Advertisement

Theoretical Discussion

Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

This last chapter seeks to combine the theoretical and empirical part of this dissertation. To do so, the six phases of the development of space policy in Europe will be analysed in terms of the stages of institutional development and the five facets of institutional change. Particular attention is paid to the impact of the European integration process.

References

  1. Aminzade, R. (1992). Historical sociology and time. Sociological Methods & Research, 20, 456–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Battrick, B. (Ed.). (2003). Agenda 2007—A document by the ESA director general (BR-213). Retrieved from: https://www.espi.or.at/images/documents/agenda%202007%20-%20a%20document%20by%20the%20esa%20director%20general%20.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2017.
  4. Bildt, C., Peyrelevade, J., & Späth, L. (2000). Towards a space agency for the European Union [Wise-Men-Report]. Retrieved from: http://www.espi.or.at/images/documents/the%20wise%20men%20report.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2012.
  5. Borras, S. (2006). The innovation policy of the European Union: From government to governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cheli, S., & Schrogl, K. (1999). Reshaping European space activities. Space Policy, 15(2), 61–66.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Space: A new European frontier for an expanding union—An action plan for implementing the European space policy (COM (2003) 673) [White Paper]. Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Communities. (2008). European space policy progress report (COM (2008) 561 final). Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities. (2007a). European space policy (COM (2007) 212 final). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0212. Accessed March 13, 2017.
  12. Commission of the European Communities. (2007b). Impact assessment of the European space policy (SEC (2007) 505 draft). Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. Council of the European Union. (2009). Resolution on the contribution of space to innovation and competitiveness in the context of the European economic recovery plan, and further steps (10500/09). Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Creola, P. (2001). Some comments on the ESA/EU space strategy. Space Policy, 17, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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: OUP.Google Scholar
  16. 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 Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Dupas, A., Janischewski, S., von Kries, W., & Schrogl, K. (2001). A Franco-German view of Europe’s ambition in space for the 21st century. Space Policy, 17, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.
  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. European Economic and Social Committee. (2007). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the COM (COM (2007) 212 final). OJ C 126 of 25 June 2008. Brussels: European Communities.Google Scholar
  23. ESA. (1975). Convention for the establishment of a European Space Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Law_at_ESA/ESA_Convention. Accessed March 19, 2017.
  24. ESA. (1985). Council resolution on the long-term European space plan (ESA/C/LXVII/res1 (final)). Retrieved from: http://download.esa.int/docs/LEX-L/Ministerial-Council-Resolutions/Meeting-C-M067(Rome,30-31Jan1985)/ESAC-MLXVIIRes.1(Final).pdf. Accessed March 19, 2017.
  25. ESA. (1999). Resolution shaping the future of Europe in space (ESA/C-M/CXLI/Res.1 (final). ESA Bulletin, 98, 20–25.Google Scholar
  26. ESA. (2007). Resolution on the European space policy—ESA Director General’s proposal for the European space policy (ESA BR-269 of 2007). Retrieved from: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/publications/BR-269/. Accessed March 19, 2017.
  27. ESA. (2012). Political declaration towards the European Space Agency that best serves Europe (ESA/C-M/CCXXXIV/Res.4 (final)). Naples: ESA.Google Scholar
  28. Eurospace. (1995). Space: A challenge for Europe. Space Policy, 11(4), 227–232.Google Scholar
  29. Fligstein, N. (1997a). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. Gaubert, A., & Lebeau, A. (2009). Reforming European space governance. Space Policy, 25, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greif, A., & Laitin, D. D. (1994). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, XLIV, 936–957.Google Scholar
  39. Héritier, A. (2007). Explaining institutional change in Europe. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hesse, M., & Hornung, M. (2012). Neue Impulse der Europäischen Kommission für eine europäische Weltraumstrategie. Integration, 35(3), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hix, S. (2005). The political system of the European Union. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Horak, M. (2007). Governing the post-communist city: Institutions and democratic development in Prague. Toronto: University of Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Hörber, T. (2016b). Chaos or consolidation? Post-war space policy in Europe. In T. Hörber & P. Stephenson (Eds.), European space policy (pp. 15–29). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. 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.
  47. Jourdain, L. (1995). Space in Europe: New stakes, new structures? Space Policy, 11(2), 87–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jupille, J. (2004). Procedural politics—Issues, influence, and institutional choice in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kassim, H., & Menon, A. (2003). The principal-agent approach and the study of the European Union: Promise unfulfilled. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(1), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keohane, R., & Hoffmann, S. (1991). The new European community—Decision-making and institutional change. Boulder/San Francisco/Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Keohane, R., & Nye, J. (2001). Power and interdependence. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  52. 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 & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kraft, G. (2012). For one German opinion. DLR Newsletter Countdown. Special Edition of December 2012. Bonn: DLR.Google Scholar
