Regional Characteristics Affecting the Scope and Objectives of European Policy: And European Integration or Disintegration

Author(s):  
Julie Anna Braun
Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer

The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was a founder member of the European integration process, namely the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) created in 1952. However, the circumstances were very different from the 2010s. Germany was a divided and defeated state until 1990. Integration provided important political and economic support to West Germany. From the 1970s, it strengthened the FRG’s foreign policy reach, for the new state was constrained by Cold War politics as well as other legacies, notably the Holocaust. European integration provided a framework for building trust with western neighbors, particularly France. The collapse of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1989 and its absorption into the FRG through unification in 1990 brought about significant change to Germany’s relationship to European integration. The unified Germany became the largest member state. Initial concerns about German power in Europe were allayed by Chancellor Helmut Kohl pursuing deeper integration to bind the unified Germany further to integration: through creating the European Union (EU) itself and setting a course toward monetary union. Specific concerns about German power only really emerged in the 2010s, as the EU was bedeviled by several crises. In seeking to offer a comprehensive understanding of Germany’s relationship with the EU, coverage is organized around four broad themes: the historical dimension of the relationship; the substance of Germany’s European policy; the sources of Germany’s European policy; and Germany’s role and power in the EU. The historical dimension of Germany’s relationship with European integration is important as a first theme. It is no exaggeration to suggest that European integration helped emancipate the FRG from the historical legacy of turbulent relations with France, Nazi tyranny, and the opprobrium of the Holocaust. European integration afforded a complementary framework for Germany’s political and economic order. The importance of embedding German unification in a context of European integration should not be underestimated. Germany’s European policy has displayed considerable consistency up to the contemporary era. Support for further integration, for enlargement, the market order, and the development of an EU “civilian power” have been key components. These policies are important contributors to understanding Germany’s role in the EU: the second theme. The political and economic system of the FRG forms an important backdrop to understanding Germany’s policy and role in the EU: the third theme. From the 1960s until the 2010s, EU membership was subject to cross-party consensus and permissive public support. These circumstances allowed the federal government autonomy in pursuing its European policy. However, the political climate of European policy has become much more contested in the 2010s. Germany’s role was placed in the spotlight by the succession of crises that have emerged within the EU and in its neighborhood in the 2010s, particularly the eurozone and migration crises. The fourth theme explores how the question of German power re-emerged. These four themes are important to understanding Germany’s role in the EU, especially given Berlin’s centrality to its development.


2020 ◽  

The yearbook on European integration, compiled by the Institute of European Politics in Berlin, has documented the process of European integration in an up-to-date and detailed way since 1980. The result is a unique record of contemporary European history over a 40 year period. The 2020 edition of the yearbook continues this tradition. In approximately 100 contributions related to their main research subjects, the book’s authors portray the events of European politics in the period 2019–20 and inform the reader about the work of European institutions, the development of the EU’s policy areas, Europe’s role in the world and European policy in the EU’s member states and candidate countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Berkhout ◽  
Marcel Hanegraaff ◽  
Patrick Statsch

Policy-specific actor-constellations consisting of party- and group-representatives commonly drive the effective establishment of new policy programmes or changes in existing policies. In the EU multi-level system, the creation of such constellations is complicated because it practically requires consensus on two dimensions: the European public policy at stake and the issue of European integration. This means that, for interest groups with interests in particular policy domains, and with limited interest in the actual issue of European integration, non-Eurosceptic parties must be their main ally in their policy battles. We hypothesise that interest groups with relevant European domain-specific interests will ally with non-Eurosceptic parties, whereas interest groups whose interests are hardly affected by the European policy process will have party-political allies across the full range of positions on European integration. We assess this argument on the basis of an elite-survey of interest group leaders and study group-party dyads in several European countries (i.e., Belgium, Lithuania, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia) in a large number of policy domains. Our dependent variable is the group-party dyad and the main independent variables are the European policy interests of the group and the level of Euroscepticism of the party. We broadly find support for our hypotheses. The findings of our study speak to the debate concerning the implications of the politicisation of European integration and, more specifically, the way in which party-political polarisation of Europe may divide domestic interest group systems and potentially drive group and party systems apart.


