European integration and the social science of EU studies: the disciplinary politics of a subfield

This article takes the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome as an opportunity to reflect upon half a century of academic discourse about the EU and its antecedents. In particular, it illuminates the theoretical analysis of European integration that has developed within political science and international studies broadly defined. It asks whether it is appropriate to map, as might be tempting, the intellectual 'progress' of the field of study against the empirical evolution of its object (European integration/the EU). The argument to be presented here is that while we can, to some extent, comprehend the evolution of academic thinking about the EU as a reflex to critical shifts in the 'real world' of European integration ('externalist' drivers), it is also necessary to understand 'internalist' drivers of theoretical discourse on European integration/the EU. The article contemplates two such 'internalist' components that have shaped and continue to shape the course of EU studies: scholarly contingency (the fact that scholarship does not proceed with free agency, but is bound by various conditions) and disciplinary politics (the idea that the course of academic work is governed by power games and that there are likely significant disagreements about best practice and progress in a field). In terms of EU studies, the thrust of disciplinary politics tends towards an opposition between 'mainstreaming' and 'pluralist versions' of the political science of EU studies. The final section explores how, in the face of emerging monistic claims about propriety in the field, an effective pluralist political science of the EU might be enhanced

Accounting for the open method of coordination : can 'old' theories on European integration explain 'new' forms of integrations

Since the European Council in Lisbon, the use of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and OMC-type processes have become widespread across policy areas of the European Union, and also spilled over to non-governmental actors. This PhD thesis will compare and contrast two examples of OMC-like governance in the field of Education and Training which so far have been under-researched, namely the Open Method of Coordination in E&T and the Framework of Actions on the lifelong development of competencies and qualifications by the European social partners. In order to explain the creation, functioning and impact of these forms of governance, different European integration theories are tested on how they explain the results. It is expected that different theoretical approaches can explain certain aspects better than others. To fully understand all of these aspects of OMC-type governance, the combined use of rationalist and constructivist approaches is promoted. The results will show that OMC-type governance is a third way between intergovernmental and supranational policy-making and significantly contributed to the deepening of E&T policy at EU level, while at the same time guaranteeing national sovereignty, leading to a new form of integration. This thesis argues that OMC-like tools are able to serve diverse interests with respect to speed and nature of European integration. By being soft and flexible policy-tools, OMC-like tools are ideal for sensitive policy areas with very diverse national situations and represent rather a complementary form of policy-making than an alternative to the Community Method. Consequently, European integration theories need to adapt to the possibility of EU policy-making methods that are neither purely intergovernmental nor fully supranational and lead to new types of integration. OMC-like tools also illustrate the need to return to the ambition of grand theories i.e. explaining the whole picture, without relying only on one theory but rather using various approaches in a complementary fashion.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Introduction

What are the strategies, modalities and aspirations of island-based, stateless nationalist and regionalist parties in the twenty-first century? Political independence is now easier to achieve, even by the smallest of territories; yet, it is not so likely to be pursued with any vigour by the world's various persisting sub-national (and mainly island) jurisdictions. Theirs is a pursuit of different expressions of sub-national autonomy, stopping short of independence. And yet, a number of independence referenda are scheduled, including one looming in Scotland in autumn 2014

Explaining differentiation in European Union treaties

Since the early 1990s, European integration has become increasingly differentiated. Analysing the conditions under which member states make use of the opportunity to opt out of, or exclude other countries from, European integration, we argue that different explanations apply to treaty and accession negotiations, respectively. Threatening to block deeper integration, member states with strong national identities secure differentiations in treaty reform. In enlargement, in turn, old member states fear economic disadvantages and low administrative capacity and therefore impose differentiation on poor newcomers. Opt-outs from treaty revisions are limited to the area of core state powers, whereas they also occur in the market in the context of enlargement

Interest Groups, NGOs or Civil Society Organisations? The Framing of Non-State Actors in the EU

Scholars have used varying terminology for describing non-state entities seeking to influence public policy or work with the EU’s institutions. This paper argues that the use of this terminology is not and should not be random, as different ‘frames’ come with different normative visions about the role(s) of these entities in EU democracy. A novel bibliometric analysis of 780 academic publications between 1992 and 2020 reveals that three frames stand out: The interest group frame, the NGO frame, as well as the civil society organisation frame; a number of publications also use multiple frames. This article reveals the specific democratic visions contained in these frames, including a pluralist view for interest groups; a governance view for NGOs as ‘third sector’ organisations, and participatory and deliberative democracy contributions for civil society organisations. The use of these frames has dynamically changed over time, with ‘interest groups’ on the rise. The results demonstrate the shifting focus of studies on non-state actors in the EU and consolidation within the sub-field; the original visions of European policy-makers emerging from the 2001 White Paper on governance may only partially come true

Interest groups in multiple streams:specifying their involvement in the framework

Although interests inhabit a central place in the multiple streams framework (MSF), interest groups have played only a minor role in theoretical and empirical studies until now. In Kingdon’s original conception, organized interests are a key variable in the politics stream. Revisiting Kingdon’s concept with a particular focus on interest groups and their activities—in different streams and at various levels—in the policy process, we take this argument further. In particular, we argue that specifying groups’ roles in other streams adds value to the explanatory power of the framework. To do this, we look at how interest groups affect problems, policies, and politics. The influence of interest groups within the streams is explained by linking the MSF with literature on interest intermediation. We show that depending on the number of conditions and their activity level, interest groups can be involved in all three streams. We illustrate this in case studies reviewing labor market policies in Germany and chemicals regulation at the European level

Robust image analysis with sparse representation on quantized visual features

10.1109/TIP.2012.2219543IEEE Transactions on Image Processing223860-871IIPR

‘Greening EU Studies: An Academic Manifesto’,

This article responds to Ian Manners' challenge to scholars of EU studies to engage with a broader range of theoretical perspectives and projects than is conventional. Specifically, it investigates the benefits of such an epistemological shift as that called for by Manners, critiquing the condition of the mainstream in EU studies—which is still somewhat unreflexively defined by dominant norms of IR scholarship despite the development of the field into a multi-disciplinary form of area studies—and arguing for an engagement with ecological thought and theory. To do this, the article proceeds in three stages. First, I set out why I think the call for a greater range of critical perspectives in EU studies is useful, focusing on the epistemological challenges and benefits involved in taking such a step. Second, I set out the core ideas of political theories of ecology. Finally, I suggest specific benefits for EU studies of incorporating such an ecological approach