IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v14y2013i2p324-337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges to liberal intergovernmentalism

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Franchino

Abstract

Slapin (2011) and Finke et al. (2012) represent the best theory-based book-length studies of the most active period of treaty reform in the history of the European Union – from the Treaty of Amsterdam to the Treaty of Lisbon. These works offer the opportunity to assess the extent to which liberal intergovernmentalism – a ‘baseline’ theory of regional integration – has withstood empirical scrutiny. I first address what I consider a misinterpretation of liberal intergovernmentalism – the presumed pre-eminence given to a country’s relative capability. I then identify challenges to this framework. Methodologically, they concern the measurement of preferences, value of disagreement and opportunities for linkages in treaty negotiations. I then assess evidence of lower-than-unanimity thresholds for treaty reform, which may represent a theoretical challenge. Finally, I suggest that focal points and bargaining dynamics deserve greater scholarly attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Franchino, 2013. "Challenges to liberal intergovernmentalism," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 324-337, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:14:y:2013:i:2:p:324-337
    DOI: 10.1177/1465116512465133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1465116512465133
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1465116512465133?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Moravcsik & Kalypso Nicolaïdis, 1999. "Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 59-85, March.
    2. Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 269-299, April.
    3. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G, 1981. "Several Tests for Model Specification in the Presence of Alternative Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 781-793, May.
    4. Slapin, Jonathan B., 2008. "Bargaining Power at Europe's Intergovernmental Conferences: Testing Institutional and Intergovernmental Theories," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 131-162, January.
    5. Tsebelis, George & Garrett, Geoffrey, 2001. "The Institutional Foundations of Intergovernmentalism and Supranationalism in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 357-390, April.
    6. George Tsebelis & Xenophon Yataganas, 2002. "Veto Players and Decision‐making in the EU After Nice," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 283-307, June.
    7. Schneider, Gerald & Cederman, Lars-Erik, 1994. "The change of tide in political cooperation: a limited information model of European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 633-662, October.
    8. Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism: erratum," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 539-539, July.
    9. Hug, Simon & König, Thomas, 2002. "In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 447-476, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Zbíral, 2015. "Standard Institution of the European Union? Changes to the European Council's Working Methods During the Financial Crisis [Standardní unijní instituce? Proměny vnitřního fungování Evropské rady na ," Současná Evropa, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2015(1), pages 4-18.

    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. Gerald Schneider & Daniel Finke & Stefanie Bailer, 2010. "Bargaining Power in the European Union: An Evaluation of Competing Game‐Theoretic Models," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 85-103, February.
    2. Christophe Crombez & Pieterjan Vangerven, 2014. "Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 289-308, June.
    3. Thomas Konig & Jonathan Slapin, 2004. "Bringing Parliaments Back in," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 357-394, July.
    4. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    5. Brian Efird & Gaspare M. Genna, 2002. "Structural Conditions and the Propensity for Regional Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 267-295, September.
    6. Keith Dowding, 2000. "Institutionalist Research on the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 1(1), pages 125-144, February.
    7. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:357-384 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jonathan B Slapin, 2013. "Response to Franchino," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 338-341, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Jonathan B. Slapin, 2009. "Exit, Voice, and Cooperation: Bargaining Power in International Organizations and Federal Systems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 187-211, April.
    11. Robert Pahre & Burcu Uçaray‐Mangitli, 2009. "The Myths of Turkish Influence in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 357-384, March.
    12. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:47:y:2009:i::p:483-506 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Borkowski, Agnieszka, 2003. "Machtverteilung Im Ministerrat Nach Dem Vertrag Von Nizza Und Den Konventsvorschlagen In Einer Erweiterten Europaischen Union," IAMO Discussion Papers 14887, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    14. Mareike Kleine, 2013. "Daniel Finke, Thomas König, Sven-Oliver Proksch and George Tsebelis. 2012. Reforming the European Union: Realizing the Impossible (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 111-115, March.
    15. Thomas König & Daniel Finke, 2007. "Reforming the equilibrium? Veto players and policy change in the European constitution-building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 153-176, June.
    16. Andreas H Hvidsten & Jon Hovi, 2015. "Why no twin-track Europe? Unity, discontent, and differentiation in European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 3-22, March.
    17. Nicolas Jabko, 2004. "The Importance of Being Nice: An Institutionalist Analysis of French Preferences on the Future of Europe," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 2, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    18. Magnus Lundgren & Stefanie Bailer & Lisa M Dellmuth & Jonas Tallberg & Silvana Târlea, 2019. "Bargaining success in the reform of the Eurozone," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(1), pages 65-88, March.
    19. Jonathan R. Strand & Kenneth J. Retzl, 2016. "Did Recent Voice Reforms Improve Good Governance within the World Bank?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(3), pages 415-445, May.
    20. John Coultrap, 1999. "From Parliamentarism to Pluralism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 107-135, January.
    21. Barbara Dluhosch & Nikolai Ziegler, 2011. "The paradox of weakness in the politics of trade integration," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 325-354, December.
    22. Thomas König & Thomas Bräuninger, 1998. "The Inclusiveness of European Decision Rules," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(1), pages 125-142, January.

    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:sae:eeupol:v:14:y:2013:i:2:p:324-337. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.