Author(s):  
Ève Fouilleux ◽  
Matthieu Ansaloni

This chapter focuses on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which has long been of symbolic importance to the European integration process. The CAP, which came into force from 1962, is based on three general principles: market unity, Community preference, and financial solidarity. The chapter first considers the early days of CAP and the issue of CAP reform before discussing the policy's objectives, instruments, actors, and debates. It then explains the evolution of the CAP since the 1960s and asks why the CAP has been so problematic for European policy-makers, why CAP has been so resistant to change, and how CAP reform has come about. This chapter also examines some of the challenges facing agricultural policy, as new debates emerge among citizens on the place and the functions performed by agriculture. Particular attention is given to rural development and environmental, transparency, and equity issues.


2021 ◽  

The yearbook on European integration, compiled by the Institute of European Politics in Berlin, has documented the process of European integration in an up-to-date and detailed way since 1980. The result is a unique record of contemporary European history over a 41 year period. The 2021 edition of the yearbook continues this tradition. In approximately 100 contributions related to their main research subjects, the book’s authors portray the events of European politics in the period 2020–21 and inform the reader about the work of European institutions, the development of the EU’s policy areas, Europe’s role in the world and European policy in the EU’s member states and candidate countries. With contributions by Petra Ahrens · Constanze Aka · Aljoscha Albrecht · Franco Algieri · Franz-Lothar Altmann · Katrin Auel · Heinz-Jürgen Axt · Julia Bachtrögler-Unger · Michael L. Bauer · Peter Becker · Matthias Belafi · Annegret Bendiek · Julian Bergmann · Sarah-Lena Böning · Katrin Böttger · Klaus Brummer · Birgit Bujard · Karlis Bukovskis · Hrvoje Butković · Thomas Christiansen · Agnieszka K. Cianciara · Anthony Costello · Alexandru Damian · Franziska Decker · Johanna Deimel · Doris Dialer · Thomas Diez · Roland Döhrn · Hans-Wilhelm Dünn · Tobias Etzold · Alina Felder · Eva Feldmann-Wojtachnia · Sabine Fischer · Tobias Flessenkemper · Christian Franck · Carsten Gerards · Gabriel Glöckler · Daniel Göler · Alexander Grasse · Anna Gussarova · Christoph Gusy · Björn Hacker · Simon Hartmann · Niklas Helwig · Andreas Hofmann · Bernd Hüttemann · Tuomas Iso-Markku · Klaus Jacob · Michael Kaeding · Niels Keijzer · Mariam Khotenashvili · Anna-Lena Kirch · Henning Klodt · Wim Kösters · Valentin Kreilinger · Tobias Kunstein · Jan Labitzke · Guido Lessing · Barbara Lippert · Christian Lippert · Marko Lovec · Siegfried Magiera · Remi Maier-Rigaud · Jean-Marie Majerus · Andreas Marchetti · Daniel Martínek · Dominic Maugeais · Andreas Maurer · Vittoria Meißner · Laia Mestres · Jürgen Mittag · Lucia Mokrá · Jan-Peter Möhle · Manuel Müller · Matthias Niedobitek · Thomas Petersen · Anne Pintz · Julian Plottka · Johannes Pollak · António Raimundo · Christian Raphael · Iris Rehklau · Florence Reiter · Darius Ribbe · Daniel Schade · Sebastian Schäffer · Joachim Schild · Ulrich Schlie · Otto Schmuck · Lucas Schramm · Tobias Schumacher · Oliver Schwarz · Martin Selmayr · Otto W. Singer · Eduard Soler i Lecha · Martin Stein · Burkard Steppacher · Tamás Szigetvári · Funda Tekin · Gabriel N. Toggenburg · Hans-Jörg Trenz · Jürgen Turek · Günther Unser · Mendeltje van Keulen · Nicolai von Ondarza · Thomas Walli · Volker Weichsel · Werner Weidenfeld · Michael Weigl · Wolfgang Weiß · Charlotte Wenner · Wolfgang Wessels · Moritz Wiesenthal · Sabine Willenberg · Laura Worsch · Wolfgang Zellner


