The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post‐Maastricht Era

Abstract

The post-Maastricht period is marked by an integration paradox. While the basic constitutional features of the European Union have remained stable, EU activity has expanded to an unprecedented degree. This form of integration without supranationalism is no exception or temporary deviation from traditional forms of European integration. Rather, it is a distinct phase of European integration, what is called 'the new intergovernmentalism' in this article. This approach to postMaastricht integration challenges theories that associate integration with transfers of competences from national capitals to supranational institutions and those that reduce integration to traditional socioeconomic or security-driven interests. This article explains the integration paradox in terms of transformations in Europe's political economy, changes in preference formation and the decline of the 'permissive consensus'. It presents a set of six hypotheses that develop further the main claims of the new intergovernmentalism and that can be used as a basis for future research.

Enforcing the European Semester: the politics of asymmetric information in the excessive deficit and macroeconomic imbalance procedures

“…So they are much more cooperative in giving even confidential data to the statistical offices. '9 Nevertheless, even as the Valencia case represents the assertiveness of supranational agencies, the politics of asymmetric information also reflect the assertion by the EU's principals to exert their intergovernmental authority to restrict the Commission's initiatives when they regard it in their interests to do so (Dinan 2014;Puetter 2012;Bickerton et al 2014;Hodson 2013;Rittberger 2014;Schimmelfennig 2015). The MIP presented the Commission with an important opportunity to expand its prerogatives through Eurostat's oversight of the asymmetric information it obtained from the member states.…”

“…As anticipated by PA theory, the creation and enforcement of the EU's surveillance procedures reflect the ebb and flow of power relationships between multiple principals and supranational agents that are dynamic and contested over time. Most recently, the member states through the European Council have reasserted their authority over EU economic governance as a result of the euro crisis (Puetter 2012;Bickerton et al 2014;Hodson 2013;Schimmelfennig 2015). The euro crisis has also witnessed the rise of the European Parliament (EP) as an additional principal in the surveillance process (Dinan 2014;Rittberger 2014).…”

Derecho transnacional o la necesidad de superar el monismo y el dualismo en la teoría jurídica

“…La integración, en este sentido, es un proyecto dinámico y cooperativo en el que se constituye una entidad común mediante la mutua adaptación. En él, tanto los actores locales como los transnacionales promueven, desde la coordinación voluntaria, la progresiva expansión de sus poderes (Bickerton, Hodson & Puetter, 2015). Para esta concepción de la integración, resulta central la idea de desacuerdo o diferenciación.…”

Taking Stock of Integration Theory

“…As demonstrated by the revival of aspects of neo-functionalist theorizing (Hooghe/Marks 2018;Stone Sweet/Sandholtz 2010), on the one hand, and propositions for deploying a new intergovernmentalist approach to better account for changes in politics and policy-making in the post-Maastricht EU (Bickerton et al 2015b;Hodson/Puetter 2016; for a critique see Schimmelfennig 2015), on the other, robust and competent assessments of critical junctures in the process of European integration depend on the field's capability to adopt not a single, but a range of distinct theoretical standpoints. This, however, would expect EU scholars to look beyond their disciplinary confines and draw on insights garnered from the International Relations discipline more broadly.…”