JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · 1996 · 533 citations · 40 references
Social SciencesInternational RelationsPolitical ScienceComparative PoliticsIntergovernmental RelationsInternational Political TheoryEuropean GovernanceEuropean IntegrationEuropean PoliticsEuropean Union InstitutionsEuropean Union StudiesIntergovernmental NetworksComparative European PoliticsEuropean Union Policy-makingEuropean Union PoliticsHistorical InstitutionalismInternational Relations TheoryTransnational Policy NetworksTransnational Politics
Recent work on the EU shows that the boundaries between domestic and international, and between state and society, must be crossed when conceptualizing the Union. The article reviews the neofunctionalist–intergovernmentalist debate, arguing that existing categories miss key EU features and proposes a new framework. It combines transnational politics, policy networks, Politikveflechtung, and historical institutionalism to generate propositions about when network analysis better captures EU policymaking. The study concludes that social constructivism must be central to EU analysis and that network analysis should integrate communicative action theories, highlighting the need for further research on ideas and beliefs.
Abstract Recent work on the European Union (EU) indicates an emerging consensus that the boundaries between the ‘domestic’ and the ‘international’ spheres, as well as between the ‘state’ and ‘society’, have to be crossed when conceptualizing the EU. This article starts with reviewing the controversy between neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, arguing that it lacks some categories necessary to capture distinctive features of the EU. It then presents a framework combining insights from work on transnational politics by international relations scholars, on policy networks and Politikveflechtung (interlocking politics) by comparative policy analysis, and by historical institutionalism. Propositions are generated on the institutional and structural conditions under which network analysis is better suited than intergovernmentalism to capture the EU policy‐making process. Finally, the article argues that social constructivism has to be taken more seriously in the study of the EU and that network analysis should move beyond rational choice models and incorporate theories of communicative action. More work is needed on the role of ideas and principled beliefs in the EU integration process.
40