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

‘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

EU Sudies and the new Regionalism

In this chapter I investigate how some of the debates in new regionalism studies can inform research in EU studies. This may seem counter-intuitive; certainly, neofunctionalists argued exactly the opposite in the early 1960s (Haas 1961), and the rich literatures on the various currently-existing regions often highlight how the EU – or Europe more broadly understood – is both similar and dissimilar from their focus of study (for an overview, see Söderbaum 2009.) However, I draw on previous work (especially Warleigh-Lack, Robinson and Rosamond 2011; Warleigh-Lack and Van Langenhove 2010; Warleigh-Lack and Rosamond 2010) to argue that an invocation of new regionalist work can open up new research projects for EU studies scholars while shedding new, or at least different, light on longstanding problems in the field, such as the development of theory and the selection of case studies. This is primarily because such a move opens up two under-used assets for EU studies scholars. The first such asset is a different range of theoretical approaches, many of them of a critical kind, which do not tend to be found in the EU studies mainstream (Manners 2007). The second asset is a fresh range of comparators – other regional organisations and processes – to add to those more commonly found in EU studies (federal states.) Such new forms of comparison are just as suitable for the part-intergovernmental, part-supranational nature of the EU as those to which EU studies has become more accustomed, albeit in different ways; indeed, they may help EU studies scholars re-conceive their work as, at least in part, a contribution to a larger and generalisable research agenda – the understanding of regionalism and regional integration. In this chapter, I proceed in five steps. First, I introduce new regionalism and its studies, and state in more detail why EU studies scholars should investigate work on new regionalism with a view to undertaking comparative work. Second, I discuss the ways in which such work can be done productively. Third, I investigate the problems of such work, be they practical or intellectually substantive. Fourth, I focus on how such problems can be transcended. Finally, I sketch a research agenda which those designing projects in EU studies may find interesting

‘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