively weak (see Gorm Rye Olsen and Ole Elgström for exceptions). Given the Nordic region’s attachment to democracy, this fact seems particularly weak in the EU context (exceptions include the work of Sverker Gustavsson and Morten Kel- strup). Finally, and most worryingly of all, one major gap in Danish and Swedish EU studies appears to be work on Nordic cooperation within the EU itself (see Pertti Joen- niemi for an exception).
What this quality assessment seems to be suggesting is that there are many areas of international excellence in EU studies, such as in social and critical theory, as well as ex- ternal actions/foreign affairs across Denmark and Sweden. It can also be said that there is excellence in certain specific areas such as sustainable development, gender issues, and agricultural policy, but the first two of these do not have a high impact as might be expected, given Denmark and Sweden’s historical attachment to them. Of course, the literature review and bibliometric methodology drawn on here can easily be challenged for its English-language bias, but it does illustrate the dilemma of indigenous versus in- ternational (English) publication. Similarly the quality as- sessment does suggests that further research could further track the dense interrelationships between the EU academ- ic, policy and diplomatic communities which is characteris- tic of Danish and Swedish societies.
5. Comparative and Temporal Dimensions
Combining the history of EC/EU integration with the scholarly focus stemming from the two respective countries
reveals the ever present influence of the social reality on the research agenda. As documented by Jørgensen  and Egeberg , Nordic EC/EU discussions have tradi- tionally been confined to the somewhat self-centric enquiry of what is considered to be in the country’s best interest. A natural consequence of this has been a strong domestic focus of the research agenda, «quite logical for scholars in a small country surrounded by a very big outside world» [Jørgensen 1995]. Nevertheless, a more outward-looking, international research agenda can be said to have emerged, by and large, after the Maastricht Treaty, in parallel with the more traditional, domestic agenda. This development should be seen as both reflecting Danish and Swedish po- litical realities, while at the same time mirroring broader theoretical trends within the fields of social and political sciences.
In Denmark, EC/EU scholarship can roughly (and somewhat imprecisely) be separated in two phases, the first stretching from the Danish EC membership in 1972 until the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The pre- Maastricht phase was marked by research targeting first and foremost institutional matters (hereunder reforms), Denmark’s co-ordinates on Europe’s political and econom- ic map (i.e. «Denmark and the EC» and the sometimes troubled relation between Denmark and the EC), and final- ly, EC external relations [Jørgensen 1995]. The Danish pre- Maastricht theoretical approach was closely confined to neo-functionalism, with a limited appreciation for alterna- tive theories such as neo-institutionalism, realism and ra- tional choice theory [Jørgensen 1995].
The emergence of a strong constructivist presence in the Danish political science community can be seen as the most important factor that contributed to the enhanced focus on norms and identities in the study of the EU. The introduction of social theory into EU studies can thus be said to have introduced a second phase in Danish EU scho- larship, increasingly present in the post-Maastricht years. Gradually, as already mentioned, broader issue areas such gender-mainstreaming and sustainable development won
terrain, which can be coupled to the belief in Scandinavian norm-entrepreneurship and actorness within the EU. The same argument can be applied to Swedish gender and envi- ronmental research.
The EC/EU research agenda in Sweden can, however, hardly be divided along the same lines as the Danish, first and foremost due to the limited scholarly focus before the Swedish EU entry in 1995. Rather than speaking about distinct phases in Swedish EU scholarship, it makes more sense to speak about a gradual development towards a set of core competences, mirroring both theory developments, as mentioned above, as well as political realities. With re- gards to the latter, the focus on negotiation and bargaining, as well as on the civilian dimension of defense cooperation, has crystallized in areas where Swedish EU scholarships have flourished, in particular after 2000. As argued by Lee- Ohlson, «the civilian dimension became a means of shaping and influencing the ESDP in a way conducive to traditional Swedish foreign and security policy thinking» [Lee-Ohlson 2008]. This, however, was a process that matured over time, and became first recognizable in the period between 2001 and 2003.
2009 The diplomacy of opting out, British and Danish stigma management in the European Union, Copenhagen, Uni- versity of Copenhagen.
1991 Nordic political science: trends, roles, approaches, in
«European Journal of Political Research» Vol. 20, n. 112, pp. 239-62.
Angström, J., Hedenström, E. and Ström, L.-I.
2003 Survival of the most citied? Small political science com- munities and international influence: the case of Sweden, in «European Political Studies» Vol. 2, n. 3.
2008 Norm advocacy: A small state strategy to influence the EU,
in «Journal of European Public Policy» Vol. 15, n. 1.
Breitenbauch, H. and Wivel, A.
2004 Understanding national IR disciplines outside the United States: political culture and the construction of Interna- tional Relations in Denmark, in «Journal of Interna- tional Relations and Development» Vol. 7, pp. 414-443.
Browning, C. (ed.)
2005 Remaking Europe in the Margins: Northern Europe after the Enlargements, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Christiansen, T., Jørgensen, K.E. and Wiener. A. (eds.)
1999 Special Issue on The Social Construction of Europe, in
«Journal of European Public Policy», Vol. 6, n. 4.
Diez, T. and Manners, I.
2007 Reflecting on normative power Europe, in Power in World Politics, edited by F. Berenskoetter and M.J. Williams, London, Routledge.
Duke, S. and Ojanen, H.
2006, Bridging Internal and External Security: Lessons from the European Security and Defence Policy, in «Journal of European Integration» Vol. 28, pp. 477-494.
2003 The Nordic Countries and the EU: How European Inte- gration Integrates and Disintegrates States Domestically, in «ARENA Working Papers» Vol. 11, University of Oslo.
Elgström, O. (ed.)
2003 European Union Council Presidencies: A Comparative Analysis, London, Routledge.
Elgström, O. and Jönsson, C. (eds.)
2004 European Union Negotiations, London, Routledge. Friedrichs, J. (2006)
2006 The Nordic Countries, in International Relations in Eu- rope: Traditions, perspectives and destinations, edited by
K.E. Jørgensen and T. Brems Knudsen, London, Rout- ledge, pp. 125-148.
2002 Reluctant Europeans: Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland in the Process of Integration, Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hansen, L. and Waever, O. (eds.)
2001 Between Nations and Europe: the challenge of the Nor- dic states, London, Routledge.
Hjelm-Wallén, L. and Halonen, T.
1996 Swedish-Finnish initiative on EU conflict management capability, joint articles in «Dagens Nyheter» (Sweden) and «Helsingin Sanomat» (Finland), April 21.
Hydén G., Immergut E. and Underdal A. (evaluators)
2002 Swedish Research in Political Science, The Swedish Re- search Council, Stockholm.
1998 The Nordic States and European Unity, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
2002 Norm Entrepreneurs Scandinavia’s Role in World Poli- tics, in «Cooperation and Conflict» Vol. 37, n. 1, pp. 11-23.
2007 Towards a European Union of Post-Security?, in «Coop- eration and Conflict» Vol. 42, n. 1, pp. 127-148.
Johansson, K.M. (ed.)
1999 Sverige i EU, Stockholm, SNS Förlag. Jordan, A. and Liefferink, D., (eds.)
2004 Environmental Policy in Europe. The Europeanization of National Environmental Policy, London, Routledge.
1995 Review Article: European Integration as a Field of Study in Denmark, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 33, n. 1, pp. 157-162.
1997 (ed.), Reflective Approaches to European Governance, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
1990 The Process of Europeanization. On the Theoretical Interpretation of Present Changes in the European Re- gional Political System, in «Cooperation and Conflict» Vol. 25, pp. 21-40.
1992 European Integration and Political Theory, in European Integration and Denmark’s Participation, edited by M. Kelstrup, Copenhagen, Political Studies Press.
1993 EF’s politiske system, in «Politica» Vol. 25, n. 3, pp. 1-25. Kelstrup, M. et al.
1990 The European Security Order Recast: Scenarios for the Post-Cold War Era, London, Pinter.
Kelstrup, M. and Williams, M. (eds.)
2000 International Relations Theory and the Politics of Euro- pean Integration, London, Routledge.
2005 “Not Here, Not Now”: The Absence of a European Pere- stroika Movement, in Perestroika! The Raucous Rebel- lion in Political Science, edited by K. Monroe, New Ha- ven, Yale, University Press.
2004 Välfärdspolitik, in Svensk politik och den Europeiska unionen, edited by T. Bryder, D. Silander and C. Wallin, Malmö, Liber.
2004 A “sustainable” impact on the EU? An analysis of the making of the Fifth Environmental Action Programme, in The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation – Inte- grating the environment and the economy?, edited by S. Young, London, Routledge.
2005 Gender, Power and European Integration Theory, «Eu- ropean Journal of Public Policy» Vol. 12, n. 6, pp. 1022-40.
2005 Analysing the Foreign Policy of Small States in the EU: The Case of Denmark, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
2008 Sweden and the Development of the European Security and Defence Policy: A Bi-Directional Process of Euro- peanisation, in «EU Diplomacy Papers» Vol. 5, Brugge, College of Europe, Department of EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies.
2006 Environmental Policy in the European Union: Bridging Policy, Politics and Polity Dimensions, in Handbook of European Union Politics, edited by K.E. Jørgensen,
M.A. Pollack and B. Rosamond, London, Sage. Lindström, G.
2007 Enter the EU Battlegroups, in «Chaillot Paper», n. 97. Lubbers,M. and Scheepers, P.
2005 Political versus Instrumental Euro-scepticism: Mapping
Scepticism in European Countries and Regions, in «Eu- ropean Union Politics» Vol. 6, n. 2, pp. 223-242.
2002 Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?, in«Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 40, n. 2.
2007 The Power of Nordic-EU Studies, paper presented to the Nordic International Studies Association, Odense.
LITTLE ADO ABOUT LITTLE: EUROPEAN STUDIES IN FINLAND
The purpose of the chapter is to provide a broad overview of European studies in political science in Finland for the last two decades. The chapter presents the EU- history of Finland, gives a short overall mapping of the relevant academic literature, shows which disciplinary tra- ditions and theoretical approaches and theories have been applied and which scientific research results have been achieved. Finally, it ends with a quality assessment of the contributions and a comparative evaluation of the location of Finnish research in the broader literature.
All in all, Finland represents roughly a «two percent country» of the EU, with a population of 1,1 % of that of the EU, one commissioner out of 27 (ie. 3,7%), 2,2 % votes in the Council of Ministers, 13 members of the Euro- pean Parliament’s 736 members (i.e. 1,8 %). Even in terms of a priori voting power in the Council, Finland is a weak player: its Shapley-Shubik voting strength has been in the neighbourhood of two percent, reflecting adequately the country’s share of EU-population [Raunio and Wiberg 1998; Wiberg 2005a; 2005b].
As Finland joined the EU only in 1995, there has not been much time even for researchers to focus upon the various aspects of European integration. Everyone in the field had to start from scratch because no research tradi- tions existed in the country in mid-1990s.
After World War II Finland found itself in a delicate situation. With a strong eastern neighbor, the country’s room for maneuver was limited. The country did its best to
achieve functional relations with all immediate neighbors, to the east and west – and to a large extend succeeded in defending her economic, political and military interests. Finland’s foreign policy of small-state political realism in- volved balancing between close – but not too close – rela- tions with the Soviet Union, and good access for her indus- tries to Western markets through the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) and the European Economic Commu- nity (EEC) treaty arrangements. The name of the game was neutrality. As trade increased, the country started to orien- tate itself more and more towards the west.
Finland joined the EU in 1995, together with Austria and Sweden. Finland’s readiness to implement her mem- bership obligations turned out to be good. The new legisla- tion preparing the country for membership was passed quickly, and the Grand Committee of Parliament assumed the role of a European affairs committee. In the govern- ment, the Cabinet for the European Union Committee and a number of other special bodies were also set up. Revenue payments from Finland to the Budget of the European Communities was provided for, as expenditures paid con- versely from that Budget to the Finnish government budget started flowing. The Finnish government decided to as- sume the guise of a model pupil with meticulous adherence to the Maastricht convergence criteria. This led to cutbacks
– in some respects very deep – in public finances. Although several member states which really fell short of the conver- gence criteria were nevertheless admitted into the Euro- pean Monetary Union (EMU), Finland continued to fulfil each and every criterion. In 1999 Finland joined the third stage of the EMU and the country joined the Eurozone. On January 1, 2002 Finland became the only Nordic member state to move to the Euro regime.
Since Finland’s EU membership started, there has been a majority public opinion for its continuation. Finns have indicated in national polls that they are nowadays much less interested in EU affairs than they were prior to membership and that they find increasingly that everybody has available reliable information on those affairs. At the
same time, they rate their own information about the EU as increasingly deficient. According to the Finns, the most positive aspects of membership involve benefits to exports and foreign trade arising from the unified market, as well as an improved international image for Finland, and low rates of interest. The most negative aspects of EU membership for Finland were thought to include the position of the agricultural population, bureaucracy, and diminished na- tional self-determination. In most respects, the Finns can be categorized as Euro skeptics, just like the British, the Swedes and the Danes.