  55. Krasner, S. (1988). Sovereignty—An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krige, J. (1992). The prehistory of ESRO 1959/60 From the first initiatives to the formation of the COPERS. ESA History Study Report HSR-1. Nordwijk: ESA.Google Scholar
  57. Krige, J. (1993a). Europe into space: The auger years (1959–1967). ESA History Study Report HSR-3. Nordwijk: ESA.Google Scholar
  58. Krige, J. (1993b). The early activities of the COPERS and the drafting of the ESRO convention (1961/62). ESA History Study Report HSR-4. Nordwijk: ESA.Google Scholar
  59. Krige, J. (1993c). The launch of ELDO. ESA HSR-7. Nordwijk: ESA.Google Scholar
  60. Krige, J. (1994). The European space system. In J. Krige & A. Russo (Eds.), Reflections on Europe in space (pp. 1–13). ESA HSR-11. Nordwijk: ESA.Google Scholar
  61. Krige, J. & Russo, A. (2000). A history of the European Space Agency: 1958-1987 (Vol. I). SP - 1235 of April 2000. Nordwijk: ESA.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Levy, M. A., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (1995). The study of international regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1, 267–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Majone, G. (1996). Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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 & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Moe, T. M. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. E. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Norgaard, A. (1996). Rediscovering reasonable rationality in institutional analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 29, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Olsen, J. P. (1997). Institutional design in democratic context. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 5(3), 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Peter, N. (2007). The EU’s emergent space diplomacy. Space Policy, 23, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. Rathgeber, W. & Remuss, N. (2009). Space security—A formative role and principled identity for Europe. ESPI Report 16. Wien: ESPI.Google Scholar
  79. Remuss, N. (2010). Space and security—Challenges for Europe. Sicherheit und Frieden, 3, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Remuss, N. (2011). Space and security. In C. Brünner & A. Soucek (Eds.), Outer space in society, politics and law (pp. 519–554). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Rittberger, V., & Zangl, B. (2006). International organization—Polity, politics and policies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  83. Roland, G. (2004). Understanding institutional change: Fast-moving and slow-moving institutions. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(4), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European integration. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  85. Sabatier, P. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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
  87. Sandholtz, W., & Stone Sweet, A. (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  88. Scott, R. W. (2008). Institutions and organizations—Ideas and interests. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  89. Sheehan, M. (2007). The international politics of space. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Smith, L. J., & Hörl, K. U. (2007). Institutional challenges for space activities in Europe. Acta Astronautica, 60, 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (1992). Structuring politics—Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  93. Suzuki, K. (2003). Policy logics and institutions of European space collaboration. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  94. Tallberg, J. (2003). European governance and supranational institutions—Making states comply. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  95. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Sciences, 2, 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. Transformation in Cultural Industries Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 23, 125–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Times Higher Education. (2004). New constitution gives green light to EU space activities. Times Higher Education, July 14, 2004. Retrieved from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/new-constitution-gives-green-light-to-eu-space-activities/190137.article. August 12, 2016.
  98. Wallace, H. (2000a). The institutional setting. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 3–38). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  99. Wallace, H. (2000b). The policy process. In H. Wallace & W. Wallace (Eds.), Policy-making in the European Union (pp. 39–64). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  100. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  101. Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with the rearview mirror: On the rational science of institutional design. International Organization, 55(4), 1019–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wörner, J. (2012). A heated debate concerning ‘a cold potato’. DLR Blogs—Jan Woerner’s Blog. Retrieved from http://www.dlr.de/blogs/en/archive/jan-woerner/a-heated-debate-concerning-a-cold-potato.aspx. Accessed March 18, 2017.
  103. 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.
  104. Young, O. R. (2010). Regime dynamics: The rise and fall of international regimes. In J. L. Goldstein & R. H. Steinberg (Eds.), International institutions—Volume II consequences: When, where and why international institutions are effective (pp. 163–183). London: Sage Publisher.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations