Rational Choice and the Governance Structure of the European Union: An Introduction

Author(s):  
Peter Moser ◽  
Gerald Schneider
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Barbara Murphy

<p>Following 10 years in operation, the European Monetary Union (EMU) has been shaken by the global financial crisis and some peripheral states have experienced significant economic shock. The pitfalls of currency unions have been well documented in the literature of International Political Economy (IPE), so the situation that these states find themselves in cannot come as a surprise to any member country. Without highly synchronised economies, some states will suffer significantly in the event of an exogenous shock. This begs the question why a country would make an "irrational" choice to join the monetary union to begin with. The predominant IPE theories on how the EMU was formed are explained using rational choice with material interests as the focus for interstate bargaining. By arguing that they really have no choice to begin with, rational choice theory renders small states impotent. Unsatisfied with this reductionist answer, this body of work explores the participation of one of the states currently in trouble by introducing a constructivist theory of economic identity politics. Exploring the historical record of Ireland in the period of 1978 and 1992, this work reveals that Ireland in fact had choices, and the "irrational" choices it made were significantly influenced by Irish identity politics. However Ireland's "irrational" motivation can only be understood by including economic identity politics into the analysis. It will reveal that the supranational institutions of the European Union can serve as economic instruments to further nationalist goals. In the process the institution can become embedded in the nation such a country like Ireland is now a hybrid - highly European monetarily while it still remains distinctively Irish. As small states now make up the majority of the European Union this thesis adds to our understanding of small state participation in its most ambitious institution thus far.</p>


2017 ◽  
pp. 63-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Biebricher

The main goal of the following article is to offer a Foucaultian reading of the economic governance structure of the European Union after the reforms passed and implemented over the last six years. The starting point is a reconstruction of Foucault’s analytical framework to scrutinize disciplinary power as well as the respective apparatuses and how this framework has been integrated into the more encompassing governmentality perspective. In the second section I provide a brief survey of the strategic terrain of the European Union as a site of multi-level governance that poses unique challenges from a governing perspective. The following sections are structured according to some key characteristics of disciplinary/governmental power arrangements (visibilization, norm(aliz)ation, prevention, normalizing judgement) which I try to identify in the context of the European Semester, the Six-Pack and the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure as elements of a broader disciplinary framework. The final section draws on Foucault’s famous point about the ‘productive failure’ of the prison as a disciplinary apparatus that ends up serving ends and purposes quite distinct from the ones officially declared and suggests that we should also consider the European regime of economic discipline and surveillance as one, which is ‘failing forward’, creating opportunity structures to pursue political projects that may differ markedly from those officially stated.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Barbara Murphy

<p>Following 10 years in operation, the European Monetary Union (EMU) has been shaken by the global financial crisis and some peripheral states have experienced significant economic shock. The pitfalls of currency unions have been well documented in the literature of International Political Economy (IPE), so the situation that these states find themselves in cannot come as a surprise to any member country. Without highly synchronised economies, some states will suffer significantly in the event of an exogenous shock. This begs the question why a country would make an "irrational" choice to join the monetary union to begin with. The predominant IPE theories on how the EMU was formed are explained using rational choice with material interests as the focus for interstate bargaining. By arguing that they really have no choice to begin with, rational choice theory renders small states impotent. Unsatisfied with this reductionist answer, this body of work explores the participation of one of the states currently in trouble by introducing a constructivist theory of economic identity politics. Exploring the historical record of Ireland in the period of 1978 and 1992, this work reveals that Ireland in fact had choices, and the "irrational" choices it made were significantly influenced by Irish identity politics. However Ireland's "irrational" motivation can only be understood by including economic identity politics into the analysis. It will reveal that the supranational institutions of the European Union can serve as economic instruments to further nationalist goals. In the process the institution can become embedded in the nation such a country like Ireland is now a hybrid - highly European monetarily while it still remains distinctively Irish. As small states now make up the majority of the European Union this thesis adds to our understanding of small state participation in its most ambitious institution thus far.</p>


Author(s):  
Paul W. Thurner

The European Union (EU) is a regional cooperation regime with a specific and still fluid governance structure. It constitutes the world’s largest and institutionally most deeply integrated system of international relations with supranational features. As a consequence, the literature on the EU often emphasizes informality, multilevel aspects, and its “network governance” character. Network analysis is therefore a promising perspective for the systematic investigation of complex networks of formalized actor relations as well as of informal and implicit political structures and processes in the EU. Applied network analysis is meanwhile used for the investigation of multi-level policy preparation, of collective decision-making in the political system in the EU, and of the implementation process of EU policies in the Member States.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lia C.R.M. Versteegh

The active involvement of European citizens became a new form of democracy in the Treaty of Lisbon of 2009 by the introduction of a whole new chapter dedicated to this purpose. There is an article that obligates the Commission to give serious consideration to the demands of one million citizens from a significant number of Member States. The treaty also provides for a better role of NGOs such as foundations and associations. However, there are uncertainties concerning the definition and the nature of the concept of civil society of which NGOs may be regarded as typical. The European Union gives as leading principle of civil society the concept of voluntariness. Currently, the legal typology of NGOs in the European Union is determined by national laws of the Member State. The present forms of NGOs show great differences regarding formal requirements. There is a variety of legal forms available in EU Member States for public benefit organizations as typical civil society organizations. In the concept of European Union governance there are different concepts about which role civil society could or ought to play in Europe’s governance structure. One of these concepts is that the European Union cooperates with the national civil society institutions through partnership agreements. However, the European Union provides no indication of ways to measure whether an organization can be considered as a public benefit organization. Also, the supervising competences in the EU Member States are different. As a result of these the participatory democracy in the EU does not reflect the power of Europe’s civil society.


Author(s):  
M. Strezhneva

Institutional structures and decision-making processes, which have been established in the European Union, fall beyond the scope of national rules for the functioning of parliamentary government. National parliaments of the EU member states have not succeeded in acquiring solid positions in the multilevel constellation within the Union. Yet nowadays they are assigned an important mission in their efforts to overcome, alongside the European Parliament (EP), the growing democratic deficit at both the European and national levels. The article is meant to assess the potential of national parliaments in capitalizing on the Lisbon Treaty provisions and on new forms of their engagement with supranational institutions (the European Council, the European Commission and the EP in particular), aimed at enhancing their legitimizing influence. General paradigm for the analysis is determined by the multilevel governance concept (MLG). It allows for a picture of European decision-making, which is shared by actors placed at different levels of the governance structure. National parliaments are supposed to be provided with multiple access points to the political process in the European Union as well. But the MLG vision doesn't contradict the fact that the key role within the EU belongs to those who occupy the highest executive power positions at the national level. Three directions for the national parliaments to intensify their involvement are put into spotlight: parliamentary control over national executives; control of compliance with the subsidiarity principle in European legislative proposals and supranational decisions; political dialogue with the European Commission and interparliamentary cooperation. The analysis proves that conditions are ripe for more active stance of national parliaments in the EU affairs. The “system of early warning” of the subsidiarity principle violations, provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, seems most promising. But national parliaments themselves will still have to demonstrate more persistence when using new instruments. Acknowledgment. The article has been supported by a grant of the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH). Project № 14-07-00050.


Author(s):  
Gerald Schneider ◽  
Anastasia Ershova

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) conceives of European integration as the outcome of three interplaying forces—interests, information, and institutions. Cooperation in the European Union (EU) is thus based on collective choices among a diverse set of actors ranging from voters to member states that disagree over the potential outcome of the decision-making process, are uncertain about the motives and resources of other players, and are exposed to decision-making rules with varying distributional consequences. RCI distinguishes between two fundamental choices the supranational organization can make. EU actors can in this perspective either decide how the EU should be governed (“decision-making about rules”) or how a policy should be changed with the help of a given rule (“decision-making within rules”). The first perspective deals largely with the intergovernmental conferences during which the European Union has changed the rules that structure the interactions among the member states. The latter viewpoint addresses how the relevant decision makers of the European Union have amended or prevented policy changes alone or in collaboration with other actors. Both perspectives draw on the standard assumptions of the rational choice research program that actors engage into means-ends calculations in a consistent way, process new information efficiently, and are aware of the preferences and rationality of other relevant actors. This implies, in the context of EU decision-making, that the adoption of new rules and polices is the consequence of the strategic behavior of those players who possess the power to influence the collective choice. The application of the RCI approach to EU integration has resulted in a multitude of studies seeking to explain its capacity for institutional reform, policy change, or absorption of new members. While the European Parliament, like any other legislature, concludes its deliberations through voting, other EU decision-making bodies mainly decide either through bargaining or through delegating certain tasks to a subordinate actor. RCI has adopted different workhorse models borrowed from game theory to reflect the variety of decision-making modes: the spatial theory of voting, non-cooperative bargaining theory, and principal-agent models have become the standard approaches to study European integration. RCI research has faced several challenges since becoming a mainstream approach in the study of EU decision-making. The first set of criticism focuses on the axiomatic basis of the RCI research program in general and questions its usefulness for understanding the evolution of an organization as complex and large as the EU. Other objections that are frequently raised refer to the empirical tests of the hypotheses derived from the game-theoretic models. Finally, critics of the approach question the ability of the RCI program to deal with the role of informal institutions.


2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 19-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda A. Schreurs ◽  
Yves Tiberghien

The European Union has played a leading role in pushing for the establishment, ratification, and meaningful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, although it still has significant efforts to make to achieve its target of an 8 percent cut of greenhouse gas by 2008–2012 relative to the 1990 level. This article explores the political factors behind continued EU leadership in climate change. It argues that a few individual states (including Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and the UK) played an essential role in establishing the EU's agenda in this domain. However, the decentralized governance structure of the EU has also encouraged a process of mutual reinforcement, whereby individual states, the European Commission, and the European Parliament are competing for leadership.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Greer ◽  
Janneke Gerards ◽  
Rose Slowe

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document