The country’s attitude towards EU-membership has been rather pragmatic. The political elite and state admini- stration adjusted to the EU rules and institutions without making specific demands or seeking reform of the estab- lished procedures of the Union. This was evident, first, in the membership negotiations, where the government ac- cepted the Maastricht Treaty without reservation. In the case of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Finland sought no exemptions from existing policies. Second, al- ready in the advent of the European Economic Area (EEA) the core of the Finnish political system –parties, parliament and government bureaucracy – adjusted to challenges brought about by the membership. Since membership, no Finnish party has demanded Finland’s withdrawal from the Union, which is contrary to the case in Sweden. Nor does any party demand any special exemptions for Finland from the acquis. Third, Finland’s national European policy has sought to consolidate her position in the inner core of the Union.
Regarding the domestic political balance of power in Finland, foreign policy decision-making has undergone a significant transformation, as the dominant position of the president has been reduced towards a ceremonial role, and foreign policy has received a stronger parliamentary em- phasis. The country got a new constitution effective since March 2000. The government now dictates the orientation of the national integration policy, with the president inter- vening mainly only when certain Common Foreign and
Security Policy (CFSP) questions are on the EU agenda. According to the Finnish constitution, all decisions of the president are formally tied to the decision-making of the government. While decision-making on routine European legislation is rather markedly decentralised with much min- isterial autonomy, the overall direction of national EU pol- icy and key policy choices are co-ordinated within the Cabinet and between the political parties, including the opposition in the parliament. This domestic consensus- building is partially driven by the need to achieve consis- tency and cohesion when negotiating with other member states and the EU institutions. The multi-party coalition governments, together with the role accorded to the oppo- sition in the Parliament’s Grand Committee, facilitate the broad backing for governmental action at the European level.
Before membership one of the most repeated claims was that Finland can best protect her interests by partici- pating in European integration and by learning and adapt- ing to the rules of the game. During most of her member- ship Finland has been a net payer to the EU budget. How- ever, more general – and at the same time, more relevant – economic indicators testify that the Finnish economy has definitely benefited and continues to benefit from member- ship. It also appears that there have been no serious in- stances in which Finnish positions have been overruled in the EU decision-making. It remains to be seen whether the chosen strategies are beneficial or if they include detrimen- tal or risky elements.
As noted above, in most respects the Finns can be ca- tegorized as Euro skeptics together with the British, the Swedes and the Danes. Finnish public opinion has been rather stable during the whole membership period. (see figures 1 and 2).
FIG. 1. Opinions of all and Finnish Eurobarometer-respondents on whether or not the own country has benefitted from membership in the EU.
Taken together, the Eurobarometer and the Finnish national EU poll findings indicate that public opinion in Finland remains cautiously positive – but to a remarkable degree also skeptical – about the benefits of membership. Eurobarometers also show that Finns are less supportive than the average EU citizens of further transfers of policy competencies to the European level. On this item the views of the Finnish political parties and the Finnish public are largely congruent. However, according to a survey carried out in 1995, Finnish MPs are considerably more pro- integrationist than the country’s citizens [Raunio and Wi- berg 2000]. However, the largely pro-integrationist politi- cal elite have not been successful in convincing the ordi- nary citizens about the virtues of integration. Thus EU membership has added a new significant cleavage to the Finnish political system. It is noteworthy that the cleavage exists rather within parties than between them: there are Euro skeptics in all larger parties.
FIG. 2. Opinions of all and Finnish Eurobarometer-respondents on whether the own country’s membership is a good or bad thing.
On the European level, the Finnish government was willing to make concessions in EU decision-making in or- der to better protect core national issues, and it particularly refrained from causing complications in negotiations by seeking exemptions from common rules. By showing flex- ibility and readiness to compromise, the government ap- pears to expect similar behavior from other member states when nationally important issues are on the EU agenda. Until 2000 Finns did not make any trouble in the Council, but, as Mattila showed, this has somewhat changed during 2004-2006 when Finland positioned itself as the sixth country among the members states measured by the fre- quency of negative votes or abstentions in the Council [Mattila 2009]. It is probably the alteration in cabinet composition that explains this change. The new cabinet needed to be able to demonstrate that Finland is not will- ing to accept everything. It is safe to assume that these demonstrations are mostly for domestic consumption.
Finnish integration history has been analysed by sev- eral scholars [Ahonen, Wiberg and Raunio 2004; Wiberg and Ahonen 2005; Väyrynen 1993; Paavonen 1989, 2001 and 2004; Raunio and Tiilikainen 2003; Jenssen et al.1998].
3. Little and of variable quality: Overall mapping of Finnish European studies literature
With a population of only 5.3 million people, Finland has a relatively small political science community ̶ by any reasonable measure , the smallest in the Nordic countries, bar tiny Iceland. Finnish European studies more or less started in the mid1990s, when the country joined the EU. There were some semi-academic publications even before that, but they were of very little if any academic value even at the point of their publication. Academic quality re- quirements satisfying Finnish European studies (ES) litera- ture is, consequently, scarce and, on average, not of partic- ularly high quality compared to the strictest professional standards. However, from a European perspective, Finnish scholars of European integration do not have to be ashamed of their work. The bulk of Finnish ES- publications have been published in other refereed jour- nals. There are some few qualitatively high exceptions from this dismal situation, but on the whole, the Finnish political science community has not been able to produce much top-level research on this topic. It should however be add- ed, that the best ES publications are simultaneously among the best quality publications of Finnish political science in general. In a way all this is what we should expect given the small amount of intellectual and other resources devoted to the field. There is rather much elementary, pedagogically useful material, but first class research projects and thus research outputs have been rare. The scholarly community is and has always been small, comprising roughly 20 people, using a very wide criterion for who is an academic scholar in this field. It should be strongly emphasized that the Finnish contributions and their results are by and large the output of individual researchers and not that of aca- demic research teams or well-established or well-funded projects. Given the small amount of economic resources that have been devoted to the field, Finnish European stu- dies are of remarkably high quality: the academic commu- nity in Europe has quite many Finnish scientific contribu-
tions with very small or non-existent direct costs to the Finnish taxpayers.
The Finnish Political Science Association (FPSA) is one of the oldest in the world. Founded in 1935 the FPSA comprises almost all professional political scientists. There has not been any particular EU-orientation in the activities of the FPSA in general, but EU-themes have regularly been dealt with in the workshops at the annual conferences of the association, at least the since mid-1990s. Politics and International Relations are taught at seven universities: Helsinki, Turku and Åbo Akademi (the latter of which is the Swedish speaking University in Turku; Åbo is the Swe- dish name of Turku), Tampere, Jyväskylä, Rovaniemi, and Vaasa. All these units have provided courses in European Studies since the mid-1990s.
The Europe Institute at the University of Turku ex- isted in a few different versions during the 1980s and 1990s. It moved and was redesigned into the Pan- European Institute (PEI) at the Turku Business School. During recent years it has not been known for producing academic research in the field and even its educational functions have been modest. It would be fair to bluntly categorize the activities of these institutions as strong pro- EU propaganda than as academic research environments.
The Network for European Studies was founded late 2002 with the purpose of reinforcing and coordinating the study of European issues within all faculties and disciplines of the University of Helsinki. Its impact has been, by any reasonable measure, very modest, especially in terms of research outputs.
4. EU research in Finland: institutional settings
In the course of the accession negotiations and after membership, EU issues have become an integral, but minor, part of scholarly interest in Finland. In political science this has manifested in several ways. The institutions providing teaching/research in European Studies in Finland are:
University of Helsinki: Department of Political and Economic Studies
University of Helsinki: interdisciplinary Network for European Studies (NES)
University of Helsinki: Centre for European Studies (CESUH)
University of Turku: Department of Political Science University of Turku: Jean Monnet Centre of Excel-
lence (2003-2007, 1996-2003 JM chair)
University of Turku: Turku School of Economics, Pan-European Institute
University of Tampere: Department of Political Sci-
University of Tampere: Jean Monnet Centre of Excel-
University of Tampere: Department of Law, Interna- tional and European Law
University of Lapland: Political Science
The Finnish Institute for International Affairs (FIIA): Europe research program (started in 2008) Special Euro- pean Studies programs have been established in three uni- versities since mid1990s, in Helsinki, Turku and Tampere. Already before that many courses were delivered at most of the larger and older universities in the country.
5. Disciplinary traditions and theoretical approaches in Finnish European studies
Out of a various myriad of ways in categorizing Euro- pean studies we have divided here the scholarly output into four distinct groups based on their overall academic merit to political science (some prolific authors are listed, see the references for bibliographical details):
a. Institutional analysis (Nurmi, Mattila, Raunio, Wiberg, Widgren).
b. Voting power studies (Nurmi, Meskanen, Pajala, Wiberg, Widgren).
c. Public opinion and electoral studies (Raunio, Mattila,
d. International relations (Ojanen, Tiilikainen)
Institutional analysis has concentrated especially on the constitutional and organizational issues of the political system of the EU and in particular on the decision-making rules and actual voting behavior within the Council of Mi- nisters. Theories and methods of analytical political theory and of comparative politics have been used as well as theo- ries of institutional design together with tools from eco- nomics (game theory in particular). These studies have demonstrated that the Council of Ministers is by far the most import decision-making body in the EU-setting. It has also been shown that a culture of consensus exists: voting in the Council is rather rare and when it does occur it is typically one member state that is contesting the proposal. Mattila’s results show that the Council’s political space is comprised of two main dimensions [Mattila 2009]. The first dimension reflects the north-south cleavage found in the Council even before the 2004 enlargement, while the second one is related to enlargement and indicates a clea- vage between the new and old member states. Thus, in the enlarged Union, the north-south dimension is replaced by a north-south-east pattern. It is noteworthy that the Council political space is different from the European Parliament’s political space, in which the left-right dimension dominates voting [Mattila 2004, 2008; Mattila and Lane 2001]. One of the most prolific Finnish researchers in this field is Tapio Raunio, who has published extensively on how representa- tive democracy works in the context of the EU. In his re- search on national parliaments, Raunio has showed how domestic legislatures in general subject their governments to tighter scrutiny than before [O’Brennan and Raunio 2007; Raunio 2009]. Variation in the level of scrutiny is in turn primarily explained by two factors – the powers of the parliament independent of integration and party or public positions on Europe, with higher levels of Euro skepticism facilitating tighter parliamentary scrutiny [Raunio 2005]. While there is no shortage of research on national parlia- ments and European integration, we lack empirical studies
on the impact of EU on domestic legislatures [Wiberg 1997; Raunio and Wiberg 2008]. According to the «decline of parliaments» thesis that dominates the literature, the executive branch has increased its powers vis-à-vis the leg- islature. At the same time most studies indicate that the parliaments in the Nordic region are on average stronger than their counterparts in central and southern European countries. Raunio and Wiberg  have examined the validity of the «decline of parliaments» thesis in the context of Finland, a country where recent constitutional reforms have strengthened parliamentarism by reducing the powers of the president and empowering the government and the parliament. Analyzing the constitutional balance of power between state organs, the interaction between the govern- ment and the opposition, and the ability of the parliament to hold the cabinet accountable, this article argues that despite its stronger constitutional position, the Eduskunta faces considerable difficulties in controlling the govern- ment. The results show that the parliamentarisation of the political system also means that the Eduskunta faces the same difficulties as its counterparts in other European par- liamentary democracies. The division between the govern- ment and opposition is the most important cleavage. As the party groups of the government parties need to support the government and its program, the parliament as an institu- tion is rather weak or unwilling to use even those control mechanisms vested in it. Considering that the opposition has been both numerically weak and ideologically frag- mented, the government does not have to be very respon- sive to the parliament as long as it can guarantee continued support from its own party groups. To summarize, Finnish politics is nowadays almost completely government-driven. The parliament sets some outer constraints for the execu- tive, but the bulk of parliamentary business consists of reacting to initiatives from the government [Raunio and Wiberg 2008]. Raunio and Wiberg contribute to the litera- ture by discussing the challenges involved in measuring the Europeanization of national parliaments. They also sug- gested several hypotheses and indicators – EU-related na-
tional laws, the use of control instruments (confidence votes and parliamentary questions) in EU matters, and the share of committee, plenary and party group meeting, time spent on European matters – that can be used in subse- quent comparative research. Evidence from Finland shows the differentiated impact of Europe: while the share of domestic laws related to EU is smaller than often argued, particularly committees are burdened to a much larger extent by European matters [Raunio and Wiberg 2010].
Turning to political parties, Raunio has shown how the positions of Finnish parties on Europe are explained by both ideology and party strategy on elections and govern- ment formation [Raunio 1999; Johansson and Raunio 2001]. At least theoretically, European integration also empowers party leaders and party groups at the expense of other party actors [Raunio 2002].
In terms of the European Parliament (EP), Raunio has analyzed both the internal politics of the EP and the links between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and their national parties. Concerning the former, research has shown EP groups to be relatively cohesive, with coali- tion formation in the Parliament mainly organized along the left-right dimension [Raunio 1997]. Together with Vir- ginie Mamadouh, Raunio has examined the distribution of committee seats and rapporteurships, showing that the most expensive reports, such as those on the EU budget or on important pieces of co-decision legislation, are largely controlled by the large party groups [Mamadouh and Rau- nio 2003]. Concerning links between MEPs and their par- ties back in the member states, Raunio has shown that while there is more policy coordination, the former are subjected to very little actual control by their domestic parties [Raunio 2000; 2007]. By using a principal-agent framework, he argued that the level of contacts or control between parties and their MEPs depends on the costs and benefits of such control for national parties [Raunion 2007]. Based on interviews of party officials carried out in 2004 – 2005, he shows how in Finland the electoral system impacts on relations between parties and MEPs. The open-
list system works against active control of MEPs, as the party leadership has – despite centralized candidate selec- tion procedures – fairly limited incentives to influence the MEPs’ work. The findings clearly show that Finnish MEPs act relatively independently of their parties. This does not mean that MEPs would be divorced from their national parties or constituencies. On the contrary, MEPs through- out the EU remain firmly connected to national politics through a variety of channels – with most of them holding simultaneously various offices in their parties (either at the local, district or national level) and maintaining active links with their party organizations and voters. Second, the choice of the electoral system clearly impacts the MEPs’ behavior. The open-list system used in Finland works against active control of MEPs, as the party leadership has fairly limited possibilities to influence MEPs’ work.
Perhaps the most significant conclusion to emerge from these studies is the gap that still exists between na- tional party organizations and the European Parliament. The standard argument in the literature has been that as the EP gains new powers, national parties will start invest- ing more resources in holding their MEPs accountable. There is evidence that supports these arguments – MEPs’ voting behavior is influenced by candidate selection me- chanisms, some parties (such as the British Labor Party) have established new instruments for controlling their MEPs, and in general parties seem to pay more attention to the Parliament. Nonetheless, we are still far from a situa- tion where national parties would actively control their MEPs. There are a number of reasons for this. First, for most parties the costs of active control outweigh the bene- fits, particularly when considering that the majority of the approximately 200 parties that win seats in the Parliament are quite small. It thus makes little sense for parties to in- vest valuable resources in oversight of MEPs when their EP delegations have marginal chances of influencing parlia- mentary decisions. Related to this is the fact that national parties are normally not punished in elections for their MEPs’ actions. Moreover, most votes in the Parliament are
not salient enough for parties or they produce diffuse bene- fits as opposed to clearly identifiable winners and losers. After all, the main decisions concerning redistributive poli- cies, such as the size of the EU’s budget or allocations of agricultural and regional funds, are taken by the other EU institutions. Hence parties probably want to establish over- sight mechanisms of the «fire alarm» type that keep them informed of events in Brussels without putting too much strain on their resources. Second, inflexible control from the national level, such as issuing voting instructions, might prove to be counter-productive, preventing MEPs from reaching bargains favorable to the parties. And third, agen- cy behavior may be guided by the preferences of the prin- cipal even without any use of formal sanctions. MEPs may respond to and anticipate the preferences of their national parties and constituents without actually consulting them. The available evidence indicates that national parties do pay more attention to European issues, and that they also keep a closer eye on what their MEPs do. But, this change should not be exaggerated. For European parties, not to mention European voters, the national level continues to be the most important level of decision-making, and as a result politics in the European Parliament will remain a second- ary concern for them [Raunio 2007]. In the field of inter- institutional power relations many techniques have been used, not least the framework of a priori power indices [Banzhaf and Shapley-Shubik], but also bargaining analysis and game theory in general [Widgren, Nurmi, Wiberg, Pajala]. A rich variety of sophisticated research methods as well as many types of empirical data has been used. Prob- abilistic measures of a priori voting power are useful tools to evaluate actors influence on collective decision-making either for the purpose of designing a voting organ or to model particular policy cases. Several Finnish attempts have been made to reduce a dynamic voting process into a cooperative voting game. The EU has been used as an ex- ample. With power indices one is able to quantify, for in- stance, to what extent the development of the decision- making procedures of the EU has changed the division of
power among its main organs. Studies in the distribution of a priori voting power especially within the Council of Mi- nisters and in the European Parliament have been carried out with some quite distinctive results. These calculations have concentrated on distribution of voting power among the member states – see Nurmi, Pajala, Napel and Widgren
– and among the parliamentary party groupings within the European Parliament [Raunio and Wiberg 1998; Faas, Raunio and Wiberg 2004; Wiberg 2005]. Nurmi, for in- stance, has shown the narrow relevance of power indices in the study of use of power within EU-institutions [Nurmi 2009]. Agenda control is far more important than the dis- tribution of a priori voting power among the relevant play- ers within the EU institutions. From the perspectives of game theory, public choice theory and theory of collective decision-making in general and a priori voting power stu- dies in particular many aspects have been analyzed, some perhaps even overanalyzed in the sense that quite many publications contain very similar substantive argumentation lines and even identical results. It would not be wrong to claim that some of the publications in this sub-field are more or less redundant with already existing publications in academic journals and anthologies, domestic and abroad. The publications in the first two sub-fields are typically of rather abstract and of a theoretical nature, but, exceptionally, even empirical considerations have been presented. Some of the publications in this sub-field have been purely normative speculations, technically sophisti- cated, though. Applying bargaining theory to predict inter- institutional agreements in the Conciliation Committee, it turns out that although institutionally the Council and the Parliament are seemingly in a symmetric position, CM has significantly greater influence on EU legislation.
An economist, Mika Widgren, in particular with his German colleague Stefan Napel, have made important contributions to the understanding of the political deci- sion-making mechanisms within the EU. By using various game theoretical tools and a new framework for power measurement, which can explicitly account for decision
procedures and strategic interaction, they have investigated the distribution of power within and between the legislative institutions of the EU [Napel and Widgrén 2004]. They show that seemingly very balanced institutional rules give significantly more influence on outcomes of the co-decision procedure (nowadays the EU's ordinary legislative proce- dure) to the Council of Ministers than to the European Parliament [Napel and Widgrén 2006]. The same holds for the investiture procedure, by which Council and Parlia- ment jointly appoint a new Commission every five years [Napel and Widgrén 2008]. They also show that the move from the very restrictive qualified majority requirements in the Treaty of Nice to the somewhat more relaxed ones of the Treaty of Lisbon will shift some power from the Coun- cil to the Commission and Parliament, as well as from smaller to larger member states [Napel and Widgrén 2009].
Next we will focus upon studies on public opinion in Finland. Public opinion polls, especially the Eurobarometer, as well as domestically organized polls, have been used to shed some light on the integration attitudes of Finns on the individual level [starting with Raunio and Wiberg 1996; 1997 and Wiberg 1998], but these rich polls are clearly un- derused in Finland as only a few publications even mention them [Wiberg 2000]. These data would give us much infor- mation on the general populations’ attitudes on European integration in general and towards various aspects of integra- tion in particular. The polls show that Finns, like the most EU-citizens think of themselves foremost as citizens of their own state. There is an important generation difference as the younger people feel themselves to be both Finns and Euro- peans. Some fruitful cross-fertilization with election studies is to be found as integration issues have been tackled in this sub-field, too. Elections to the European Parliament have been studied: the 1996 and 1999 elections [Raunio and Pe- sonen 2000; Mattila 2000], the 2004 election [Tiilikainen and Wass 2004; Mattila and Raunio 2005; Nurmi, Helin and Raunio 2007; Raunio 2009].
Mattila analyzed the turnout for the European Par-
liamentary elections and came to the result that turnout is affected partly by the same factors that affect turnout in normal national elections and partly by factors related to the EU [Mattila 2003]. He showed that most of the cross- country variation in turnout can be explained by the same variables in national elections. Compulsory voting, week- end voting and having other elections simultaneously with EP elections increase turnout. Also some EU specific fac- tors affect turnout, but their effect is smaller. Voters in countries benefiting from the EU subsidies vote more ac- tively than voters in the countries that pay these subsidies. Furthermore, turnout is higher in countries with strong support for EU membership. Holding elections during weekends and having multiple constituencies in all coun- tries could increase the turnout by approximately 10 per- centage points [Mattila 2003].
It has been convincingly demonstrated that the clea- vages from the consultative referendum still prevail in the general public. Integration attitudes follow to a remarkable degree the same pattern that demonstrated itself already in the referendum 1994, where the main question in the minds of the voters was a choice between «Yes» or
«Njyet», the security-political dimension was the most sa- lient. The southern voters voted mostly «Yes», the north- ern, mainly agricultural citizens, voted «No» [Jenssen et. al 1998].
A Finnish think tank, Finnish Business and Policy Fo- rum (Elinkeinoelämän Valtuuskunta, EVA), has been regu- larly publishing a public opinion poll on Finns attitudes since 1984, and integration attitudes since 1992, but these have been used very little in scholarly works [Pesonen and Riihinen 2002]. These polls show that Finns attitudes to- ward EU membership are rather lukewarm and have re- mained more or less unchanged since 1995. Throughout this period roughly one third of Finns have taken a neutral stance toward EU membership while some 40 percent have had a positive and the remaining 30 percent a negative attitude toward membership. Finns believe that EU devel- opments in recent years have been marked by growth in the
influence of large member countries and an increased ten- dency of member countries to «protect their own turf» in decision-making. Moreover, Finland’s influence in the EU is deemed to have decreased. Despite all this criticism, the majority see the new EU-level approaches incorporated in the EU’s common foreign policy or climate policy in a posi- tive light. On the other hand, Finns are not enthusiastic about the enlargement of the EU, and a majority would see, for example, Turkey’s membership in the EU as a bad thing.
Together with Mikko Mattila, Raunio has analysed party-voter congruence over EU and party competition at the EU level [Mattila and Raunio 2006, 2009]. Regarding the former, they show that parties are more supportive of European integration than their voters, government parties are less responsive than opposition parties, and that opi- nion congruence was higher in smaller parties. Turning to party competition, Mattila and Raunio suggest that gov- ernment size impacts party positions and contestation on integration, with large coalition governments hindering party competition on the EU dimension.
Let us now turn to the fourth sub-field: Finnish ES- research in the field of international politics. The various aspects of the foreign policy capacity and practical chal- lenges as well as actual behavior of the EU in international relations has been studied to some degree by Finnish scho- lars in international relations (particularly by Ojanen and Tiilikainen). These publications focus mainly on theories of European integration, Nordic cooperation, Finland in the EU and on the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).
Through an analysis of integration theories and through the construction of alternative versions of two case studies, Ojanen shows how seemingly contradictory theo- ries are all equally valid, their validity depending on the basic assumptions made on what the state is and on the nature of the integration process [Ojanen 1998]. Her re- search [Ojanen 2005] of Nordic cooperation shows the distance between official description through politically
correct terminology, and what has been going on in prac- tice, contributing to the research on the claimed specificity of Nordic and of European integration processes. Her re- search into a member states’ first years in the Union [Oja- nen 1999; 2000] shows how a new member states may
«customize» the Union (in particular, its external relations) to increase consistency between how the country’s own profile and that of the Union are being perceived, both internationally and domestically. In the field of ESDP Oja- nen illustrates the limited relevance of explanations of the ESDP that stem from security policy proper (events, threat perceptions) [Ojanen 2006a; 2006b]. Instead, this particu- lar field of the EU evolves because of other reasons, includ- ing internal dynamics, other actors’ involvement, national interests often aimed at something else than ESDP devel- opment, thus, unintentional consequences, and also of the need felt by politicians of availing themselves of trends in public opinion [Ojanen 2006]. In the field of on inter- organizational relations Ojanen argues that this is an emerging new field in search of a theory that enables con- ceptualizing what actually happens in the interaction of international organizations, particularly in the field of secu- rity policy [Ojanen 2006, 2007]. She observes different kinds of interaction, from imitation and innovation- spreading to cooperation and competition.
Tiilikainen's study of the EU's self-understanding shows that the traditional elements of state identity (sove- reignty, territoriality) have taken an all the more dominant position in the formulation of the Union's policies since the late 1980s [Tiilikainen 2010]. Her earlier study [Tiilikainen 2001] shows how decisions with a much more limited con- tent (internal market, the legal personalities of the com- munities) have played a key role in the political process into this direction. Studies on the EU's institutional devel- opment concerning the field of its external relations [Tiili- kainen 2005] prove that the institutional solutions of poli- cy-preparation and policy-making that achieve the highest justification are solutions copied from the state model.
These publications have mostly been rather descrip-
tive and/or normative if not purely speculative with very little true scientific innovation with respect to a) research questions, b) theoretical viewpoints, c) testable hypotheses,
d) empirical data, e) proper methods or research tech- niques and, indeed, f) research results. Relatively many, if not almost all, publications in this field lack at least one of the mentioned necessary elements of any scientific publica- tion. Quite commonly no clear hypotheses are neither for- mulated nor tested. The research question these publica- tions address are, to put it mildly, unclear more often than not. Theoretically this sub-field is clearly underdeveloped. Theories are typically only rather mentioned than applied or used for any scholarly purpose. The used data is, for the most part, only anecdotal at best, but typically lacking alto- gether. Given the lack of proper systematic empirical data and precisely formulated, theoretically determined research hypotheses, it is moreover the case that the scholars in in- ternational relations typically do not apply any particular research technique known to the community of western social scientists. As a logical and consequence of this, typi- cally no clear research results are to be found in the nu- merous publications. Even their practical relevance to the domestic foreign policy community is of meager nature: it is not known whether the Finnish foreign policy practi- tioners even read these publications, but it is sure that even if they do, they do not impact practical policy formulation in any measurable way. In some sense this is rather odd as the researchers in this field seem to see the national deci- sion-makers as their primary audience. A typical publica- tion in this sub-field starts with a very broad general ques- tion or perhaps only with a loose theme, then quickly gets into day-to-day details and finally presents few rather sweeping semi-practical conclusions.
There are very few if any major, internationally ac- claimed contributions made by Finns in the field of Euro- pean studies. No foreign scientific prizes seem to have been given to any Finnish integration scholars. Some mainstream scholars (notably Raunio and Mattila) have published regu- larly in high prestige academic journals. The Finnish politi-
cal science community or rather its scholarly active core has rather closely followed the ongoing international discus- sions in European studies and distributed the main find- ings in their scholarly work both as authors and teachers. The traffic seems to be very asymmetric: almost totally from abroad to Finland. To use the vocabulary of network analysis: the in-degree is hugely larger than the out-degree. This is not surprising given the smallness of Finnish re- sources.
It feels rather safe to claim that the scholarly activities have had only a negligent impact on EU policy at the na- tional political level. Some scholars, and in particular those whose academic merit is of questionable quality, are regu- larly interviewed in the mainstream mass media, and some have been working in various ways in the corridors of pow- ers, quite many think of themselves as some kind of self- recruited grey eminences – as experts both for the govern- ment and parliament as well as for various ministries. There are no clear indications whether the best scholars have been helping Finnish national party headquarters in their formulation of their integration policies, but there are some known cases of intellectual ad hoc contributions to some of the main parties and state bureaucracies. For the most part Finnish scholars in the field of European studies, at least the scientifically more competent ones, have enjoyed their professional life within the ivory towers of the universities.
On a more general level semi-scholars and propagan- dists in academic disguise have also written extensively in the newspapers and have given interviews to the media on various topics of actuality, not least in the context of Euro- pean elections and other events of key importance for deci- sion making and policy formulation and implementation and evaluation within the EU. There is, unfortunately, no systematic study of the volume, intensity or impact of these contributions. It is a safe bet, though, to claim that even when many Finns perhaps recognize these activists, they pay very little or no attention to what is being said. This is, paradoxically, perhaps only for the good as what is being claimed is typically not grounded in serious academic re-
search, but only reflects the visionary hopes and wishes of those talking.
As is common in the academic EU-publication pro- duction in most of the EU member states, even Finns started with presenting quite a few institutional descrip- tions on the formal decision making structures in the EU, often in an elementary, naïve and popular fashion. Some solid textbooks were published, though [Raunio and Wi- berg 1998, 2000]. These were used widely in EU-studies at the elementary level in Finnish universities. The more ma- ture and creative academic scholarship followed with a series of articles and analytic works on the operation of the EU and its institutional innovations, which have been eva- luated according to a variety of criteria. The readership of these masterpieces is, unfortunately, rather limited and its impact probably even much smaller.
Some former MEPs have in their memoires and cur- rent affair books presented anecdotal evidence on the real use of power in the EU architecture (among others Satu Hassi, Reino Paasilinna, Pertti Paasio, Mikko Pesälä, Esko Seppänen, Alexander Stubb), but these accounts do by no means contribute to the scientific EU-literature, in some cases they even contradict the scientific findings as they tend to suggest a rather rosy picture of the political processes within the EU institutions.
Some pedagogic innovations have been established. For instance the decision-making modeling and simulations have been taught at the universities of Tampere and Turku in courses and seminars run by the author of this chapter in the 1990s and early 2000s.
6. Summary of main findings
Proper academic ES have been published by Finnish scholars only during the last 15 years or so. Focusing main- ly on the decision-making aspects of the operation of the EU, this academic output has contributed to a more realis- tic understanding of how the EU actually works and how it
should function given certain normative goals and criteria. The best outputs have been published in the best academic mainstream political science journals. There is still very much to be researched.
Mainstream Finnish political scientists have contri- buted to the understanding of the institutional structure of the EU and the division of power within these institutions. Theoretically sophisticated analyses with important re- search results have been published.
In the field of international relations the situation is much worse. Their theoretical value is questionable as no theories are used nor contributed to. Quite often the even- tual reader is left without any demonstration as to how the presented conclusions follow from their discussion. It is more often the case than not that the premises on which the presentation is based have not been stated at all. Em- pirical evidence is seldom collected in a systematic way. The analysis typically does not convince the eventual reader in the sense that empirical research techniques would have been used. There is typically very little proper scientific application of any known research method or technique - which, by the way, seems to be the case in the sub-filed of international relations in general, not only with respect to European studies. It is practically impossible to find any systematic analysis with any theoretical or empirical depth in this sub-field. The texts might be interesting in their own right, but as they are not based on the professional applica- tion of systematic research techniques to important data, their scientific value is questionable. The publications in this field present more French écriture or so called slow- journalism than academic analysis with proper data and systematic application of modern research tools. No won- der that the results seem to be of rather modest type, with little or no academic or other merit. The bulk of these pub- lications seem too outdated already upon arrival, i.e. when they are published.
It is easy to point to several serious omissions and gaps in the Finnish cumulative academic knowledge on European integration. Let me conclude by mentioning a
few of them. All things considered: What drives integration and what impact does it have on the national political sys- tem of Finland? How has Finland as a nation and its vari- ous demographic segments been treated in the EU? What are the main consequences of EU-membership for Finland and its institutions and population? Who are the domestic winners and losers of integration? Which are the main drawbacks and misjudgments? Which results have been achieved? Which of these achievements have been the re- sults of wise policies of the Finnish political elite and which portion has just occurred for other reasons? What explains the still intense and frequent Euro skepticism not only in the public opinion, but in practical everyday choices of both the establishment and individual citizens? We do know all too little on elite recruitment to and in the EU, too? One of the remaining central tasks for further research is to explain the low level of saliency of EU-issues in Fin- nish national politics.
To use the metaphor of Gabriel Almond (1990), one could perhaps summarize the Finnish contribution to Eu- ropean studies by claiming that true believers (for or against European integration) and sober scholars have been at separate tables with very little interest in each other and practically no impact on each other.
Ahonen, P., Wiberg, M. and Raunio, T.
2004 Il percorso della Finlandia in Europa, dalla periferia nord-orientale al centro continale, in Idee d'Europa e integrazione europea, edited by A. Landuyt, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 451-504.
Almond, G. A.
1990 Separate tables A Discipline Divided, Schools and Sects in Political Science, London, Sage.
Duke, S. and Ojanen, H.
2006 Bridging Internal and External Security, Lessons from the European Security and Defence Policy, in «Journal of European Integration» Vol. 28, n. 5, pp. 477-494.
Jenssen, A. T., Gilljam, M. and Pesonen, P. (eds.)
1998 To Join or Not to Join. Three Nordic Referendum on Membership in the European Union, Oslo, Scandinavian University Press.
Jopp, M. and Ojanen H. (eds.)
1999 European security integration, implications for non- alignment and alliance, Helsinki, Bonn, Paris, Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Lane, J. and Mattila, M.
1998 Der Abstimmungsprozeß im Ministerrat, in Europa der Bürger? Voraussetzungen, Alternativen, Konsequenzen, edited by T. König, E. Rieger and H. Schmitt, Campus Verlag.
2000 Äänestysaktiivisuus Euroopan parlamentin vaaleissa, in Vaalista vaaliin. Vaalit, puolueet ja kansalaiset vuosituhannen vaihteessa, edited by V. Hellsten, T. Martikainen and K. Pekonen, Acta Politica 16, De- partment of Political Science, University of Helsinki, pp. 189-210.
2003 Why Bother? Determinants of Turnout in the European Elections, in «Electoral Studies» Vol. 22, n. 3, pp. 449- 468.
2004 Contested Decisions - Empirical Analysis of Voting in the EU Council of Ministers, in «European Journal of Po- litical Research» Vol. 43, n. 1, pp. 29-50.
2004 Fiscal Redistribution in the European Union and the Enlargement, in «International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior» Vol. 7, n.4, pp. 555-570.
2006 Fiscal Transfers and Redistribution in the European Union, Do Smaller Member States Get More than their Share?, in «Journal of European Public Policy» Vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 34-51.
2008 Voting and Coalitions in the Council after the Enlarge- ment, in Unveiling the Council of the European Union. Games Governments Play in Brussels, edited by D. Naurin and H. Wallace, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmil- lan, pp. 23-35.
2009 Roll Call Analysis of Voting in the EU Council of Minis- ters after the 2004 Enlargement, in «European Journal of Political Research» Vol. 48, n. 6, pp. 840-857.
Mattila, M. and Lane, J-E.
2001 Why Unanimity in the Council? A Roll Call Analysis of Council Voting, in «European Union Politics» n. 2, pp. 31-52.
Mattila, M. and Raunio, T.
2002 Government Formation in the Nordic Countries. The Electoral Connection, in «Scandinavian Political Stud- ies» Vol. 25, n. 3, pp. 259-280.
2006 Cautious Voters - Supportive Parties, Opinion Congru- ence Between Voters and Parties on The EU Dimension, in «European Union Politics» Vol. 7, n. 4, pp. 427-449.
2009 From Consensus to Competition? Ideological Alterna- tives on the EU Dimension, in «Comparative European Politics» Vol. 7, n. 3, pp. 325-341.
Napel, S. and Widgrén, M.
2004 Power Measurement as Sensitive Analysis - A Unified. Approach, in «Journal of Theoretical Politics» Vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 517-538.
2006 The Inter-Institutional Distribution of Power in European Union Codecision, in «Social Choice and Welfare» Vol. 27, n. 1, pp. 129-154.
2008 The European Commission – Appointment, Preferences, and Institutional Relations, in «Public Choice» Vol. 137, n.1-2, pp. 21-41.
2009 Strategic A Priori Power in the European Union’s Codeci- sion Procedure, in «Homo Oeconomicus» Vol. 26, n. 3- 4, pp. 297-316.
1992 Apriorisen äänestysvallan jakautuminen Euroopan Yhteisön ministerineuvostossa, in «Politiikka», n. XXXIV, pp. 118-128.
1997 The Representation of Voter Groups in the European Parliament, a Penrose-Banzhaf Index Analysis, in «Elec- toral Studies» No.16, pp. 317-327.
2000 Game-Theoretical Approaches to the EU Institutions, An Overview and Evaluation, in «Homo Oeconomicus» n. XVI, pp. 363-389.
Nurmi, H. and Herne, K
1993 The Distribution of A Priori Voting Power in the EC Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, in
«Scandinavian Political Studies» n. 16, pp.269-284.
Nurmi H. and Meskanen T.
1999 A Priori Power Measures and the Institutions of the European Union, in «European Journal of Political Re- search» n. 35, pp. 161-179.
2000 Voting Paradoxes and MCDM, Group Decision and Ne- gotiation, pp. 297-313.
Nurmi, H., Meskanen, T. and Pajala, A.
2000 Calculus of Consent in the EU Council of Ministers, in
«Homo Oeconomicus» n.XVII (1/2), pp. 85-106.
Nurmi, H. and Hosli, M.O.
2003 Which Decision Rule for the Future Council?, in «Euro- pean Union Politics» n. 4, pp. 37-50.
Nurmi, H., Helin, J. and Raunio, T.
2007 The Best Represented. Voters in Europe, An a Priori Vot- ing Power Analysis of the 2004 Elections for the Euro- pean Parliament, in «Homo Oeconomicus» Vol. 24, n.3- 4, pp. 485-500.
2009 Voting Weights or Agenda Control, Which One Really Matters?, in «AUCO-Czech Economic Review» Vol. 4, n. 1, pp. 5-17.
O’Brennan, J. and Raunio, T. (eds.)
2007 National Parliaments within the Enlarged European Union: From ’victims’ of integration to competitive ac- tors?, Abingdon, Routledge.
1998 The Plurality of truth: a critique of research on the state and European integration, Aldershot, Ashgate.
1999a EU and the prospects of common defence, Helsinki, Fin- nish Institute of International Affairs.
1999b Finland and the CFSP, Allegiance, Activism and Non- alignment, in Austria, Finland and Sweden, The Initial Years of EU Membership, edited by P. Luif and K. Ob- eregelsbacher, Wien, Federal Academy of Public Ad- ministration and the AIIA.
1999c How to Customise Your Union: Finland and the “North- ern Dimension of the EU. Northern Dimensions, pp. 13-26. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Ojanen, H., Herolf, G. and Lindalh, R.
2000a Non-alignment and European security policy, ambiguity at work, Helsinki, Finnish Institute of International Af- fairs and Bonn, Institut für Europäische Politik.
2000b The EU and its “Northern Dimension” – an actor in search of a policy, or a policy in search of an actor?, in
«European Foreign Affairs Review» Vol. 5, n. 3, pp. 359-376.
2003a EU:n puolustuspolitiikka ja suhteet Natoon, tervetullutta kilpailua, Helsinki, Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Ojanen, H. (ed.)
2001 Northern dimension, fuel for the EU?, Helsinki, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, and Bonn, Institut für Europäische Politik.
2003b Neutrality and non-alignment in Europe today, Helsinki, Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
2004 Inter-organisational relations as a factor shaping the EU's external identity, Helsinki, Finnish Institute of Interna- tional Affairs.
2006a EU and the UN, a shared. future; Helsinki, Finnish In- stitute of International Affairs.
2006b Explaining the ESDP, Theoretical Grips on Recent De- velopments, in European Security and Defence Policy, A European Challenge. Strategic Yearbook 2006 of the SwEd.ish National Defence College and the Finnish Na- tional Defence College, edited by B. Huldt, M. Kerttu- nen, J. Mörtberg, and Y. Ericsson, Stockholm, Swedish National Defence College.
2006c Peacekeeping – peacebuilding, preparing for the future. FIIA Report 14/2006. The Finnish Institute of Interna- tional Affairs.
2006d The EU and Nato, Two Competing Models for a Com- mon Defence Policy, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 44, n. 1, pp. 57-76.
2006e The EU's Responsibility for Global Security and De- fence, in A Responsible Europe? Ethical Foundations of EU External Affairs, edited by H. Vogz and H. Mayer, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York Palgrave Macmillan.
2007 Inter-Organizational Relations: the New Facet of Euro- pean Security Policy, in Europe in Context. Insights to the Foreign Policy of the EU, edited by T. Forsberg, T. Kivimäki and L. Laakso, Helsinki, Finnish Internation- al Studies Association, Publications n. 1, pp. 105-119.
2008 Finland and the ESDP, ‘obliquely forwards’?’ in New
Security Issues in Northern Europe. The Nordic and Bal- tic states and the ESDP, edited by C. Archer, Abingdon, Oxon and New York, Routledge, pp. 56-77.
Ojanen, H. and Vuohula, E.
2007 The Finnish Presidency, Efficiency Before Eloquence?, in
«Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 45, annual review, pp. 17-24.
1989 Neutrality, protectionism and the international commu- nity. Finnish foreign economic policy in the period of re- construction of the international economy, 1945-1950, in
«Scandinavian Economic History Review» Vol. 37, n. 1, pp. 23-40.
2001 From isolation to the Core, Finland's position towards European integration, 1960-95, in «Journal of European Integration History» Vol. 7, n. 1, pp. 53-75.
2004 Finland and the question of West European Economic integration, 1947-1961, in «Scandinavian Economic History Review» Vol. 52, n. 2-3, pp. 85-109.
2002 Expected Power and Success in Coalitions and Space, Empirical Voting Power in 17 European Parliaments and the Council of the EU, PhD thesis, Turku, University of Turku.
Pajala, A. and Widgrén, M.
2004 A priori vs. Empirical Voting Power in the EU Council of Ministers, in «European Union Politics» Vol. 5, n.1, pp. 73-97.
2000 Suomen europarlamenttivaalit, Tampere, Tampere University Press,.
Pesonen, P. and Riihinen, O.
2002 Dynamic Finland. The Political System and the Welfare State, in «Studia Fennica, Historica 3», Helsinki, Fin- nish Literature Society.
1996a Parliamentary Questions in the European Parliament, Representation, Information, and Control, in «Journal of Legislative Studies» Vol. 2, n. 4, pp. 356-382.
1996b Party Group Behaviour, an Analysis of Transnational Political Groups in the 1989-94 Parliament, in «Acta Universitatis Tamperensis A» n. 521, Tampere, Vamma-
lan Kirjapaino Oy.
1997a Parlamentarische Anfragen, Das Konzept der Repräsentation, in The European Perspective, Transna- tional Party Groups in the 1989-94 European Parliament, edited Raunio, Ashgate, Aldershot.
1998a Cleavages and Alignments in the European Parliament, MEP Voting Behaviour, 1989-1994, in Transnational Parties in the European Union, edited by D.S. Bell, and
C. Lord, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 168-188.
1998b Euroopan parlamentti — unionin kansanvaltaisin areena, Päätöksenteko Euroopan unionissa — Selkeä johdatus monimutkaiseen vallankäyttöön, edited by in
T. Raunio and M. Wiberg, Helsinki, Gaudeamus, pp. 113-143.
1999a Facing the European Challenge, Finnish Parties Adjust to the Integration Process, in «West European Politics» Vol. 22, n. 1, pp. 138-159.
1999b Always One Step Behind? National Legislatures and the European Union, in «Government and Opposition» Vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 180-202.
1999c Kulisseista puoluejohdon valvontaan? Euroedustajien ja kansallisten puolueiden yhteydet, in «Politiikka» Vol. 41, n.1, pp. 23-39.
1999d The Challenge of Diversity, Party Cohesion in the Euro- pean Parliament, in Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, edited by S. Bowler, D.M. Farrell and
R.S. Katz, Columbus, Ohio State University Press, pp. 189-207.
2000a Losing Independence or Finally Gaining Recognition? Contacts Between MEPs and National Parties, in «Party Politics» Vol. 6, n. 2, pp. 211-223.
2000b Parliamentary Governance and the European Union, in European Economic and Political Issues, edited by F. Columbus, Huntington, NY, II. Nova Science, pp. 109- 125.
2000c Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Decision-Making, Compar- ing National Systems, in National Parliaments and the EU — Stock-Taking for the Post-Amsterdam Era, Eduskunnan kanslian julkaisu 1/2000, pp. 7-17.
2000d Second-rate parties? Towards a better understanding of European Parliament’s party groups, in Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies, Political parties
behind closed. Doors, edited by K. Heidar, and R. Koole, London, Routledge, pp. 231-247.
2001a Finland, in The 1999 Elections to the European Parlia- ment, edited by J. Lodge, Basingstoke, Palgrave, pp.100-116.
2001b The Parliament of Finland, A Model Case for Effective Scrutiny?, in National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe, Losers or Latecomers?, edited by A. Maurer and
W. Wessels, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 173-198. 2001c The Party System of the European Parliament after the
1999 Elections, in The 1999 Elections to the European Parliament, edited by J. Lodge, Basingstoke, Palgrave, pp. 231-251.
2002a Beneficial Cooperation or Mutual Ignorance? Contacts Between MEPs and National Parties, in The European Parliament, Moving toward Democracy in the EU, ed- ited by B. Steunenberg and J. Thomassen, Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 87-111.
2002b Liittovaltiot, Federalismin teoria ja arki, Helsinki, Gaudeamus.
2002c Party-Electoral Linkage, in European Political Parties between Cooperation and Integration, edited by K.M. Johansson and P. Zervakis, Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp. 163-189.
2002d Political Interests: The EP’s Party Groups, in The Insti- tutions of the European Union, edited by J. Peterson, and M. Hackleton, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 257- 276.
2002e Why European Integration Increases Leadership Auton- omy within Political Parties, in «Party Politics» Vol. 8, n.4, pp. 405-422.
2003a EU:n vaikutus Suomen poliittiseen järjestelmään, in Paikkana politiikka, Tietoa ja tulkintoja Suomen poliittisesta järjestelmästä, edited by P. Saukkonen, Helsingin yliopisto, Yleisen valtio-opin laitos, Acta Politica 26, pp. 255-278.
2003b Europe and the Finnish Parliamentary Election of March 2003. RIIA/OERN Election Briefing n. 10, Royal Insti- tute of International Affairs and Sussex European Insti- tute.
2004a The Changing Finnish Democracy, Stronger Parliamen- tary Accountability, Coalescing Political Parties and
Weaker External Constraints, in «Scandinavian Political Studies» Vol. 27, n.2, pp. 133-152.
2004b The European Parliament Election in Finland, June 13 2004, European Parliament Election Briefing No 16, European Parties, Elections and Referendums Net- work, European Institute, Sussex.
2005g The EP Party System After the 2004 Elections. in The 2004 Elections to the European Parliament, edited by J. Lodge, Basingstoke, Palgrave, pp. 33-44.
2005h Towards An EU Dominated. by the Centre-right? The European Parliament after the 2004 Elections, in «Re- presentation» Vol.41, n.4, pp. 247-258.
2006a Demokratiaa EU-Suomessa: integraation vaikutus Eduskunnan työhön, in Demokratia ja poliittinen osallistuminen, Scripta in honorem professoris Heikki Paloheimo sexagesimum annum complentis, edited by J. Käkönen and J. Paastela, Tampereen yliopisto, Politiikan tutkimuksen laitos, Studia Politica Tamperensis 15, pp.
2007a Open List, Open Mandate? Links between MEPs and Parties in Finland, in «Perspectives on European Poli- tics and Society» Vol. 8, n.2, pp. 131-146.
2007b Softening but Persistent, Euroscepticism in the Nordic EU Countries, in «Acta Politica» Vol. 42, n.2/3, pp. 191-210.
2007c The Finnish Eduskunta: Effective Scrutiny, Partisan Consensus, in National Parliaments and European De- mocracy, A Bottom-Up Approach to European Constitu- tionalism, edited by O. Tans, C. Zoethout and J. Peters, Groningen, Europa Law Publishing.
2009a National Parliaments and European Integration, What We Know and Agenda for Future Research, in «Journal of Legislative Studies» Vol.15, n.4, pp. 317-334.
2009b National Parliaments and European Integration, What we know and what we should know, ARENA Working Paper, February.
2011a Political Interests, The EP’s Party Groups, in The Insti- tutions of the European Union, second edition, edited by J. Peterson and M. Shackleton, Oxford, Oxford University Press (accepted. for publication).
2011b Resisting Change, European Integration and National Party Systems, in Democratic Governance and European Integration, Society, State and Institutions, edited by R. Holzhacker and E. Albaek, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar (accepted. for publication).
2011c The Difficult Task of Opposing Europe, The Finnish Party Politics of Euroscepticism, in Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism, Vol- ume I, Case Studies and Country Surveys, edited by P. Taggart and A. Szczerbiak, Oxford, Oxford University Press (accepted for publication).
Raunio, T. and Bergman, T.
2001 Parliaments and policy-making in the European Union,
in European Union, Power and policy-making, edited by
J. Richardson, London, Routledge, pp. 115-134. Raunio, T. and Duina, F.
2007 The open method of coordination and national parlia- ments, further marginalization or new opportunities?, in
«Journal of European Public Policy» Vol. 14, n.4, pp.489-506.
Raunio, T. and Hix, S.
2000 Backbenchers Learn to Fight Back, European Integration and Parliamentary Government, in Europeanized. Poli- tics? European Integration and National Political Sys- tems, edited by K.H. Goetz and S. Hix, London, Frank Cass, pp. 142-168.
Raunio, T., Hix, S. and Scully, R.
2003 Fifty Years On, Research on the European Parliament, in
«Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol.41, n.2, pp. 191-202.
Raunio, T. and Johansson, K.M.
2001 Partisan responses to Europe, Comparing Finnish and Swedish political parties, in «European Journal of Polit- ical Research» Vol.39, n.2, pp. 225-249.
2004 Politiska partier i den europeiska författningen, Stockholm, SNS Förlag.
2005 Regulating Europarties, Cross-Party Coalitions Capitaliz- ing on Incomplete Contracts, in «Party Politics» Vol.11, n.5, pp. 515-534.
Raunio, T. and Mamadouh, V.
2003 The Committee System, Powers, Appointments and Re- port Allocation, in «Journal of Common Market Stu- dies» Vol. 41, n. 2, pp. 333-351.
Raunio, T. and Mattila, M.
2002 Vaalimenestys ja hallituksen muodostaminen Länsi- Euroopassa 1945-1999, in «Politiikka» Vol. 44, n. 4, pp.
Raunio, T. and Shackleton, M.
2003 Codecision since Amsterdam, a laboratory for institu- tional innovation and change, in «Journal of European Public Policy» Vol.10, n. 2, pp.171-187.
Raunio, T. and Tiilikainen, T.
1999 Federalismi, Johdatus liittovaltioiden poliittiseen järjestelmään, in «Ulkopolitiikka» Vol. 36, n. 2, pp. 64-72.
2001 Liittovaltiolliset elementit vahvistuvat, EU Nizzan jälkeen, in «Ulkopolitiikka» Vol. 38, n.1, pp. 19- 30.
2003 Finland in the European Union, London, Frank Cass. Raunio T. and Tiilikainen T. (eds.)
2002 Euroopan rajat, Laajentuva Euroopan unioni, Helsinki, Gaudeamus.
Raunio, T. and Wiberg, M.
1995 Enemmistö kannattaa integraatiota mutta ei innosta
palaen: eurooppalainen mielipideilmasto eurobarometrien valossa, in «Politiikka» Vol. 37, n. 4, pp. 253-269.
1996a Strong Parliament of A Small EU-Member State, The Finnish Parliament’s adaptation to the EU, in «Journal of Legislative Studies» Vol. 2, n. 4, pp. 302-321.
1996b Kansan valitsema, kansan unohtama, Euroopan parlamentti eurobarometrien valossa, in «Ulkopolitiikka» Vol. 33, n. 1, pp. 20-29.
1997a Eduskunta tiennäyttäjänä integraation kansallisessa valmistelussa, in «Politiikka» Vol. 39, n. 3, pp. 256-270.
1997b Steuerung des Abstimmungsverhaltens 1979-1995, in Nationales Interesse und integrative Politik in transnationalen parlamentarischen Versamlungen, edited by E. Kuper and E. Jun, Opladen, Leske + Budrich, pp. 95-118.
1997c Where’s the Power, Controlling Voting Outcomes in the Nordic Parliaments 1945-1995, in Inblickar i Nordisk Parlamentarism. Meddelanden från Ekonomisk- Statsvetenskapliga Fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi, edited by G-E. Isaksson, Turku, Ser. A, 470, pp. 245-259.
1998b Winners and Losers in the Council, Voting Power Con- sequences of EU Enlargements, in «Journal of Common Market Studies» Vol. 36, n. 4, pp. 549-562.
1999a Parlamentti ilman äänestäjiä, Miksi kansalaiset eivät äänestä eurovaaleissa?, in «Ulkopolitiikka» Vol.36, n.2, pp. 33-49.
1999b Valtaa eurokansalle, Miten Euroopan unionin demokratiavaje voidaan poistaa?, in «Politiikka» Vol. 41, n. 3, pp. 155-167.
2000a Building Elite Consensus: Parliamentary Accountability in Finland, in Delegation and Accountability in European In- tegration: The Nordic Parliamentary Democracies and the European Union, edited by T. Bergman and E. Damgaard, London, Frank Cass, pp. 59-80.
2000b Does Consensus Lead to Ignorance? National Parlia- ments and the Legitimacy of EU Governance, Acta Poli- tica, Vol.35, No.2, pp. 146-168.
2001a Parliaments’ Adaptation to the European Union, in Beyond Westminster and Congress, The Nordic Expe- rience, edited by P. Esaiasson and K. Heidar, Colum-
bus, Ohio State University Press, pp. 344-364.
2001b The Big Leap to the West, The Impact of EU on the Finnish Political System. ZEI Discussion Paper C 89, Bonn.
2001c Parliamentarizing Foreign Policy Decision-Making, Fin- land in the European Union, in «Cooperation and Con- flict» Vol. 36, n.1, pp. 61-86.
2002 Controlling Outcomes, Voting Power in the European Parliament 1979-2000, in «Journal of European Inte- gration» Vol. 24, n. 2, pp. 75-90.
2003 Finland, Polarized. Pluralism in the Shadow of A Strong President, in Delegation and Accountability in Parlia- mentary Democracies, edited by K. Strøm, W.C. Müller and T. Bergman, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 301-324.
2008 The Eduskunta and the Parliamentarisation of Finnish Politics, Formally Stronger, Politically Still Weak?, in
«West European Politics» Vol. 31, n. 3, pp. 581-599.
2010 How to Measure the Europeanisation of a National Legis- lature?, in «Scandinavian Political Studies» Vol. 33, n. 1, pp. 74-92.
Raunio, T. and Wiberg, M. (eds.)
2000 EU ja Suomi, Unionijäsenyyden vaikutukset suomalaiseen yhteiskuntaan, Edita, Helsinki.
Raunio, T. and Wright, A.
2006 Holyrood and Europe, an Incremental Response to Depar- liamentarization, in «Regional and Federal Studies» Vol. 16, n. 3, pp. 281-296.
1992 Suomi ja Euroopan Yhteisön lainsäädäntövalta, Turku, The Institute for European Studies.
1994a Det finländska folket inför det historiska beslutet, in Nordiske skjebnevalg?, edited by J. Bingen and R. Lindahl, Oslo, Europa-programmet.
1994b The Finns As Constructors of a United. Europe, Reflec- tions Upon the European Political Heritage of Finland, in «Yearbook of Finnish Foreign Policy», Helsinki, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
1995a The Finns are Pleased with Their Membership in the EU, Respect for Leaders or Critical Evaluation?, in
«Yearbook of Finnish Foreign Policy 1995», Helsinki, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
1995b The Problem of Democracy in the European Union, in A Citizens' Europe; Towards A New World Order, edited by A. Rosas and E. Antola, London, Sage.
1996 Finland and the EU, in The European Union and the Nordic Countries, edited by L. Miles, London, Routledge.
1998a A Nordic Identity in European Security Politics, in «Irish Studies in International Affairs» n.1.
1998b Citizenship and Nationality Status in the New Europe, in Citizenship and Nationality Status in the New Europe, edited by S. O’Leary and T. Tiilikainen, London, Sweet and Maxwell.
1998c Europe and Finland. Defining the National Identity of Finland in Western Europe, Ashgate Ltd, Aldershot.
1998d The Finnish Neutrality - Its New Forms and Future, in Small States Inside and Outside the EU, edited by L. Goetschel, London, Kluwer.
2000 Finland Guided the EU into the New Millennium; The First Test Passed, Northern Dimensions, Helsinki, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
2001a Nordic Integration Policy Seen from Abroad, in «Coop- eration and Conflict» n. 1.
2001b To be or not to be? An Analysis of the Legal and Politi- cal Elements of Statehood in the EU’s External Identity, in «European Foreign Affairs Review» Vol. 6, n.2.
2003a A Finnish Perspective on European Security, in The New Northern Security Agenda, Perspectives from Finland and Sweden, edited by E. Davidson, B. Huldt, J. Mört- berg and T. Ries, Stockholm, The Swedish National Defence College.
2003b Finland, smooth adaptation to European values and in- stitutions, in Fifteen into one? The European Union and its member states, edited by W. Wessels, A. Maurer and
J. Mittag, Manchester, Manchester University Press. 2003c The Finnish Presidency of 1999, Pragmatism and the
Promotion of Finland’s Position in Europe, in European Union Council Presidencies. A Comparative Perspective, edited by O. Elgström, London, Routledge.
2003d The political implications of the EU´s enlargement to the Baltic states, in The road to the European Union, volume
2. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, edited by V. Pettai and
J. Zielonka, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
2005 Finland: Any Lessons for the Euro-Outsiders?, in «Jour- nal of European Integration» Vol. 27, n. 2.
2006a Finland – An EU Member with A Small State Identity, in «Journal of European Integration» Vol. 28, n. 1., pp. 73-87.
2006b The Nordic countries and the EU-Nato –relationship, in The Nordic Countries and the European Security and De- fence Policy, edited by A.J.K. Bailes, G. Herolf and B. Sundelius, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2006c io år finländsk EU-politik. Medlemskapserfarenheterna i Finlands politik och förvaltning, Nordisk administrativ tidskrift, in «Jurist og Økonomforbundets Forlag» n. 2.
2008 ASEM as a Part of the EU System, in ASEM in its Tenth Year, edited by B. Gaens, London, Ashgate.
2010 The EU in Its Own Eyes, The EU's Power in Its Self- Understanding, in «Journal of Common Market Stu- dies».
Tiilikainen, T., Helander P. and Heliskoski, J.
2005 Euroopan perustuslaki (The European Constitution),
Tiilikainen, T. and Wass, H.
2004 Puolueiden vaalikampanjat vuoden 2004
europarlamenttivaaleissa, in «Politiikka» Vol. 46, n.4, pp. 250-263.
1993 Finland and the European Community, Changing Elite Bargaings, in «Cooperation and Conflict» Vol. 28, n. 1, pp. 31-46.
Wiberg, M. (ed.)
1997 Trying To Make Democracy Work, The Nordic Parlia- ments and the European Union, Stockholm, Gidlunds.
2005b New Winners and Old Losers – A Priori Voting Power in the EU25, «ZEI Discussion Paper No C149», Bonn,
Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung
2005c When Everyone Loses – But Some More Than Others, in Negotiating Futures – States, Societies and The World, Proceedings of the International Conference, Riga No- vember 11-14, 2004, edited by Z. Ozolina, Riga, Latvijas Universitate, pp. 262-268.
2006 Miten paljon EU vaikuttaa Suomen normituotantoon?, Edilex.
2008 La Finlande, in Les démocraties européennes. Approche comparée des systèmes politiques nationaux, edited by J- M De Waele and P. Magnette, Paris, Arman Colin, pp. 149-161.
Wiberg, M. and Ahonen, P.
2005 How the Finns became Westerners, The Impact of EU on the Finnish Political System from Before 1990 until the End of 2002, in Gli allargamenti della CEE/UE 1961-2004, edited by A. Landuyt and D. Pasquinucci, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 373-408.
Wiberg, M. and Coinu, G.
2004 Le politiche istituzionali comunitarie intraprese a seguito dell'ultimo allargamento. Il ruolo ed il peso dei piccoli stati nell'Unione Europea, in «Rassegna di diritto pubblico europeo» n. 1, pp. 197-210.
2005a Le politiche istituzionali comunitarie intraprese a seguito dell'ultimo allargamento. Il ruolo ed. il peso dei piccoli stati nell'Unione Europea, in Il Trattato costituzionale nel processo di integrazione europea, volume two, edited by M. Scudiero, Napoli, Jovene Editore, pp. 1707- 1721.
2005b Ultimus Inter Pares? Small States in the European Un- ion, in «The Globe» Vol. 43, n. 2, pp. 7-9.
Wiberg, M. and Raunio, T.
2008 Too Little Too Late? – Comparing the Engagement of Nordic Parliaments in European Union Matters, in Na- tional Parliaments and the European Union, The Consti- tutional Challenge for the Oireachtas and other Member State Legislatures, edited by G. Barrett, Dublin, Clarus Press, pp. 379-391.
France is one of the founding members of the Euro- pean Communities. It has played an active role in the defi- nition of the Community method. French lawyers have soon devoted much attention to European integration, since some were closely involved in the drafting of the trea- ties. Economists have also taken this phenomenon seriously at an early stage. On the contrary, for a long time, French political scientists paid little attention to Europe. In the 1980s, European studies were less developed in France than in the French speaking parts of Belgium, Switzerland or even Canada. Since the end of the 1990s, things have evolved significantly: today many French political scientists are working on EU matters and a significant number of them are defining themselves as EU specialists. However, the involvement of French scholars in the international debates remains quite limited and the landscape of French EU studies keeps its originality.
It may seem artificial to underline this French specific- ity since some of the most prominent EU researchers in France appear to be Austrian (Sabine Saurugger), Belgian (Renaud Dehousse), English (Andy Smith), Ger- man/Argentinean (Emiliano Grossman) or Finish (Niilo Kauppi). Also, many French scholars have made their aca- demic education outside France, like Virginie Guiraudon (Harvard) or Nicolas Jabko (Berkeley), or are still holding positions outside France, in EUI Florence (Yves Mény, Pascal Vénesson), the LSE (Michael Bruter), Princeton (Sophie Meunier), Université libre de Bruxelles/ULB (François Forêt, Jean-Marc Ferry, Amandine Crespy) or Copenhagen Business School (Magali Gravier). Some oth- ers are neither French nor in France, while being very ac- tive in France, like Paul Magnette (ULB), Vivien Schmidt (Boston University), Frédéric Mérand (University of
Montréal) or Alistair Cole (Cardiff University).
It however makes sense to deal with the situation of EU studies in France, since it offers much contrast with countries like Germany, the U.K. or Italy. We will thus consider as “French” all the scholars, whatever their natio- nality may be, who belong to a French teaching or research institution. The main tools, theories and objects chosen by French EU scholars are quite specific, as well as the main debates. At the international level, the central cleavages are still the ones between international relations (IR) and com- parative politics and between rational choice and construc- tivism. Both are quite irrelevant in the French context: there are few IR scholars involved in EU studies and not many specialists of comparative politics either. Rational choice is very limited in France and if many French scho- lars call themselves «constructivists», they have a quite specific conception of what constructivism is or should be. Neo-institutionalism is not very popular in France, since many scholars close from constitutional law never stopped studying institutions, and since most researchers coming from sociology consider that «institution» is not a relevant category to study political phenomena.
This chapter is divided in three main parts. The first will explain why the French political scientists were late- comers on EU studies. The second will present the reasons why things have changed so much in the 1990s and 2000s. The last part will give an overview of French EU studies today, using a specific database of articles published by French scholars about EU matters in 42 peer-reviewed journals between 2007 and 2010.
1. Why did French political scientists discover the EU so late?
Even if political science is a dynamic research area in France, its scholars did not pay much attention to Euro- pean integration until the 1990s.
The teaching of political science is quite developed in
France thanks to the system of Instituts d’Etudes Politiques (nine since 1991); contrary to universities, those Grandes Ecoles are selecting a limited number of students who enjoy good working conditions compared to the average French university students. The situation of research in political science is favorable as well – in contrast with other social and human sciences – because of the central role played by the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques (FNSP). The discipline also benefits from the dynamism of the As- sociation Française de Science Politique, which counts 540 full members and 14 standing groups, organizes a two- yearly congress and supports, since 1951, the Revue Française de Science Politique.
However, until the 1990s, very few French political scientists were involved in the study of the EU, and the ones who did were not very active at the international level. This situation results from three factors, developed below.
1.1. The specificities of political science in France
In France, political science was born from public law, with authors like M. Duverger, G. Burdeau and J.L. Quermonne. It gained its independence from law only in 1971, when the first examination of agrégation de science politique established political science as an autonomous discipline at the university level. The first professors of political science selected through this new process were still close to constitutional law. In the 1980s and 1990s, there has been a strong reaction of sociologists against that connection. Academics and PhD students, inspired by the work of Pierre Bourdieu and by structuralism, called for the development of a «political sociology» against the old
«political science» supposed to be positivist, legitimist and too focused on law and institutions. This trend of political science, which is mainstream today in France, is centered on the study of actors (citizens, social movements and mo- bilizations, politicians, other elites) with qualitative me- thods (interviews, participating observations, archive analy-
sis) borrowed from sociology, anthropology, ethnology and history. Political sociologists are also calling for a systemat- ic deconstruction of institutions, constitutional models and ideas. Thus, they have abandoned to a large extent the study of institutions to lawyers and historians and rejected as irrelevant what they call «the Anglo-Saxon mainstream», symbolized by rational choice and quantitative methods.
Aside from this powerful sociological trend, mainly focused on France (as a field and as a scientific space), the rest of the discipline is quite fragmented. International relations (IR) and political theory are not very developed in France. The same goes for comparative politics, which are often limited to area studies and not really using compara- tive tools. In general, one can also notice a weakness of quantitative methods – with the exception of electoral stu- dies – and very few connections between French political scientists and other fields such as economy, statistics and mathematics.
Because of the structure of the discipline, French po- litical scientists were not inclined to pay attention to EU institutions and policies. Most of the public law oriented scholars shared the idea that there could be no political activity beyond the nation-state: what was happening in Brussels was to be studied by lawyers and economists. So- ciology-oriented political scientists did not pay more atten- tion to European integration, due to their reluctance to consider institutions, to their focus on national and local actors, and to their disregard for the «Anglo-Saxon main- stream». In France, EU studies were thus dominated by lawyers and, to a lesser extent, economists and historians.
1.2. The difficult relationship of France with European integration
Another explanation for the lack of interest of French political scientists in EU matters is the difficult relationship of France with European integration. France is one of the founding members of the Communities, but its leaders
have always cultivated a specific link to Europe. If some of them may be qualified as «true Europeans», like Robert Schuman, Georges Pompidou, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing or even François Mitterrand (in the late 1980s), they have all shared the idea that France should have a leading role in Europe, and was not a member state like any other. Those leaders were never more enthusiastic about European inte- gration than when it was considered as a contribution to the French grandeur. But France has also counted numer- ous leaders that showed some reluctance towards the fede- ralist dimension of the European integration experience, starting with Charles De Gaulle, as early as 1958. De Gaulle contributed – with the Fouchet plans (1961 and 1962) and the crisis of the «empty chair» (1965-1966) – to promote a more intergovernmental conception of Euro- pean integration, one still vivid in France.
Today, Euroskepticism is a strong trend in French politics. The right wing (RPR, FN) and left wing (PC) «so- vereignist» parties have been rejoined in the 2000s by all kinds of opponents to neo-liberalism and globalization and by various defenders of the «French socio-economical model» – whatever that may mean. This movement has lead to the rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by referendum in May 2005. More generally, if French leaders and citizens are, in majority, favorable to the project of European integration, they are quite critical of EU institutions, actors and policies, and also very prone to denounce its negative impact on national politics. They also tend to consider the process of integration as something technical, on the one hand, and intergovernmental, on the other hand. According to a majority of both academics and politicians, «the Nation» was to be the only frame for poli- tics and democracy. As said, this conception encouraged political scientists to perceive European integration as a process with no political dimension, involving only admin- istrative elites and diplomats, to be studied by lawyers and economists.
It is only at the occasion of the ratification of the Trea- ty of Maastricht by referendum (1992) that leaders and
citizens discovered (or pretended to) that European inte- gration was a political process limiting French sovereignty. The creation of the European Union has deepened the political nature of European integration and highlighted its impact on member states at every level (administration, lawmaking, economy, citizenship). It has also created a strong reaction in public opinion with the rise and expres- sion of Euroskepticism. In that context, French political scientists started to pay more attention to European mat- ters.
1.3. The limited internationalization of French political scientists
The third main factor that explains the very limited involvement of French political scientists in EU studies in the 1980s is their weak internationalization. At that time, French political science was not very much connected to the international level for several reasons. The first one is the epistemological specificities of French political science: as said, «political sociologists» were mainly focused on the French case and found little interest in the international production. The branch of political science derived from constitutional law was also not very much internationalized
– just as French lawyers have never been. A second reason is the lack of language skills: French scholars and students were not good at reading, speaking and writing in English in the 1980s. There were few international references in political science textbooks (or books and papers translated in French) and the teaching of English was not very well developed in French universities. It was thus easier for French scholars to concentrate on domestic debates and on publishing in French. A third element is the fact that it was possible for French social scientists to publish exclusively in their native language, since there are several peer re- viewed journals in French and some serious publishers. The francophonie offers quite a large audience for political scientists writing in French. At that time, there were also
few incentives for scholars to make the effort to publish in English. In many cases, it was even risky. Until the end of the 1990s, French scholars or researchers could be sanc- tioned in their career because they were publishing too much in English, and not enough in the main French jour- nals.
2. The development of EU studies in the 1990s and 2000s
A complex set of phenomena, initiatives and decisions led to an important development of EU studies in France in the 1990s and 2000s. Four main developments can be identified.
First, research on EU institutions and policies has been encouraged by funding opportunities. The central one was the program set up by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) on the issue of l’identité européenne en question («European identity in question»), that has funded more than 40 research projects between 1998 and 2000.
Second, some institutions (universities, FNSP, CNRS) have decided to hire EU specialists to encourage the devel- opment of teaching and research on that topic. The crea- tion of the peer reviewed journal Politique européenne («European politics/polity») in 2000 was a third key event. It resulted from the initiative of a new generation of EU specialists (young scholars and PhD students) willing to encourage the development of EU studies in France in connection with the international debates. This journal publishes articles in both French (majority) and English, mainly around special issues. It has helped many young French researchers to present their work and favored the emergence of a debate with foreign EU specialists. France is today one of the few countries where there is a scientific journal devoted only to European issues.
A last element worth mentioning is the creation in 2000 of a European studies standing group within the AFSP by Christian Lequesne and Paul Magnette. In 2005,
this group was upgraded to the Section d’études eu- ropéennes/SEE (by Olivier Costa and Paul Magnette) in order to improve the visibility of EU studies in French po- litical science and to encourage the internationalization of French scholarship both in terms of publishing and partic- ipation in international research networks. The SEE is or- ganizing thematic workshops and an annual congress. It is also running a bilingual website and publishing a seasonal bilingual newsletter gathering exhaustive information about EU studies (publications, calls for papers, confe- rences, jobs…).
More general trends of French political science have also played a role in the development of EU studies. We can mention, first, the internationalization in the 1990s of a new generation of scholars that studied or got positions abroad, were able to work in English and willing to partici- pate in international conferences and to publish in interna- tional peer reviewed journals. Second, we must underline the involvement of new sub-disciplines in the study of EU politics, policies and actors, and of Europeanization. This started with a strong mobilization of public policies special- ists in the 1990s; at the same time, some political- anthropologists got interested in the European microcosm. Finally, in the middle of the 1990s, some young scholars coming from political sociology and historical sociology started to study the actors and institutions of European integration.
The changes in the evaluation criteria of research cen- ters and researchers were also a strong incentive for French scholars to publish in international peer reviewed journals and to get involved in international debates, like the ones on EU institutions and policies. In the 2000s, internationa- lization became a request to compete for large national or European research grants. The participation of the main French research centers in European or international net- works, such as FP collaborative projects or networks of excellence has also dramatically increased the desire of French researchers to publish in English.
A last factor to mention is the constant reflection over
the strength and weaknesses of French political science in the last decade. Several articles and books were devoted to the state of EU studies in France [Hassenteufel and Surel 2000; Smith 2000; 2004a; Irondelle 2006; Belot et al. 2008; Saurugger and Mérand 2010]. Moreover, several confe- rences, workshops and seminars were organized to make an appraisal of the French situation of EU studies and identify priorities for the future1.
3. EU studies in French political science today: an overview
After a long process of EU studies empowerment, there are around 50 researchers or academics that can be considered as specialists of the EU in France today. A mi- nority of them (20) may be qualified as true EU specialists, who devoted their PhD to EU policies, institutions or ac- tors, are teaching EU matters and are mainly publishing on this topic. The other ones are scholars for whom EU was not a primary subject, but who are dealing with this topic among others. Since the end of the 1990s, there is also a constant flow of PhD students working on EU matters or questions related to EU – notably on Europeanization of policies, institutions, organs, groups of actors, etc., and bottom-up Europeanization.
In his article, Bastien Irondelle  has proposed an overview of the production of French scholars in EU studies by looking at the five main French journals of polit- ical science (all published mainly in French). In order to get a more comprehensive view, we took another approach and searched for all the papers published by French aca- demics in 42 French and international journals dealing, partially or exclusively, with EU matters from January 2007
1 There have been several SEE workshops devoted to this question on the occasion of the AFSP congress as well as an AFSP panel at APSA congress of 2007. Recently, a conference addressed this topic again:
«European Power Elites»: Où va la sociologie politique de l’Europe?,
Université Paris 1, June 10-11, 2010.
to December 20102. This wider approach seemed necessary to overcome the tendency of French EU scholars to overes- timate their influence in the international scientific debate.
To give a full picture of EU studies in France, we will successively present the topics covered by French EU scho- lars, the research centers where they work and the situation of EU teaching in France. We will finally propose a global assessment of French EU studies.
3.1. The main sectors of EU studies in France
Historically, EU studies started in France with re- search that can be related to neo-institutionalism, focused on EU institutions and policy-making [Mény et al. 1995; Costa et al. 2003; Rozenberg and Surel 2003, Lequesne and Surel 2004; Smith 2004a; Woll and Jacquot 2010] and on the political challenges of European integration [Quer- monne 1990; Soulier 1994; Duprat 1996; Leca 1997]. To- day, there are French internationally renowned specialists of each EU institution: the Commission [Smith 2004b], the European Court of Justice [Dehousse 1998; Cohen and Vauchez 2008], the European Parliament [Costa 2001; Beauvallet et al. 2009; Navarro 2009], the Council and the European Council [Mangenot 2006]. Many French scho- lars are also working on European parties [Dakowska 2002; Seiler 2007; Sauger 2008; Roger 2009] and civil so- ciety organizations at the EU level [Balme and Chabanet 2002; 2008; Strudel 2002]. Some original initiatives, like the «European Institution Observatory» (directed by Re- naud Dehousse) or the project «EU Policy Agendas» (di- rected by Emiliano Grossman) are following that trend.
In the 1990, French anthropologists started to look at
2 This was done by summing up the content of the 17 issues of i- SEE, the info-letter of the Section d’études européennes which is provid- ing 4 times a year exhaustive information on EU related publications. This letter is edited by O. Costa, C. Dri, J. Navarro and N. Brack (http://see-afsp.webou.net). I would like to thank Caroline Sagat, librar- ian at Sciences Po Bordeaux, for helping me gather the data.
EU institutions and actors from another angle – as «tribes»
– producing original researches [Abélès 1992]. However, this approach has remained marginal, with few exceptions [Foret 2008], at a time were the DG research finally ac- knowledges its importance.
A massive contribution of French political science to the study of EU came from the specialists of public policies analysis. Most of them were not EU specialists, but started to work in the 1990s on EU policies and, especially, on Europeanization [Mény et al. 1995; Surel 2000; Hassenteu- fel and Surel 2000; Le Galès 2003]. A new generation of
«true» EU specialists came in the 2000s [Guiraudon 2000; Irondelle 2003; Grossman 2004; Smith 2004a; Jabko 2006; Jacquot 2010]. Those scholars have explored the question of Europeanization in many ways, by focusing on political and social institutions at national [Lequesne 1993; Emery- Douzans 2002; Foret and Itçaina 2008] and regional levels [Pasquier and Weisbein 2004] and on specific policies [Bigo 1996; Deloye 1998; Fouilleux 2000; Lequesne 2001;
Guiraudon 2003; Woll 2006; de Maillard and Smith 2007;
Muller and Ravinet 2008; Halpern 2010; Jabko 2010; Jac-
quot 2010; Palier 2010].
Many scientists involved in the study of elections [De- loye 2005; Duchesne and Frognier 2008; Boy and Rozen- berg 2009; Cautrès and Sauger 2010], public opinion and citizens [Grunberg and Perrineau 2000; Sauger, Brouard and Grossman 2006; Brouard and Tiberj 2006; Leconte 2008; Neumayer 2008; Grunberg 2009] and political par- ties at local and national levels [Roger 2001; Belot and Cautrès 2005; Belot 2010] have started to look at the EU level in the 1990s.
Several French scholars coming from IR are dealing today with the EU. They do not necessarily propose an intergovernmentalist analysis of it, like many Anglo-Saxon IR researchers do, but instead consider the EU as an actor of IR and focus on its external policies and action [Iron- delle 2003; Laïdi 2005; Petiteville and Terpan 2008].
The most prominent and debated contribution of French political science to EU studies is the one of political
sociologists [Georgakakis 2002; Guiraudon 2006; Saurug- ger 2009; Mangenot and Rowell 2009; Favell and Guirau- don 2010; Saurugger and Mérand 2010; Mérand and Weisbein 2011]. It is often presented in a monolithic way but, beyond a common interest for actors and qualitative methods, there is a wide spectrum of approaches and ob- jects, such as EU elites [Beauvallet 2003; Kauppi 2005; Georgakakis and de Lasalle 2007; Navarro 2009; Georga- kakis and Weisbein 2010], media [Baisnée 2000], lobbyists and civil society [Balme and Chabanet 2002; Grossman 2004; Michel 2005; Saurugger 2005; Dakowska 2009].
3.2. Research centers active in EU studies
There are many French research centers working on EU matters, but not a single one of them is focusing exclu- sively on that. In fact, nearly all the main political science research structures in France are taking this dimension into account. Here is a tentative list in alphabetical order:
o Center Emile Durkheim (formerly SPIRIT) at IEP de Bordeaux
o CEE (Centre d’études européennes) at Sciences Po Paris
o CERAPS (Centre d’études et de recherches admi- nistratives, politiques et sociales) at University of Lille 2
o CERI (Centre d’études et de recherches internatio- nales) at Sciences Po Paris
o CRAPE (Centre de recherche sur l’action publique en Europe) at IEP de Rennes
o CSPE (Centre de sociologie politique européenne) at Université Paris I
o CURRAP (Centre universitaire de recherches ad- ministratives et politiques de Picardie) at University of Amiens
o GSPE (Groupe de sociologie européenne) at IEP de Strasbourg
o LASSP (Laboratoire des sciences sociales du poli-
tique) at IEP de Toulouse
o PACTE (Politiques publiques, action politiques, territoires) at IEP de Grenoble
This dispersion is problematic, since none of those centers has the critical mass to compete or collaborate in a balanced way with the main European research centers involved in EU studies3.
3.3. Teaching EU and «normalizing» EU studies in France
With the ongoing process of «masterization» (Bologna system L-M-D), we have also witnessed the development of many masters in EU affairs, mainly in the nine Institut d’Etudes Politiques (Institutes of political science). Howev- er, at the same time, the situation of political science is declining in many law departments, where EU questions are more and more addressed only by lawyers.
During the last 10 years, many French scholars have filled the gap of French edition on EU. There are today several textbooks devoted to EU institutions and policies [Doutriaux and Lequesne 2007; Magnette 2009; Dehousse 2009; Bertoncini and Chopin 2010; Quermonne 2010; Cos- ta and Brack 2011; Mérand and Weisbein 2011]. There are also some important books or journal special issues trying to clear the state of EU studies, at both international and French levels [Belot, Magnette and Saurugger 2008] or discussing the ways to teach EU matters [Smith, Belot and Georgakakis 2004]. Those initiatives are, however, seldom accessible to the English speaking political scientists, with a few exceptions [Deloye and Bruter 2008; Mangenot and Rowell 2009; Saurugger and Mérand 2009].
3 The CEE is no exception: it used to be completely focused on EU studies, but with a limited number of researchers. The situation has changed, due to organizational reform at Sciences Po Paris: the CEE is today a large research center, but some of its members are not EU spe- cialists. It is, however, the largest French research center on EU matters.
3.4. French EU studies in context
The most positive point about EU studies in France is that they are quite well integrated into general political science, in terms of publication, teaching and recruitment. This situation is linked to two main factors. First, many French scholars are not working exclusively on the EU, but on other topics as well. They do not define themselves as EU specialists but as researchers belonging to all kinds of sub-disciplines (public policy analysis, neo-institutionalism, actors-centered political sociology, IR, party politics, politi- cal theory) interested in EU among other objects. Also, as previously mentioned, French EU studies, like French po- litical science, are not structured along the cleavages that dominate EU studies at the international level (IR vs. com- parative politics; rational choice vs. constructivism). They are thus escaping the trap of self-reference and are not dominated by EU specific debates but are much more en- gaged in general discussions about politics, policies and polity.
The situation of French EU studies is more proble- matic at the international level. When looking at interna- tional publications, the picture is less than flattering. Things are getting better, with a new generation of French academics that publish both in English and French. Some important foreign scholars are also quite positive about the efforts made by French researcher [Ross 2007]. However, the proportion of papers written by French academics in international peer reviewed journals is still limited. Taking into account the EU related articles of international jour- nals of our database, we see that the global level of papers published by French authors in the main EU journals is lower than expected, if we consider the number of French political scientists. On a total of 1,776 articles dealing with EU matters, only 63 implied one or several French authors (3.5 percent). Matti Wiberg comes to the same conclusion, with a sample of 1,725 articles published in «European Union Politics» (EUP) (181), the «Journal of Common Market Studies» (JCMS) (870) and the «Journal of Euro-
pean Public Policy» (JEPP) (674). Of a total of 46 articles, the French contribution is the following: 0.5 in EUP (ar- ticle co-authored with a non-French author), 24.7 in JCMS and 20.8 in JEPP. French authors contribute thus to less than 2.7 percent in the three main international journals specialized in European integration.
There is a clear discrepancy between the appraisal made by the advocates of the «French touch» in EU stu- dies and the actual level of publication of French EU scho- lars. The impact of the French sociology of EU elites is not really impressive in terms of papers published in interna- tional peer reviewed journals. Two explanations can ac- count for this. First, it remains difficult for French scholars to get an article published in those journals, since their papers do not fit the common criteria used by the review- ers; this is especially the case with the journals that expect quantitative data. But many French scholars are also not really willing to diffuse their results at the international level and are – sometimes – not producing articles solid enough for that. There is some doubt about the author’s effective knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon mainstream that they often caricature [Saurugger 2009].
There is no common diagnosis of the current state of EU studies in France among French scholars today. Some are underlying the originality and qualities of French ap- proaches to EU studies that are enriching the picture and are more connected to the social reality and political science in general than the average EU studies. The focus on actors and practices, proposed by political sociology, is highlighting the EU political system from another point of view, less formal, abstract and normative. It opposes to the average top-down approach a bottom-up perspective. Those researches are also described as less self-referential than international ones, and more connected to the general paradigms, questions and methods of political science – at least in a French context.
Other observers are less convinced by the added-value of the «French touch». They are underlying the «Astérix syndrome» of French scholars being persuaded to be right
against an «international mainstream» which they do not really know, and often reduce to rational-choice and nor- mative institutionalism. They are thus unable to participate in the scientific debate at the international level, and end to be themselves self-referential.
If some skeptics nevertheless consider that there is a contribution of French political science to EU studies, they also suggest that its originality should not be exaggerated [Favell 2007] and that its concrete impact is still limited in terms of research results, publications and visibility.
4. Conclusion: strengths and limits of French EU studies
Since the beginning of the 1990s, the situation of French EU studies has evolved significantly. At first, there has been an important increase in the number of scholars involved in the study of EU politics and policies. In the 2000s, there has been a process of partial internationaliza- tion of those researchers thanks to several factors: more incentives to publish in international peer reviewed jour- nals, the rise of a logic of contract-funded research, a better internationalization of the new generation of EU special- ists, the development of international networks involving French institutions, the (relative) expansion of quantitative methods in France, the search for more dialogue with for- eign scholars. Today, French political scientists specialized in EU matters are more internationalized than their French peers.
However, French EU studies still suffer from four main problems. The first one is the limited presence of French scholars in international journals and conferences, due to language abilities, lack of incentives, or selection criteria. The second problem is the absence of a major re- search centre on EU matters, comparable to the LSE, ARENA or MZES: it makes it difficult for French scholars to table research projects to the EU or to lead international networks. It is not surprising that few French scientists have been leaders of EU funded projects in political
science, especially those dealing with the EU. Finally, in France there is no Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in- volving a significant number of political scientists, because of the limited number of political scientists teaching exclu- sively on EU matters and of their geographic spreading. Instead, there is a relative domination of lawyers, econo- mists and historians in French EU studies.
1992 La vie quotidienne au Parlement européen, Paris, Ha- chette.
2000 Les journalistes, seul public de l’Union européenne?,in
«Critique internationale» n. 9, pp. 30–35.
Balme, R. and Chabanet, D.
2008 European Governance and Democracy, Lanham, MD, Rowman and Littlefield.
Balme, R. and Chabanet, D. (eds.)
2002 L’action collective en Europe, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Beauvallet W., Godmer L., Marrel G. and Michon S.
2009 La production de la légitimité institutionnelle au Parle- ment européen: l'exemple de la Commission des affaires constitutionnelles, in «Politique européenne», n. 28.
2003 Institutionnalisation et professionnalisation de l’Europe politique, le cas des eurodéputés français, in «Politique européenne» n. 9, p. 99-122.
2010 Le tournant identitaire des études consacrées aux atti- tudes à l'égard de l'Europe, in «Politique européenne» n. 30, p. 17-44.
Belot, C. and Cautrès, B. (eds.)
2005 Vers une européanisation des partis politiques, in «Poli- tique européenne» n. 16.
Belot, C., Magnette, P. and Saurugger, S. (eds.)
2008 Science politique de l’Union européenne, Paris, Economi- ca.
Bertonicini, Y. and Chopin T. (ed.)
2010 Politique européenne, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po- Dalloz.
1996 Police en réseaux, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po. Boy, D., Cautrès, B. and Sauger, N. (eds.)
2010 Les Français : des Européens comme les autres ?, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.
Brouard, S. and Tiberj, V.
2006 The French referendum: The not so simple act of saying nay, in «PS: Perspectives on Politics» Vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 261–268.
Cohen, A. and Vauchez, A. (ed.)
2010 Sociologie politique de l'Europe du droit, in «Revue Fran- çaise de Science Politique» Vol. 60, n. 2.