Advertisement

Introduction

Chapter
  • 131 Downloads
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

While European Space collaboration was initially developed outside the competences of the European Union (EU) with space programmes being carried out almost exclusively under the framework of European Space Agency (ESA) and national agencies, the EU has gained “shared competences” (Art. 2, TFEU) in space policy following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Currently the EU and ESA work together under a Framework Agreement. In 2016, the EU Commission has published a Communication entitled “European Space Policy” (ESP). Even though ESA’s Member States have agreed to keep ESA as an intergovernmental organisation during the ESA Ministerial Council of 2014, the discussion about ESA becoming part of the EU framework continues. The EU’s ambitions for leadership in European space policy raise question concerning the future of ESA. The study of institutions lies at the heart of political sciences. Strikingly the theoretic framework qualifying institutional change and making it comparable leaves room for more concrete and testable dimensions of institutional change. This dissertation thus seeks to advance the debate on institutional change by proposing a more structured approach to institutional change, consisting of stages of institutional development and facets of institutional change. Thereby the evolving institutional arrangements between EU and ESA are considered a case study. Special attention is paid to the impact of the European integration process on existing institutional actors.

References

  1. Aliberti, M., & Krasner, S. D. (2016). Governance in space. In C. Al-Ekabi, B. Baranes, P. Hulsroj, & A. Lahcen (Eds.), Yearbook on space policy 2014 (pp. 143–166). Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aminzade, R. (1992). Historical sociology and time. Sociological Methods & Research, 20, 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, S. S., Eliassen, K. A., & Sitter, N. (2001). Formal processes: EU institutions and actors. In S. S. Andersen & K. A. Eliassen (Eds.), Making policy in Europe (pp. 20–43). London: SAGE Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailes, A. J. K. (2011). Death of an institution. The end for western European union, a future for European defence? Egmont Paper 46. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/32322/1/ep46.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2017.
  5. Battrick, B. (Ed.). (2004). The European space sector in a global context—ESA’s annual analysis (BR-222). Retrieved from http://www.esa.int/esapub/br/br222/br222.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2017.
  6. Bendor, J., Glazer, A., & Hammond, T. H. (2000). Theories of delegation in political science. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/theories-delegation-political-science. Accessed January 18, 2012.
  7. Boin, A. (2008). Mapping trends in the study of political institutions. International Studies Review, 10, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Caporaso, J. (1998). Regional integration theory: Understanding our past and anticipating our future. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christiansen, T. (2002). Out of the shadows: The general secretariat of the council of ministers. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 8(4), 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christiansen, T., & Vanhoonacker, S. (2008). At a critical juncture? Change and continuity in the institutional development of the council secretariat. West European Politics, 31(4), 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conner, A. (2010). Introduction: International institutions and effectiveness—Achieving cooperation. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International institutions—Vol. II consequences: When, where and why international institutions are effective (pp. iiix–x). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  13. Council of the European Union. (2006). Council joint action amending joint action 2001/554/CFSP on the establishment of a European union institute for security studies (2006/1002/CFSP). Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Davara, F. (2000). The future of the WEU Torrejon Centre. Air & Space Europe, 2(4), 24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: Ballinger Pub.Google Scholar
  16. Doleys, T. (2000). Member states and the European commission: Theoretical insights from the new economics of organization. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(4), 532–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dudley, G., & Richardson, J. (1999). Competing advocacy coalitions and the process of “frame reflection”: A longitudinal analysis of EU steel policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edelmann, R., Milde, H., & Weimerskirch, P. (1998). Agency-Beziehungen und Kontrakt-Design: Problem, Lösung, Beispiel. Kredit und Kapital, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
  19. Egeberg, M. (2004). An organisational approach to European integration: Outline of a complementary perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ESA. (2012). Political declaration towards the European space agency that best serves Europe (ESA/C-M/CCXXXIV/Res.4 (final)). Naples: ESA.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2012). Establishing appropriate relations between the EU and the European space agency (COM (2012) 671 final). Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  22. Florensa, M. C. (2004). Institutional stability and change. A logic sequence for studying institutional dynamics. Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Oaxaca, Mexico. Retrieved from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/1823/CostejaFlorensa_Institutional_040525_Paper220.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed March 13, 2017.
  23. Gaubert, A. (2006). Is there really any duplication in Europe’s space activities? Space Policy, 22(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldstein, J. L. & Steinberg, R. H. (2010). Introduction. In J. L. Goldstein, & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International Institutions, Vol. I: Causes (pp. xvii–xxxi). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Greif, A., & Laitin, D. D. (1994). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996a). Political science and the three new institutionalisms (pp. 936–957). XLIV: Political Studies.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996b). Political science and the three new institutionalism. Retrieved from http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp96-6.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2017.
  29. Hartlapp, M., Metz, J., & Rauh, C. (2013). Linking agenda setting to coordination structures: Bureaucratic politics inside the European commission. Journals of European Integration, 35(4), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Héritier, A. (2007). Explaining institutional change in Europe. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European union. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  32. Hobe, S., Heinrich, O., Kerner, I., & Froehlich, A. (2009). Entwicklung der Europäischen Weltraumagentur als „implementing agency“ der Europäischen Union: Rechtsrahmen und Anpassungserfordernisse. Kölner Schriften zum Internationalen und Europäischen Recht. Band 17. Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Hobe, S., Kunzmann, K., & Reuter, T. (2006). Forschungsbericht ESA—EU: Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen einer zukünftigen kohärenten Struktur der europäischen Raumfahrt. Kölner Schriften zum Internationalen und Europäischen Recht Bd. 13. Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Horak, M. (2007). Governing the post-communist city: Institutions and democratic development in Prague. Toronto: University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hörber, T. (2009a). The European space agency and the European union: The next step on the road to the stars. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 5(3), 405–414.Google Scholar
  36. Hörber, T. (2009b). ESA + EU: Ideology or pragmatic task sharing? Space Policy, 25, 206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hörber, T. (2016a). The European space agency and the European union. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 53–65). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Hörber, T. (2016b). Conclusion: To boldly go where no one has gone before. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European Space Policy (pp. 253–263). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Hörber, T. (2016c). Foreword. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. xx–xxiii). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Hörber, T. (2016d). Introduction—Towards a European space policy. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 1–12). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hutter, T. (1991). Charakteristika und Bestimmungsfaktoren der europäischen Raumfahrtpolitik. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Sozialwissenschaft an der Fakultät für Sozial- und Verhaltenswissenschaften der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  42. Ikenberry, G. J. (1994). History’s heavy hand: Institutions and the politics of the state. Paper prepared for a conference on “New Perspectives on Institutions”, University of Maryland. Retrieved from: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/HistorysHeavyHand_0.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2017.
  43. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy processes. In H. C. Jenkins-Smith & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Policy change and learning. An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1–9). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jupille, J. (2004). Procedural politics: Issues, influence, and institutional choice in the European union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kagan, R. (2004). Paradise and power. America and Europe in the new world order. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Kassim, H., Connolly, S., Dehousse, D., Rozenberg, O., & Bendjaballah, S. (2016). Managing the house: The presidency, agenda control and policy activism in the European commission. Journal of European Public Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1154590, pp. 1–22.
  47. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2001). Power and interdependence. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Köpping Anthanasopoulos, H. (2016). Europe’s wilderness—The council’s frames on space policy. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 82–97). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4) (Autumn 2001), 761–799.Google Scholar
  50. Krasner, S. (1988). Sovereignty—An institutional perspective”. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levy, M. A., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (1995). The study of international regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 267–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Madariaga, A. (2011). Patterns of institutional change and external competitiveness in neoliberal and dependent political economies. The cases of Chile and Estonia. Budapest: Central European University.Google Scholar
  53. Madders, K. (1997). A new force at a new frontier: Europe’s development in the space field in the light of its main actors, policies, law and activities from its beginning up to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Madders, K., & Thiebaut, W. M. (1992). Two Europe in one space: The evolution of relations between the European space agency and the European community in space affairs. Journal of Space Law, 20(2), 117–132.Google Scholar
  55. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’. In R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 3–20). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  57. Marchisio, S. (2006). Proposals for an institutional realignment of the European space sector. In S. Hobe, B. Schmidt-Tedd, & K.-U. Schrogl (Eds.), Project 2001 plus—global and European challenges for air and space law (pp. 193–204). Köln: Heymanns.Google Scholar
  58. Mearsheimer, J. (1994). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meunier, S., & McNamara, K. R. (2007). Making history: European integration and institutional change at fifty. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  60. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olsen, J. P. (1997). Institutional design in democratic context. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 5(3), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peterson, J., & Shackleton, M. (2006). The EU’s Institutions: An overview. In J. Peterson & M. Shackleton (Eds.), The institutions of the European union (pp. 1–16). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  63. Pierson, P. (1998). The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist perspective. In W. Sandholtz & A. Stone Sweet (Eds.), European integration and supranational governance (pp. 27–58). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  64. Pollack, M. A. (1996). The new institutionalism and EC governance: The promise and limits of institutional analysis. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 9(4), 429–458.Google Scholar
  65. Pollack, M. A. (1997a). Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European community. International Organization, 51(1), 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pollack, M. A. (1997b). The Commission as an agent. In N. Nugent (Ed.), At the heart of the union: Studies of the European commission (pp. 111–130). Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  67. Rathgeber, W., & Remuss, N. (2009). Space security—A formative role and principled identity for Europe (ESPI Report 16). Wien: ESPI.Google Scholar
  68. Remuss, N. (2011). Meeting Europe’s external and internal security through space applications—Security as an element for European identity. In B. Baranes & K.-U. Schrogl (Eds.), European identity through space (pp. 132–144). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Reuter, T. (2007). Die ESA als Raumfahrtagentur der Europäischen Union: Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für eine institutionelle Neuausrichtung der europäischen Raumfahrt. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Old institutionalism. In R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 90–108). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  71. Richardson, J. (1996). Actor-based models of national and EU policy making. In H. Kassim & A. Menon (Eds.), The European union and national industrial policy (pp. 26–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Rittberger, V., & Zangl, B. (2006). International organization: Polity, politics and policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  73. Roland, G. (2004). Understanding institutional change: Fast-moving and slow-moving institutions. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European integration. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  75. Rüttgers, J. (1989). Europas Wege in den Weltraum: Programme—Proteste—Prognosen. Frankfurt am Main: Umschau Verlag.Google Scholar
  76. Schrogl, K. (1993). Die Europäische Gemeinschaft als Magnet—Ihre Anziehungskraft auf die europäischen Fachorganisationen ESA und CEPT. Zeitschrift für Internationale Politik, 18, 525–532.Google Scholar
  77. Scott, R. W. (2008). Institutions and organizations—ideas and interests. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  78. Sheehan, M. (2007). The international politics of space. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shepsle, K. A. (1989). Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sigalas, E. (2016). Europe in space—The European parliament’s justification Arsenal. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 66–81). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  83. Suzuki, K. (2003). Policy logics and institutions of European space collaboration. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  84. Sandholtz, W. & Stone Sweet, A. (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  85. Tallberg, J. (2000). The anatomy of autonomy: An institutional account of variation in supranational influence. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 843–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tallberg, J. (2003). European governance and supranational institutions: Making states comply. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. von Kries, W. (2003). Which future for Europe’s space agencies? Space Policy, 19, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wallace, H. (2000). The policy process. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European union (pp. 39–64). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  89. Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with the rearview mirror: On the rational science of institutional design. International Organization, 55(4), 1019–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Young, O. R. (2010). Regime dynamics: The rise and fall of international regimes. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International institutions—Vol. II consequences: When, where and why international institutions are effective (Vol. II, pp. 163–183). London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations