Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:06:54.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open Political Science, Methodological Nationalism and European Union Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Ben Rosamond
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , 2008 , pp. 599 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2008.

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

1 Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, ‘Leaders of the Profession: An Interview with Gøsta Esping-Andersen’, European Political Science, 7: 3 (2008), pp. 247–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Keeler, John S., ‘Mapping EU Studies: The Evolution from Boutique to Boom Field 1960–2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43: 3 (2005), pp. 551–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See Ben Rosamond, ‘The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies’, in Knud Erik Jørgensen, Mark A. Pollack and Ben Rosamond (eds), Handbook of European Union Politics, London, Sage, 2007, pp. 7–30.Google Scholar

4 See Rosamond, ‘The Political Sciences of European Integration’; and Rosamond, Ben, ‘European Integration and the Social Science of EU Studies: The Disciplinary Politics of a Subfield’, International Affairs, 83: 2 (2007), pp. 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 James N. Rosenau and Mary Durfee, Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches in an Incoherent World, Boulder, CO, Westview, 1999.Google Scholar

6 Cited in Philippe C. Schmitter, ‘Examining the Present Euro-polity with the Help of Past Theories’, in Gary Marks, Fritz Scharpf, Philippe C. Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck, Governance in the European Union, London, Sage, 1996, p. 1.Google Scholar

7 Beck and Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe, p. 2.Google Scholar

8 See Zygmunt Bauman, Intimations of Postmodernity, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1992.Google Scholar

9 Beck and Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe, pp. 94–7. See also Chernilo, Daniel, ‘Social Theory's Methodological Nationalism’, European Journal of Social Theory, 9: 1 (2006), pp. 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 See Chris Rumford, ‘Introduction: Cosmopolitanism and Europe’, in Chis Rumford, Cosmopolitanism and Europe, Liverpool, University of Liverpool Press, 2007, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

11 Beck and Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe, p. 154.Google Scholar

12 It is also interesting to note an emerging side debate about the most appropriate ways in which to bring together sociology and EU Studies. For alternatives see Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford, Rethinking Europe: Social Theory and the Implications of Europeanization, London, Routledge, 2005; and Adrian Favell, ‘The Sociology of EU Politics’, in Jørgensen et al., Handbook of European Union Politics, pp. 122–8.Google Scholar

13 There is no supposition that this is a representative sample of recent political science work. Other recent work from the political science tradition sees a democratic route to the future of European integration in terms of reconceptualizing the EU away from rather staid and unhelpful Westphalian terminologies towards thinking about it as a ‘flexible neo-medieval empire’. See Jan Zielonka, Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged EU, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

14 Alex Warleigh has labelled this impulse ‘intradisciplinarity’. See his ‘In Defence of Intra-Disciplinarity; “European Studies”, the “New Regionalism” and the Issue of Democratisation’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17: 2 (2004), pp. 301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life’, American Political Science Review, 78: 3 (1984), pp. 734–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York, Free Press, 1989.

16 Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R., ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44: 5 (1996), pp. 936–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 For overviews see Mark Aspinwall and Gerald Schneider (eds), The Rules of Integration: Institutionalist Approaches to the Study of Europe, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2001; Mark A. Pollack ‘The New Institutionalisms and European Integration’, in Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds), European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 137–56; and Antje Wiener, ‘Constructivism and Sociological Institutionalism’, in Michelle Cini and Angela K. Bourne (eds), Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2006, pp. 35–55.Google Scholar

18 Olsen, Europe in Search of Political Order, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

19 See Helen Wallace and William Wallace, ‘Overview: The European Union, Politics and Policy-Making’, in Jørgensen et al., Handbook of European Union Politics, pp. 339–58; and Manuele Citi and Martin Rhodes, ‘New Modes of Governance in the European Union: A Critical Survey and Analysis’, in Jørgensen et al., Handbook of European Union Politics, pp. 463–82.Google Scholar

20 Olsen, Europe in Search of Political Order, pp. 165–82.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., p. 223.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., pp. 135–61 and 252–75.Google Scholar

23 Schmidt, Democracy in Europe, p. 7.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., pp. 248–65.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., p. 250.Google Scholar

26 On ‘Europeanization’ see Tanja Börzel and Thomas Risse, ‘Europeanization: The Domestic Impact of European Union Policies’, in Jørgensen et al., Handbook of European Union Politics, pp. 483–504.Google Scholar

27 Schmidt, Democracy in Europe, pp. 8–45.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., p. 234.Google Scholar

29 Karvonen, Lauri, ‘Europe's Spaces and Boundaries’, Comparative European Politics, 5: 4 (2007), pp. 441–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Rokkan's work is discussed thoroughly in Peter Flora, Stein Kuhnle and Derek Urwin (eds), State Formation, Nation-Building and Mass Politics: The Theory of Stein Rokkan, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

31 The other notable examples are Daniele Caramani, The Nationalization of Politics: The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004; and Maurizio Ferrera, The Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Protection, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

32 Bartolini, Restructuring Europe, pp. 56–115.Google Scholar

33 For a discussion of this tendency in EU studies, with specific reference to integration theory, see Rosamond, Ben, ‘The Uniting of Europe and the Foundation of EU Studies: Revisiting the Neofunctionalism of Ernst B. Haas’, Journal of European Public Policy, 12: 2 (2005), pp. 237–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 See respectively Flora et al., State Formation; and Albert O. Hirschmann, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1970.Google Scholar

35 Bartolini, Restructuring Europe, pp. 116–76.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., pp. 177–247.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 175.Google Scholar

38 Schimidt, Democracy in Europe, p. 9.Google Scholar

39 Bartolini, Restructuring Europe, p. 408.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., pp. 406–7.Google Scholar

41 See, for example, Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘In Defence of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40: 4 (2002), pp. 603–24;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Giandomenico Majone, Regulating Europe, London, Routledge, 1996; and For an alternative critique see Andreas Føllesdal and Simon Hix, ‘Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44: 3 (2006), pp. 553–62.

42 Wincott, Daniel, ‘Regulatory Governance and the European Social Model: The Challenge of Substantive Legitimacy’, European Law Journal, 12: 6 (2006), pp. 743–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Bellamy, Richard and Castiglione, Dario, ‘Legitimising the Euro-Polity and its Regime: The Normative Turn in EU Studies’, European Journal of Political Theory, 2: 1 (2003), pp. 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For overviews of the literature see Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Normative Political Theory and the European Union’, in Jørgensen et al., Handbook of European Union Politics, pp. 317–35; and Lynn Dobson, ‘Normative Theory and Europe’, International Affairs, 82: 3 (2006), pp. 511–23.

44 This list of topics comes from Føllesdal, ‘Normative Political Theory’, pp. 318–19.Google Scholar

45 See the discussion of the sheer range of political theory-informed perspectives on legitimacy offered by Føllesdal, ‘Normative Political Theory’, pp. 323–8.Google Scholar

46 Weale, Democratic Citizenship, p. 14.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., chs 2 and 3.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., p. 144.Google Scholar

50 This idea was classically formulated in early functionalist theories of post-national institution-building. See, most prominently, David Mitrany, A Working Peace System, Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1966 [1943].Google Scholar

51 Weale, Democratic Citizenship, p. 94.Google Scholar

52 For elaboration see Rosamond, ‘The Political Sciences of European Integration’.Google Scholar