Political Science and the Eurozone Crisis. A Review of Scientific Journal Articles 2004–15

Abstract

We take a closer look at how political science engaged with Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) over a period of 12 years (2004–15). How intensively, and with what focus, have political science journals dealt with EMU? How has the scientific discourse on the topic changed with the outbreak of the global financial crisis, which led to a eurozone crisis? Our systematic, qualitative analysis of articles (N=161) dealing with EMU in selected peer‐reviewed political science journals yields a number of interesting findings. First, we observe marked differences between the pre‐ and post‐crisis period. Specifically, political science has increasingly taken up issues of financial regulation and questions of trust in a monetary union. Second, political scientists did not engage as much as expected with the democratic ramifications of the crisis management. Finally, different crisis narratives persist, and none have been completely refuted.

Deciding upon the Banking Union: How a joint belief shift instigated deep institutional change in Eurozone governance

“…Furthermore, the Eurozone crisis shifts the focus of EU leaders from banking issues to a sovereign debt crisis. To solve existing problems, leaders relied on a regime of fiscal and economic coordination (Esch et al, 2018; Höing & Kunstein, 2019). The start of the Eurozone crisis demonstrated that the problem‐solving ability of this particular regime was in decline, creating room for actors to defect.…”

“…Third, the idea of a BU represented further economic integration at a time when Euroscepticism reigned and support for supranational policies was at an all‐time low (Börzel & Risse, 2017; Dehousse, 2016; Nielsen & Smeets, 2017). And fourth, debate over causes and solutions for the financial and economic crisis for a long time focused on fixing the sovereign debt problems instead of financial markets (Esch et al, 2018; Höing & Kunstein, 2019).…”

Introduction: the politicisation of permanent crisis in Europe

“…Change in policy design, policy-making procedures and bouts of institutional creation has all been attributed to crises (typically construed as 'external shocks'). Yet, the extent of such ostensibly crisis-engendered chance clearly varies greatly between crises and, indeed, policy areas (Kratochvíl and Sychra 2019;Höing and Kunstein 2019;Burns, Clifton, and Quaglia 2017;Biermann et al 2017). For example, whilst the Eurozone crisis fostered further integration in the economic domain, the refugee crisis has deepened the already existing divisions among member states, leading to the paralysis of the EU.…”

Is academic research useful to EU officials? The logic of institutional openness in the Commission

“…Most of the attention has gone to political scientific researchthe primary social scientific discipline interested in the EU as an object of study (Manners & Rosamond, 2018, p. 28). Scholars have examined its growth, the proliferation of sub-fields, editorial boards' compositions, thematic directions, and its relevance in North America (Andrews, 2012;Höing & Kunstein, 2019;Jensen & Kristensen, 2013). Additional assessments have taken more critical stances by claiming that much political scientific research avoids serious investigations of power, subjectivity, gender, and race (Kronsell, 2016;Manners & Whitman, 2016, p. 8).…”