Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Themes in European Integration History Lecture 4: The Moravcsik-controversy in European integration history. Lecture course 3 November – 15 December 2006 Juhana Aunesluoma University Lecturer in Political History University of Helsinki
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Lecture course 3 November – 15 December 2006
University Lecturer in Political History
University of Helsinki
course pages www.valt.helsinki.fi/blogs/jauneslu/euhistory.htm
”The central argument of this book is that European integration can best be explained as a series of rational choices made by national leaders. These choices responded to constraints and opportunities stemming from the economic interests of powerful domestic constituents, the relative power of each state in the international system, and the role of international institutions in bolstering the salient negotiations in the history of the European Community.”
”… the transfer of sovereignty and autonomy to supranational institutions … was not an unintended consequence of major EC decision; it was their primary purpose.”
”States have national preferences which may vary over time and according to issues. In order to satisfy their preferences they resort to interstate bargaining, and in order mutually to obtain credible commitments, they decide to delegate or pool decision-making in international institutions.”
(Gianfranco Pasquino in a review of Moravcsik)
=> economic interests + relative power + credible commitments
=> an incredibly primitive understanding of the methodologies required in the historians’ craft!
”One wishes European leaders to be as sharp, rational, calculative, well-informed, receptive to economic pressures, understanding, determined and analytical as Moravcsik suggest and requires them to be. The fact that they are not makes politics still so thrilling.”
Hartmut Mayer (1999)
”Moravcsik sometimes projects his own rational and calculated analysis onto the policy makers themselves, who may have cherished subtlety and flexibility over consistency. Diplomacy rarely offers stark choices and neat delineations.”
William J. Hitchcock (1999)
”The results are consistent with the author’s initial hypothesis, perhaps even too consistent”
Gianfranco Pasquino (1999)