Institutional Interaction and European Integration: Towards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Inter governmentalism

Wincott, Daniel

doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.1995.tb00553.x

Cited by 135 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Established accounts of the formulation of government policies are achieved through a process of aggregating the policy positions and preferences of individual interest groups. this account of the domestic policy formulation process has been criticized as being weak by many notable commentators Wincott 1995). chapter 2 uses elite interviews, contemporary open source material, academic literature and quality news media reports, through a framework derived from liberal intergovernmentalist accounts, to argue that uK defence policy formulation is not created in accordance with these explanations and was, in this example, established by a small cadre of officials and politicians within the core executive of Number 10 Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, and the Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office and then officials tested the support for this policy amongst domestic interest groups and political supporters (rhodes and Dunleavy 1995, 2).…”

Section: Book Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach has been subject to a number of theoretical critiques (Budden 2002;young 1999, 805-10;Diez 1999;Wincott 1995;forster 1998;caporaso, scharpf and Wallace 1999). some of the criticisms in the extant literature have argued that international negotiations are not a process in which governments try to maximize national interests in each issue area.…”

Section: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Revival?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Europeanization of British Defence Policy

Dover¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Book Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Revival?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Europeanization of British Defence Policy

Dover¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus the EU can be defined in ways that favour either standard political science treatments or less orthodox, cross disciplinary or 'critical' approaches (on the latter, see Geyer, 2003). Daniel Wincott (1995) shows how an intergovernmentalist reading of the Communities, with its expectation that key integration moments coincide with grand member-state bargains, is bound to construct this period as sterile because it brackets as insignificant everyday institutional interaction and key acts of jurisprudence by the European Court of Justice (see Christiansen and Jørgensen, 1999;Weiler, 1991). …”

Section: 'Internalist' and 'Externalist' Accounts Of Eu Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

Rosamond¹

2006

Handbook of European Union Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe task of writing disciplinary history is far from straightforward.1 Like all history, the composition of a narrative about a field is undertaken at a particular time and in a particular place -from a particular 'subject position' that may reflect certain biases which in turn follow from a multiplicity of concerns that follow from those temporal and spatial coordinates. 'Formal' disciplinary histories in any field are relatively rare, while stock-taking, 'state of the art' exegeses are found rather more often. More common still, though largely unacknowledged as exercises in disciplinary history, are those acts of framing and story-telling about a field's past that routinely pepper scholarship in an area of enquiry. In other words scholarly activity is characterised by the constant flow of stories, which offer claims about routes to progress through the rectification of past errors and classify the field's development over time. Thus interventions in a field's present routinely make arguments about that field's past.The net result could well be that the history of a field 'is known more by reputation than readership' (Fuller, 2003: 29).The most prominent recent historian of the discipline of international relations (IR) argues that there 'is an intimate link between disciplinary identity and the manner in which we understand the history of the field' (Schmidt, 2002: 16 showing how, overwhelmingly, extant stories about the evolution of EU studies are bound up with particular claims about the organisation of knowledge in the present.Indeed the argument here suggests that disciplinary history is used to adjudicate disputes about the proper scope and substance of the study of EU politics, which in turn connect to some quite fundamental struggles for the soul of political science.Thus the chapter is also attentive to sociology of knowledge questions. These remind us that our knowledge about the world is produced amidst broad scientific and more specific disciplinary structures, norms, practices and institutions -what Jørgensen (2000) neatly calls the 'cultural-institutional context' of academic work. It follows that the evolution of a field is (at the very least) partly a function of developments within the field. These in turn might reflect much broader path dependent pathologies, which take us back to the intellectual and socio-political conditions of disciplinary foundation (Mancias, 1987). This 'internalist' take on disciplinary history might not necessarily provide a full explanation of why scholars of EU politics address particular puzzles at particular moment, but it does offer a framework for understanding why particular theories and approaches dominate at particular times (Schmidt, 1998;Waever, 2003). At the same time, many would prefer to argue for an 'externalist' understanding of disciplinary evolution, where the main academic 4 innovations are largely construed as responses to the changing anatomy of the field's primary object of study (the EU/the politics of European integration).

show abstract

“…Yet, his analyses 1) fail to ground the irreversibility of the process; 2) fail to ground the generalizability of the process, 3) fail to give a good description of the everyday workings of the integration process. This latest argument was formulated by institutionalist and comparativist critics, such as Garrett and Tsebelis 1996, Wincott 1995, and Mattli 1999, who also made some epistemological remarks about the selection biases inherent to Moravcsik's methodology, and the non-testability of his proposals.…”

Section: Intergovernmentalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Regional Integration in the IR Literature:A Review of Scholarly Support and Opposition

Koos¹

2011

OJPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of what has been written on the ECSC/EEC/EC/EU, has not been done by international relations (IR) theorists, but by comparativists, sociologists, historians, anthropologists, legal scholars, and many others. These writings are in general classified as intergovernmentalist, federalist, and supranationalist (functionalist and neofunctionalist) in most accounts of the theoretical perspectives on the EU (Webb 1983, Rosamond 2000. Wiener and Diez 2004 add a rational choice institutional category, as well, as they think that the policy analysis within the polity developed into an autonomous brand of literature. It is only Andrew Hurrell in his chapter in Fawcett and Hurrell 1995, who makes an attempt to present the EU, as a regional integration, from the point of view of diverse IR approaches. Drawing on his classification scheme, I conduct an inquiry of the IR theories about European unification from the point of view of whether they allow for the iteration of the European experience in other parts of the world or not. The basic conclusion is that almost all IR work on Europe falls in the intergovernmentalist category, which tends to conceptualize the European Union as representing an n of 1. (Intergovernmentalism is the choice of realism and neo-realism, English School, and neoliberal institutionalism.) Within the liberal IR paradigm, there is a tension between law-focused and security-focused approaches, on the one hand, and economic approaches, on the other. The first believe in the possibility of multiple integrations, while the latter does not think that they are desirable. Critical theories are also hindered by divergent normative commitments, though the class-based theorizing is very clear about pursuing the social control of markets. Keywords

show abstract

Institutional Interaction and European Integration: Towards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Inter governmentalism

Cited by 135 publications

References 14 publications

Europeanization of British Defence Policy

Europeanization of British Defence Policy

The Political Sciences of European Integration: Disciplinary History and EU Studies

The European Regional Integration in the IR Literature:A Review of Scholarly Support and Opposition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About