Advertisement

Methodology and Theoretic Framework

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

Abstract

While Political Science is often defined as the study of institutions (Steinmo et al. in Structuring politics—historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 3, 1992), the study of institutions touches upon several academic disciplines, such as International Relations, International Law, International Political Economy, International History and European Studies (Rittberger and Zangl in International organization—polity, politics and policies. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, p. 3, 2006).

Keywords

Rittberger Steinmo Florensa European Integration Process Rational Choice Institutionalism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). Why states act through formal international organizations. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International Institutions: Vol. II. Consequences: When, where and why international institutions are effective (pp. 239–71). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  2. Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Aminzade, R. (1992). Historical sociology and time. Sociological Methods & Research, 20, 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Aspinwall, M. D., & Schneider, G. (2000). Same menu, separate tables: The institutionalist turn in political science and the study of European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 38, 1–36.Google Scholar
  7. Barbieri, D., & Ongaro, E. (2008). EU agencies: What is common and what is distinctive compared with national-level public agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(3), 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53(4), 699–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beach, D. (2005). The dynamics of European integration—why and when EU institutions matter. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. Blom-Hansen, J. (2008). The origins of the EU comitology system: A case of informal agenda-setting by the commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 152, 208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boin, A. (2008). Mapping trends in the study of political institutions. International Studies Review, 10, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Borrás, S. (2007). The european commission as network broker. European Integration Online Papers, 11(1).Google Scholar
  15. Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon—On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration, 76, 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brachet, G. (2016). The optimum role of governments in space. In C. Al-Ekabi, B. Baranes, P. Hulsroj, & A. Lahcen (Eds.), Yearbook on space policy 2014 (pp. 211–215). Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Branch, A. P., & Ohrgaard, J. C. (2011). Trapped in the supranational-intergovernmental dichotomy: A response to Stone Sweet and Sandholtz. Journal of European Public Policy, 6(1), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bulmer, S. (1994). The governance of the european union: A new institutionalist approach. Journal of Public Policy, 13(4), 352–380.Google Scholar
  19. Bulmer, S., & Padgett, S. (2004). Policy transfer in the European union: An institutionalist perspective. British Journal of Political Sciences, 35, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buzan, B., Jones, C., & Little, R. (1993). The logic of anarchy—Neorealism to structural realism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Caporaso, J. (1998). Regional integration theory: Understanding our past and anticipating our future. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Christensen, J. G., & Nielsen, V. L. (2010). Administrative capacity, structural choice and the creation of EU-agencies. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(2), 176–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alternative perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Copeland, P., & James, S. (2014). Explaining the relaunch of the EU’s economic reform agenda. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cram, L. (1993). Calling the tune without paying the piper: Social policy regulation: The role of the commission in european union social policy. Policy and Politics, 21(2), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Daviter, F. (2007). Policy framing in the European union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 654–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Daviter, F. (2012). Framing biotechnology policy in the European union. ARENA Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-working-papers/2012/wp5-12.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2017.
  31. Dehousse, R., & Magnette, P. (2006). Institutional change in the EU. In J. Peterson & M. Shackleton (Eds.), The institutions of the European union (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Dinan, D. (1997). The commission and the intergovernmental conferences. In N. Nugent (Ed.), At the heart of the union (pp. 254–264). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Dinan, D. (1999). Ever closer union—An introduction to European integration. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Donnelly, M. (1993). The structure of the European commission and the policy formation process. In S. Mazey & J. Richardson (Eds.), Lobbying in the European union (pp. 74–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Duke, S., & Vanhoonacker, S. (2006). Administrative governance in the CFSP: Development and practice. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 163–182.Google Scholar
  39. Ebbinghaus, B. (2005). Can path dependence explain institutional change—Two approaches applied to welfare state reform. MPlfG Discussion Paper 05/2. Retrieved from http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp05-2.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2017.
  40. Edelmann, R., Milde, H., & Weimerskirch, P. (1998). Agency-Beziehungen und Kontrakt-Design: Problem, Lösung, Beispiel. Kredit und Kapital, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
  41. Egeberg, M. (1994). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: The case of administrative policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 7.1, 83–98.Google Scholar
  42. Egeberg, M. (2004). An organisational approach to European integration: Outline of a complementary perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2010). EU-level agencies: New executive centre formation or vehicles for national control? Paper presented at the ECPR Fifth Pan-European Conference, Porto 24–26 June 2010. Retrieved from http://www.jhubc.it/ecpr-porto/virtualpaperroom/010.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2017.
  44. Fligstein, N. (1997a). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fligstein, N. (1997b). Social skill and the theory of fields. Retrieved from http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/culture/papers/Fligstein01_01.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2017.
