Abstract:The origins of the first supranational European community can be traced back to the bold and imaginative proposal drafted by Jean Monnet in early 1950. Yet his plan entered history under a different name: that of the statesman who offered his political backing -Robert Schuman. This article investigates the factors that made it possible for political leaders to accept this groundbreaking idea. Furthermore, it investigates the source of Monnet's power and influence, which helped to persuade various leaders at di… Show more
“…So, the two cases should be exemplifying a larger population where a known and stable cross‐case relationship can be found. Yet if that were the case, then the main case (the Schuman Plan) cannot be simultaneously ‘typical’ (our assumption here) and ‘mystical’ (Chira‐Pascanut, , p. 1242). We are thus left with the second possibility: the cases were chosen because they agree on the outcome of interest (Monnet's obtaining what he wanted).…”
Section: Methodological Problems With the Great Man Thesismentioning
confidence: 91%
“…… The London meeting of western Allied powers, scheduled for 10 May 1950, represented the deadline imposed on Schuman's brainstorming. (Chira‐Pascanut, , p. 1254)…”
Section: A Structuralist (Political Economy) Alternativementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent article in this journal by Constantin Chira‐Pascanut adds to a long tradition of mostly historical scholarship which emphasizes the role of particular individuals and their agency in the process of European integration (Chira‐Pascanut, ). As Desmond Dinan finds in his detailed historiographical study, a host of ‘worshipful hagiographers’ have praised individual ‘Fathers of Europe’, and mainly Jean Monnet (Dinan, , p. 298; see also Milward, ).…”
Following a historiographical tradition which emphasizes the individual agency of specific individuals, a recent article claims that Jean Monnet's 'path-breaking' ideas and actions were a necessary condition for the Schuman declaration of 1950. I show that, like other deterministic claims about necessary conditions, this is at odds with current political science theory, and is also based on methodologically dubious inferences. Using less biased sources I develop an alternative explanation for the Schuman declaration, which emphasizes broad societal preferences, institutional constraints and international interactions. I find that Monnet did play his cards well, but also that there is no reason to believe that his ideas were original, or that any other competent French planning commissioner would not have acted similarly. I discuss the implications for academic debates between historians and political scientists, for policy-makers who seek to learn from the European experience and for the construction of a new euro-mythology.
“…So, the two cases should be exemplifying a larger population where a known and stable cross‐case relationship can be found. Yet if that were the case, then the main case (the Schuman Plan) cannot be simultaneously ‘typical’ (our assumption here) and ‘mystical’ (Chira‐Pascanut, , p. 1242). We are thus left with the second possibility: the cases were chosen because they agree on the outcome of interest (Monnet's obtaining what he wanted).…”
Section: Methodological Problems With the Great Man Thesismentioning
confidence: 91%
“…… The London meeting of western Allied powers, scheduled for 10 May 1950, represented the deadline imposed on Schuman's brainstorming. (Chira‐Pascanut, , p. 1254)…”
Section: A Structuralist (Political Economy) Alternativementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent article in this journal by Constantin Chira‐Pascanut adds to a long tradition of mostly historical scholarship which emphasizes the role of particular individuals and their agency in the process of European integration (Chira‐Pascanut, ). As Desmond Dinan finds in his detailed historiographical study, a host of ‘worshipful hagiographers’ have praised individual ‘Fathers of Europe’, and mainly Jean Monnet (Dinan, , p. 298; see also Milward, ).…”
Following a historiographical tradition which emphasizes the individual agency of specific individuals, a recent article claims that Jean Monnet's 'path-breaking' ideas and actions were a necessary condition for the Schuman declaration of 1950. I show that, like other deterministic claims about necessary conditions, this is at odds with current political science theory, and is also based on methodologically dubious inferences. Using less biased sources I develop an alternative explanation for the Schuman declaration, which emphasizes broad societal preferences, institutional constraints and international interactions. I find that Monnet did play his cards well, but also that there is no reason to believe that his ideas were original, or that any other competent French planning commissioner would not have acted similarly. I discuss the implications for academic debates between historians and political scientists, for policy-makers who seek to learn from the European experience and for the construction of a new euro-mythology.
“…14 Recently, scholars like Constantin Chira-Pascanut, David Ramiro Troitiño and Gérard Bossuat have revitalized the state of the art by reconstructing the early stages of Monnet's experience as unconventional businessman and diplomat by the time of the League of Nations. 15 If we also consider the literature on the so-called Monnet's method, we can argue that the thematic literature has reached a pretty high degree of complexity, stratification and complementarity. 16 Nonetheless, there are still margins for new discoveries.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…61 57 'The possibility of Germany's becoming a member of a Western European federation'. 'Twelfth meeting', 15 The Fritalux, ERP mission and European recovery issues were addressed again by Robert Marjolin at a widely attended meeting at the Pratt House, which also hosted experts from Chatham House. 62 Thanks to these meetings, public diplomacy contributed to narrowing the normative gap between different views on European unity on the two shores of the Atlantic.…”
Thanks to its innovative supranational features, the European Coal and Steel Community is widely recognized as the cornerstone of the European integration process. This article offers an alternative history of the European Coal and Steel Community's origins by highlighting the role of transnational expertise and public diplomacy. More precisely, this study seeks to demonstrate that the policies carried out by Jean Monnet, the mastermind of European Coal and Steel Community's blueprint, originated from the plans elaborated by the New York-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations. While advising the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, the Council on Foreign Relations formed a policy network with European policymakers sharing similar political values and goals. Although the interactions between these figures have never been studied, new findings reveal that the Council on Foreign Relations–Monnet partnership proved instrumental in improving inter-Allied coordination, managing postwar recovery and framing the idea of European unity. Eventually, the Council on Foreign Relations helped Monnet to define, adjust and promote the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty draft. In this perspective, the foundation of the first European institution derived from a long-term strategic design rooted in wartime planning and transatlantic diplomatic exchanges.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