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
Laurent WARLOUZET

The Single Market has been at the heart of European integration for more than three decades, as the recent Brexit negotiations exemplifies. However, the role of the European Parliament in the origins and the first years of implementation of the Single Market programme has been neglected, whereas it was important in two respects. First, as early as 1983 the European Parliament contributed to intellectual mobilisation efforts in advance of the programme’s adoption by developing the notion of the “cost of non-Europe”, an economic concept which materialized the tangible benefits of the Single Market Programme, instead of framing this endeavour as simply another European policy among others. Michel Albert was instrumental in this debate. Second, the European Parliament was active after the Single Act was signed in 1986 by adopting and influencing legislation to concretely implement this ambitious programme, as the example of the 1989 car emission directive demonstrates. Here the role of Carlo Ripa di Meana was of particular importance.


Res Publica ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 45 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 481-505
Author(s):  
Wilfried Dewachter

Unlike France, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and other E.U. countries Belgium has not yet organised a referendum on European policy matters, however important these may be. So one is constrained to opinion polls and survey data to grasp the attitude of the Flemish community towards European integration. Five important policy matters are examined: the introduction of the euro, the involvement in E.U. countries, the enlargement of the E.U. , the institutional design and the position ofthe Flemish community in the E.U. At the end, with about 20 % of the electorale trying to follow the intricate European polities, on the whole public opinion on Europe in Flanders seem to be a mixture of unfamiliarity, indifference, resignation and acceptance of the policy advocated by the elitist consensus in Belgium on these matters. The missing impetus is the incentives provided by a referendum to become concerned with the complex policy-making and policies in Europe.


2019 ◽  

The yearbook on European integration, compiled by the Institute of European Politics in Berlin, has documented the process of European integration in an up-to-date and detailed way since 1980. The result is a unique record of contemporary European history over a 39 year period. The 2019 edition of the yearbook continues this tradition. In approximately 100 contributions related to their main research subjects, the book’s authors portray the events of European politics in the period 2018–19 and inform the reader about the work of European institutions, the development of the EU’s policy areas, Europe’s role in the world and European policy in the EU’s member states and candidate countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Lefkofridi

Why does the European election fail to produce competition between European policy alternatives despite the increased politicization of European integration and efforts to connect election results to the Commission Presidency via the <em>Spitzenkandidaten </em>process? In this article I theorize the European arena’s incentive structure for political competition by synthesizing Strøm’s (1990) behavioral theory of competitive parties (votes, office, policy) and Bartolini’s (1999, 2000) four dimensions of electoral competition (contestability, availability, decidability, and incumbent vulnerability). I model EU decidability (party differentials on EU policy) and formulate specific expectations about party differentiation by considering parties’ vote-, office-, and policy-seeking motives under the European arena’s specific conditions. How parties behave under the specific incentive structure of the European arena matters for the EU’s development as a polity.


Author(s):  
T. Andreeva

The paper is devoted to the Great Britain's stance on the promoting of European integration towards creation of a federal state, after the euro crisis. It focuses on advantages and losses of the British policy in the EU. There are standpoints and views of four main political parties of Great Britain on the country's secession from the EU as well as the results of both local elections and elections for the European Parliament which reveal the rise of the right secessionist and anti-European moods in British society. The author also considers the European nations' present views and attitudes to the European idea. The following questions are answered in the article: Do the anti-European moods exert the crucial and lasting effect on British European policy? Is it better and more profitable for Britain to stay within the organization taking an active part in the integration process, or to withdraw from it?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document