  46. Fligstein, N. (2010). Institutional entrepreneurs and cultural frames—The case of the European union’s single market program. European Societies, 3(3), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.
  48. George, S. (1996). The European union—Approaches from international relations. In H. Kassim & A. Menon (Eds.), The European union and national industrial policy (pp. 11–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Geradin, D., & Petit, N. (2004). The development of agencies at EU and national levels: Conceptual analysis and proposals for reform. Jean Monnet Working Paper 1. Retrieved from http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/04/040101.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2017.
  50. Giannopapa, C., Adriaensen, M., & Sagath, D. (2016). The Member states of the european space agency—National governance structures, priorities and motivations for engaging in space. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 173–190). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. 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 Publisher.Google Scholar
  52. Greif, A., & Laitin, D. D. (1994). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Haas, P. M. (2010). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International institutions (Vol. I, pp. 185–220). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  55. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996a). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, XLIV, 936–57.Google Scholar
  58. 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.
  59. Hammond, T. H. (2005). Formal theory and the institutions of governance. Governance, 9(2), 107–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Héritier, A. (2007). Explaining institutional change in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European union. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  63. Hooghe, L. (2001). The European commission and the integration of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Horak, M. (2007). Governing the post-communist city: Institutions and democratic development in Prague. Toronto: University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hörber, T., & Stephenson, P. (Eds.). (2016). European space policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. 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.
  67. Jachtenfuchs, M. (2001). The governance approach to European integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(2), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Jupille, J. (2004). Procedural politics—Issues, influence, and institutional choice in the European union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kassim, H., & Dimitrakopoulos, D. G. (2007). The commission and the future of Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1249–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kaunert, C. (2010). The area of freedom, security and justice in the Lisbon Treaty: Commission policy entrepreneurship? European Security, 19(2), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2001). Power and interdependence. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  72. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agenda, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  73. Kohler-Koch, B. (2000). Framing: The bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(4), 513–531.Google Scholar
  74. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55.4(Autumn), 761–799.Google Scholar
  75. Krasner, S. (1988). Sovereignty—An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Krasner, S. (2010). Global communication and national power: Life on the Pareto frontier. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International Institutions (Vol. II, pp. 1–28)., Consequences: When, where and why International Institutions are effective London: SAGE Publisher.Google Scholar
  77. Lake, D. A. (2001). Beyond anarchy: The importance of security institutions. International Security, 26(1), 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lanzara, G. F. (1998). Self-destructive processes in institution building and some modest countervailing mechanisms. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 1–39.Google Scholar
  79. Levy, M. A., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (1995). The study of international regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 267–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ludlow, P. (1991). The European commission. In R. O. Keohane & S. Hoffmann (Eds.), The new European community. Decision-making and Institutional Change (pp. 85–132). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Majone, G. (2001). Two logics of delegation: Agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance. European Union Politics, 2, 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  84. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969.Google Scholar
  85. 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: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Marta, L., & Stephenson, P. (2016). Role of the European commission in framing European space policy. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 98–113). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Marks, G., Scharpf, F. W., Schmitter, P. C., & Streeck, W. (1998). Governance in the European Union. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  88. Mazey, S., & Richardson, J. (1996). EU policy-making. A garbage can or an anticipatory and consensual policy style? In Y. Mény, P. Muller, & J. Quermonne (Eds.), Adjusting to Europe—The impact of the European Union on national institutions and Policies (pp. 41–58). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Mearsheimer, J. (1994). The false promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Meunier, S., & McNamara, K. R. (2007). Making history: European integration and institutional change at fifty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Moravcsik, A. (1999). A new statecraft? Supranational entrepreneurs and international cooperation. International Organization, 53(2), 267–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Olsen, J. P. (1997). Institutional design in democratic context. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 5(3), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Peterson, J., & Bomberg, E. (1999). Decision-making in the European union. New York: St. Martin’s Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Peterson, J., & Shackleton, M. (2006b). The EU’s institutions. An overview. In J. Peterson & M. Shackleton (Eds.), The institutions of the European union (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Pierson, P. (1994). The path to european integration: A historical institutionalist perspective. Program for the Study of Germany and Europe, Working Paper No. 5.2. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/63633/1/PSGE_WP5_2.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2017.
  99. Pierson, P. (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
  100. 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: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Pierson, P. (2000). The limits of design: Explaining institutional origins and change. Governance, 13(4), 475–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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
  103. Pollack, M. A. (1997a). Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European community. International Organization, 51(1), 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Pollack, M. A. (1997b). The engines of integration? Supranational autonomy and influence in the European Union. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/2706/1/002752_1.PDF. Accessed March 17, 2017.
  105. Pollack, M. A. (1997c). The engines of integration? Supranational autonomy and influence in the European Union. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/2706/1/002752_1.PDF. Accessed March 17, 2017.
  106. Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Princen, S. (2011). Agenda-setting strategies in eu policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 927–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Puchala, D. J. (1999). Institutionalism, intergovernmentalism and European integration: A review article. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(2), 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1991). Frame-reflective policy discourse. In P. Wagner (Ed.), Social sciences and modern states: National Experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 261–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, S. A., & Rockman, B. A. (Eds.). (2006). The oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  112. 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
  113. Rittberger, B., & Wonka, A. (2011). Introduction: Agency governance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(6), 780–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rittberger, V., & Zangl, B. (2006). International organization—Polity, politics and policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  115. Roland, G. (2004). Understanding institutional change: Fast-moving and slow-moving institutions. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European integration. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  117. Sabatier, P. A. (1993). Theoretical lenses on public policy. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  118. Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. S. (1996). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  120. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  121. Scott, R. W. (2008). Institutions and organizations—Ideas and interests. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  122. Shepsle, K. A. (1989). Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
  124. Sjöstrand, S. (1993). Institutional change—Theory and empirical findings. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  125. Snidal, D. (2010). Coordination versus prisoners’ dilemma: Implications for international cooperation and regimes. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International Institutions: Vol. I. Causes (pp. 2–31). London: SAGE Publisher.Google Scholar
  126. Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (1992). Structuring politics—Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Stephenson, P. (2012). Talking space: The European commission’s changing frames in defining Galileo. Space Policy, 28, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stephenson, P. (2016). Framing as a tool for analysing European space policy. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 30–49). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  129. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Suzuki, K. (2003). Policy logics and institutions of European space collaboration. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  131. Sandholtz, W. & Stone Sweet, A. (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  132. 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
  133. Tallberg, J. (2003). European governance and supranational institutions—Making states comply. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  134. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Sciences, 2, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Trondal, J., & Jeppesen, L. (2008). Images of agency governance in the European Union. West European Politics, 31(3), 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Tudyka, K. P. (2005). How the OSCE is hegemonalizing. In D. S. Lutz & K. P. Tudyka (Eds.), Perspektiven und Defizite der OSZE (pp. 239–250). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  137. Vanhoonacker, S. (2005). The institutional framework. In C. Hill & M. Smith (Eds.), International relations and the European union (pp. 67–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  138. Wallace, H. (2000a). The policy process. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European union (pp. 39–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  139. Wallace, H. (2000b). The institutional setting. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European union (pp. 3–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  140. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  141. Warleigh, A. (2001). Understanding European union institutions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  142. Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with the rearview mirror: On the rational science of institutional design. International Organization, 55(4), 1019–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Wessel, W. (1997). An ever closer fusion? A dynamic macropolitical view on intergration processes. Journal of Common Market Studies, 35(2), 267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Williamson, O. (1985). The Economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  145. Wonka, A., & Rittberger, B. (2010). Credibility, complexity and uncertainty: explaining the institutional independence of 29 EU agencies. West European Politics, 33(4), 730–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Wörner, J. (2013). Von der kalten Kartoffel zum toten Pferd …. DLR Blogs – Jan Woerner’s Blog. Retrieved from http://www.dlr.de/blogs/de/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5896/9578_read-632/. Accessed March 18, 2017.
  147. Yataganas, X. A. (2001). Delegation of regulatory authority in the European Union—The relevance of the American model of independent agencies. Jean Monnet Working Paper 3. Retrieved from http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/01/010301.html. Accessed March 18, 2017.
  148. Yi-Chong, X., & Weller, P. (2008). To be, but not to be seen: Exploring the impact of international civil servants. Public Administration, 86(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 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 (pp. 163–83). London: SAGE Publisher.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations