Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:09:04.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Left Against Europe? A Critical Engagement with New Constitutionalism and Structural Dependence Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Gerard Strange
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a critical engagement with two important strands of left theorizations of European Union integration and globalization, namely, ‘new constitutionalism’ (a sub-form of neo-Gramscian analysis) and ‘structural dependence’ theory (rooted in a more orthodox Marxist approach). These approaches suffer, respectively, from an uncritical or one-sided approach to constitutionalism and competitiveness; and from a theoretical conflation of national with regional political economy. While new constitutionalism under-theorizes regionalism partly because of its implicit ‘methodological nationalism’ and attachment to the ethics of national political economy, structural dependence theory neglects regionalism in pursuing a highly pessimistic structuralist approach to globalization.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , 2006 , pp. 197 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See, for example, Stuart Holland, The European Imperative, Nottingham, Spokesman, 1993; Stuart Holland, Beyond Maastricht: A New Strategy for Jobs and Recovery in Europe, London, MSF, 1993; Coates, Ken, ‘A European Recovery Programme’, European Labour Forum, 7 (Spring 1992), pp.5–6.Google Scholar

3 See Stirling, John, ‘This Great Europe of Ours: Trade Unions and 1992’, Capital and Class, 45 (1991), pp.7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Similar visions for progressive EU-level social and economic regulation have been advocated by, among others, André Gorz and Alain Lipietz. See André Gorz, Reclaiming Work, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1999, pp. 19–22; Alain Lipietz, Towards a New Economic Order, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1992, pp. 127–46.Google Scholar

5 Baker, David, Gamble, Andrew and Seawright, David, ‘The Conservative Party and Monetary Union’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4: 3 (2002), pp.413–15.Google Scholar

6 Cartpanis, A. and Herland, M., ‘The Reconstruction of the International Financial Architecture: Keynes's Revenge?’, Review of International Political Economy, 9: 2 (2002), pp.271–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Strange, Gerard, ‘British Trade Unions and European Integration in the 1990s: Politics Versus Political Economy’, Political Studies, 50: 2 (2002), pp.332–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See Strange, Gerard, ‘British Trade Unions and Economic and Monetary Union in the European Union’, Capital and Class, 63 (1997), pp.13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Whyman, P., Burkitt, B. and Baimbridge, M., ‘Economic Policies outside EMU: Strategies for a Global Britain’, Political Quarterly, 171: 4 (2000), pp.451–62;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJanet Bush, Larry Elliot and Andrew Gamble, In or Out? Labour and the Euro, Fabian Pamphlet 601, London, Fabian Society, 2002.

10 Stephen Gill, ‘The Emerging World Order and European Change: The Political Economy of the European Union’, in Ralph Miliband and Leo Panitch (eds), New World Order? The Socialist Register 1992, London, Merlin, 1992, pp. 157–96; Gill, Stephen, ‘European Governance and the New Constitutionalism: Economic and Monetary Union and Alternatives to Disciplinary Neoliberalism in Europe’, New Political Economy, 3: 1 (1998), pp.245–80;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBastian van Apeldoorn, Transnational Capitalism and the Struggle over European Integration, London, Routledge, 2002.

11 David Coates, ‘Labour Power and International Competitiveness: A Critique of Ruling Orthodoxies’, in L. Panitch and and Colin Leys (eds), Global Capitalism versus Democracy: The Socialist Register 1999, London, Merlin Press, 1999, pp. 108–41; David Coates, Models of Capitalism: Growth and Stagnation in the Contemporary Era, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2000; Coates, David, ‘Strategic Choices in the Study of New Labour: A Response to Replies from Hay and Wickham-Jones’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4: 3 (2002), pp.479–86;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 For an outline of the ‘transformationist’ approach see Perraton, Jonathan, Goldblatt, David, Held, David and McGrew, Anthony, ‘The Globalisation of Economic Activity’, New Political Economy, 2: 2 (1997), pp.257–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor an outline of the ‘competition state’ approach see Cerny, Philip, ‘Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalisation’, Government and Opposition, 32: 1 (1997), pp. 251–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 For the new international political economy approach see Cox, Robert, ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10: 2, pp. 126–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarFor the regulationist approach see Alain Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles, London, Verso, 1987; Alain Lipietz, ‘Post-Fordism and Democracy’, in Ash Amin (ed.), Post-Fordism: A Reader, Oxford, Blackwell, 1994, pp. 338–57.

14 Hay, Colin and Rosamond, Ben, ‘Globalisation, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of Economic Imperatives’, Journal of European Public Policy, 9: 2 (2002), pp.147–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Gill, ‘European Governance’, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

16 Burnham, Peter, ‘New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3: 2 (2001), pp.127–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Gill, ‘European Governance’, p. 8.Google Scholar

18 Andrew Gamble, The Free Economy and the Strong State, London, Macmillan, 1988, p. 44; see also Bonefeld, Wener, ‘European Integration: The Market, the Political and Class’, Capital and Class, 77 (2002), pp.117–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Ibid.Google Scholar

20 Gill, ‘European Governance’, p. 5.Google Scholar

21 Van Apeldoorn, ‘Transnational Agency and European Governance’, pp. 157–81.Google Scholar

22 See, for example, Holland, Beyond Maastricht.Google Scholar

23 See Andrew Gamble, ‘The Free Economy and the Strong State’, in R. Miliband and and J. Saville (eds), The Socialist Register 1979, London, Merlin Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

24 F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960.Google Scholar

25 M. Rhodes, ‘The European Welfare State: A Future of Competitive Corporatism?’, in M. Rhodes and Y. Meny (eds), The Future of the European Welfare State, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998; Gösta Esping-Anderson, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990; Gösta Esping-Anderson (ed.), Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economics, London, Sage, 1996; Cerny, ‘Paradoxes of the Competition State’; G. Garrett, Partisan Politics in a Global Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

26 E. P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: Origin of the Black Act, London, Penguin, 1990, pp. 258–69.Google Scholar

27 The generally negative attitude of British unions towards the law partly reflects the long-established industrial relations culture in Britain based on legal immunities, alongside free collective bargaining and the pervading assumption of economic class conflict. It also reflects a lack of familiarity with alternative industrial relations cultures, more prevalent in Europe, based on corporatism and the more consensual tradition of social partnership.Google Scholar

28 Josselin, Daphne, ‘Trade Unions for EMU: Sectoral Preferences and Political Opportunities’, West European Politics, 24: 1 (2001), pp.55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Strange, ‘The British Labour Movement and Economic and Monetary Union in Europe’; Gamble, Andrew and Kelly, Gavin, ‘British Labour and EMU’, West European Politics, 23: 1 (2000), pp.1–25;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJosselin, ‘Trade Unions for EMU’; Strange, ‘British Trade Unions and European Integration in the 1990s.

30 Baker, Gamble and Seawright, ‘The Conservative Party and Monetary Union’.Google Scholar

31 Holland, Beyond Maastricht. See also the case for the Euro presented by Andrew Gamble in Bush, Elliott and Gamble, In or Out? Google Scholar

32 Hirst, Paul and Thompson, Graeme Globalisation in One Country? The Peculiarities of the British’, Economy and Society, 29: 3 (2000), pp.335–56;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Josselin, ‘Trade Unions for EMU’; Bieler, Andreas, ‘Labour, Neo-liberalism and the Conflict over Economic and Monetary Union: A Comparative Analysis of British and German Trade Unions’, German Politics, 12: 2 (2003), pp.24–44;CrossRefGoogle ScholarStrange, ‘British Trade Unions and EU Integration in the 1990s’, pp. 341–9.

34 Trichet, J., ‘The Euro after Two Years’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39: 1 (2001), pp.1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Clift, Ben, ‘Social Democracy and Globalization: The Cases of France and the UK’, Government and Opposition, 37: 4 (2002), pp.466–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarAs Clift points out (p. 468), it is fundamentally misleading to define Keynesian policy wholly in terms of deficit financing. By contrast, anti-cyclical policy captures the greater complexity of Keynesian policy and indicates a commitment to sustainable levels of growth and employment that may require budget surpluses (during booms) as well as deficits (during downturns). Indeed, this seems to be a key part of the consensus view emerging from the current process of Stability and Growth Pact reform sparked by the initial decision of the European Commission to pursue punitive measures against Germany and France as euro-zone deficit rule ‘defaulters’.

36 Dyson, Kenneth, ‘Benign or Malevolent Leviathan? Social Democratic Governments in a Neo-Liberal Euro Area’, Political Quarterly, 70: 2 (1999), p. 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Pochet, P., ‘The New Employment Chapter of the Amsterdam Treaty’, Journal of European Social Policy, 9: 3 (1999), pp.271–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDyson, ‘Benign or Malevolent Leviathan’, pp. 201–7.

38 Pochet, ‘The New Employment Chapter’, p. 272.Google Scholar

39 Clift, Ben, ‘The Jospin Way’, Political Quarterly, 72: 2 (2001), pp.170–9;CrossRefGoogle ScholarClift, ‘Social Democracy and Globalization’; Dyson, ‘Benign or Malevolent Leviathan’, pp. 203–4.

40 Pochet, ‘The New Employment Chapter’, pp. 273–4.Google Scholar

41 Gamble, ‘The Case for the Euro’, in Bush, Elliot and Gamble, In or Out?.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., pp. 4–8, 16–19.Google Scholar

43 For a critique of Radice's structuralist approach to globalization and convergence see Strange, Gerard, ‘Globalisation, Regionalism and Labour Interests in the New International Political Economy’, New Political Economy, 7: 3 (2002), pp.344–7;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Hugo Radice, ‘Taking Globalisation Seriously’, in Panitch and Leys, Global Capitalism Versus Democracy, pp. 1–28; Radice, Hugo, ‘The National Economy: A Keynesian Myth?’, Capital and Class, 22 (1984), pp.111–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Radice, ‘Taking Globalisation Seriously’, p. 8.Google Scholar

46 Streeck, Wolfgang, ‘More Uncertainties: West German Unions facing “1992” ’, Industrial Relations, 30: 3 (1991), pp.317–49;Google Scholar

47 Coates, Models of Capitalism, pp. 77–106, 251–9.Google Scholar

48 Coates, ‘Labour Power and International Competitiveness’, p. 136; Coates, Models of Capitalism, pp. 255–7; Coates, ‘Capitalist Models and Social Democracy’, p. 297.Google Scholar

49 Geoffrey Garrett, Partisan Politics in a Global Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998; Wickham-Jones, Mark; ‘New Labour and the Global Economy: Partisan Politics and the Social Democratic Model’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2: 1 (2000), pp.1–25;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCoates, ‘Labour Power and International Competitiveness’, pp. 133–6; Coates, Models of Capitalism, pp. 86–96 and 104–6; Coates, ‘Capitalist Models and Social Democracy’, pp. 284–307; Coates, ‘Strategic Choices in the Study of New Labour’, pp. 479–86.

50 Greg Albo, ‘Competitive Austerity and the Impasse of Capitalist Employment Policy’, in Panitch and Leys, Global Capitalism Versus Democracy, pp. 144–70.Google Scholar

51 Coates, David quoted in Lloyd, C. and Payne, J., ‘On the Political Economy of Skill’, New Political Economy, 7: 3 (2002), p. 383;Google ScholarCoates, Models of Capitalism, pp. 254–9; Albo, ‘Competitive Austerity’, pp. 148–57.

52 Coates, Models of Capitalism, p. 241.Google Scholar

53 Ibid., p. 254.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., p. 255.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., p. 256.Google Scholar

56 For a critical analysis of this aspect of Radice's analysis see Strange, ‘Beyond “Third Wave” Globalisation Analysis’, p. 46.Google Scholar

57 Immanuel Wallerstein, ‘Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit’, keynote address at PEWS XXI, The Global Environment and the World System, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1997.Google Scholar

58 This confusion is a feature in much of the debate around the alleged impact of globalization on the viability of social democracy. For critical expositions see Callaghan, John, ‘Social Democracy's Big Problem: Economic Globalisation or Hard Times?’, European Political Science, 2: 2 (2003), pp.32–9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 See Matthews, R. C. O., ‘Why Has Britain Had Full Employment since the War’, Economic Journal, 78: 3 (1968), pp.555–69;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCallaghan, ‘Social Democracy's Big Problem’, pp. 34–5.

60 Holland, The European Imperative, pp. 261–3; Will Hutton, The World We’re In, London, Little Brown, 2002.Google Scholar

61 Andreas Boltho, The European Economies: Growth and Crisis, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

62 Clift, ‘Social Democracy and Globalization’, p. 467.Google Scholar

63 Leborgne, Daniele and Lipietz, Alain, ‘How to Avoid a Two-Tier Europe’, Labour and Society, 15: 2 (1990), pp.177–99;Google ScholarHutton, The World We’re In; Hay, Colin, ‘Globalisation, EU-isation and the Space for Social Democratic Alternatives: Pessimism of the Intellect: A Reply to Coates’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4: 3 (2002), pp. 452–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Robert O’Brien, ‘Labour and IPE: Rediscovering Human Agency’, in R. Palen (ed.), Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories, London, Routledge, 2000, pp. 89–99.Google Scholar

65 Wallerstein, ‘Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production’, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

66 Ibid., p. 4.Google Scholar

67 As Hobson and Ramesh have noted, it is ‘possible for “structuralists” to conceive globalisation in agent-centric terms, as when they focus on the agency of multinational corporations (MNCs) or other non-state actors’. J. Hobson and M. Ramesh, ‘Globalisation Makes of States What States Make of It: Between Agency and Structure in the State/Globalisation Debate’, New Political Economy, 7: 1, pp. 5–22.Google Scholar

68 Radice, ‘Taking Globalisation Seriously’, p. 22.Google Scholar

69 Bieler, Andreas and Morton, Adam, ‘Globalisation, the State and Class Struggle: A “Critical Economy” Engagement with Open Marxism’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5: 4 (2003), pp.467–99;CrossRefGoogle Scholarsee also Jessop, Bob, ‘Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism and the State: More than a Response to Bonfeld’, Capital and Class, 34, (1988), p. 147Google Scholar.

70 John Holloway, quoted by Bieler and Morton, ‘Globalisation, the State and Class Struggle’, p. 474.Google Scholar

71 Bieler and Morton, ‘Globalisation, the State and Class Struggle’, p. 478.Google Scholar