IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/nglost/v12y2018i3p303-324n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Domestic Politics of European Preferences Towards Global Economic Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Schirm Stefan A.

    (Chair of International Politics, Ruhr University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany)

Abstract

Why is global economic governance often marked by controversies among EU member states despite their commitment to joint action? European members of the G20 diverge over public debt to stimulate growth and over global trade imbalances. These issues express differences in economic interests, such as competitiveness, as well as ideational divergences regarding deficit spending and the role of the government in steering the economy. Therefore, domestic politics theories seem to constitute a necessary complement to integration theories in explaining European governments’ preferences. In applying the societal approach, I argue that domestic value-based ideas and material interests shape governmental preferences in international political economy. In doing so, ideas prevail when fundamental economic policy issues such as public debt are at stake, while interests prevail, when governance directly affects the costs and benefits of specific economic sectors. These arguments are analysed by comparing the domestic politics of British, French, German and Italian positions towards two policy debates in the G20.

Suggested Citation

  • Schirm Stefan A., 2018. "The Domestic Politics of European Preferences Towards Global Economic Governance," New Global Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 303-324, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:nglost:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:303-324:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/ngs-2018-0014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2018-0014
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ngs-2018-0014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Moravcsik, 1993. "Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 473-524, December.
    2. Helleiner, Eric, 2014. "The Status Quo Crisis: Global Financial Governance After the 2008 Meltdown," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199973637.
    3. Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, 2009. "A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. Christopher J. Bickerton & Dermot Hodson & Uwe Puetter, 2015. "The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 703-722, July.
    5. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aukje van Loon, 2021. "European Financial Governance: FTT Reform, Controversies and Governments’ Responsiveness," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 208-218.
    2. Benczes, István, 2018. "Az euróövezet válságrendezése a liberális kormányköziség elméletének értelmezésében [Crisis management in the Euro Zone from the perspective of liberal inter-governmentalism]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 923-948.
    3. Luuk Middelaar, 2016. "The Return of Politics – The European Union after the crises in the eurozone and Ukraine," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 495-507, May.
    4. Eric Tremolada & Carlos Tassara & Olivier Costa, 2019. "Colombia y la Unión Europea. Una asociación cada vez más estrecha," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1101.
    5. Brigitte Pircher & Karl Loxbo, 2020. "Compliance with EU Law in Times of Disintegration: Exploring Changes in Transposition and Enforcement in the EU Member States between 1997 and 2016," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1270-1287, September.
    6. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2015. "Delegation and pooling in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 305-328, September.
    7. Paul Novosad & Eric Werker, 2019. "Who runs the international system? Nationality and leadership in the United Nations Secretariat," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-33, March.
    8. Mathieu Rousselin, 2012. "The EU as a Multilateral Rule Exporter - The Global Transfer of European Rules via International Organizations," KFG Working Papers p0048, Free University Berlin.
    9. Beetz, Jan Pieter & Rossi, Enzo, 2015. "EU legitimacy in a realist key," Discussion Papers, Center for Global Constitutionalism SP IV 2015-802, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    10. Henrik Scheller & Annegret Eppler, 2014. "European Disintegration – non-existing Phenomenon or a Blind Spot of European Integration Research? Preliminary Thoughts for a Research Agenda," Working Papers of the Vienna Institute for European integration research (EIF) 2, Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    11. Halmai, Péter, 2024. "Mélyintegráció-paradigma [Deep-integration Paradigm]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 514-558.
    12. Thomas Winzen & Rik de Ruiter & Jofre Rocabert, 2018. "Is parliamentary attention to the EU strongest when it is needed the most? National parliaments and the selective debate of EU policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 481-501, September.
    13. Silvana Târlea & Stefanie Bailer & Hanno Degner & Lisa M Dellmuth & Dirk Leuffen & Magnus Lundgren & Jonas Tallberg & Fabio Wasserfallen, 2019. "Explaining governmental preferences on Economic and Monetary Union Reform," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 24-44, March.
    14. Benczes, István, 2021. "Integráció és integrációelmélet a közgazdaság-tudomány perspektívájából. Halmai Péter: Mélyintegráció. A Gazdasági és Monetáris Unió ökonómiája. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 2020, 538 o [Integration ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 440-449.
    15. Maria Chiara Vinciguerra, 2021. "Punching Below Its Weight: The Role of the European Parliament in Politicised Consultation Procedures," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 29-39.
    16. Torbjørg Jevnaker & Jørgen Wettestad, 2017. "Ratcheting Up Carbon Trade: The Politics of Reforming EU Emissions Trading," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 105-124, May.
    17. Mattia Guidi & Igor Guardiancich, 2018. "Intergovernmental or supranational integration? A quantitative analysis of pension recommendations in the European Semester," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 684-706, December.
    18. Mark Aspinwall, 2002. "Preferring Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 81-111, March.
    19. Brigitte Pircher & Mike Farjam, 2021. "Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 472-494, September.
    20. Tanja A. Börzel, 2011. "Comparative Regionalism - A New Research Agenda," KFG Working Papers p0028, Free University Berlin.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:nglost:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:303-324:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.