Advertisement

Political Elites Beyond the Nation State

  • Maurizio Cotta
Chapter

Abstract

The configuration of political elites reflects the basic configuration of the dominant political order. The prevailing nation- state model in the last two centuries has produced a nationalization of political elites. The weaknesses of the state model and the increasing importance today of international and supranational forms of governance have opened the space to new internationalized and supranational elites. Their configurations, patterns of recruitment and careers, resources, and their relationships with national elites are increasingly important topics to understand the functioning of contemporary politics.

References

  1. Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, S. (2006). Does Bureaucracy Really Matter? The Authority of Intergovernmental Treaty Secretariats in Global Environmental Politics. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, S., Birmann, F., Dingwerth, K., & Siebenhuber, B. (2009). Understanding International Bureaucracies: Taking Stock. In F. Biermann & B. Siebenhuber (Eds.), Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (pp. 15–36). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayly, C. A., & Biagini, E. F. (2008). Giuseppe Mazzini and the Globalisation of Democratic Nationalism 1830–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Best, H. (2012). Elite Foundations of European Integration: A Causal Analysis. In H. Best, G. Lengyel, & L. Verzichelli (Eds.), The Europe of Elites. A Study into the Europeanness of Europe’s Economic and Political Elites (pp. 208–233). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Best, H., Lengyel, G., & Verzichelli, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Europe of Elites. A Study into the Europeanness of Europe’s Economic and Political Elites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Biermann, F., & Siebenhuber, B. (Eds.). (2009). Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borchert, J. (2011). Individual Ambition And Institutional Opportunity: A Conceptual Approach to Political Careers in Multi-Level Systems. Regional and Federal Studies, 21, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conti, N., Cotta, M., & Tavares de Almeida, P. (Eds.). (2012). Perspectives of National Elites on European Citizenship. A South European View. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Copelovitch, M. S. (2010). Master or Servant? Common Agency and the Political Economy of IMF Lending. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotta, M. (2012). Political Elites and a Polity in the Making. The Case of the EU. Historical Social Research, 37, 167–192.Google Scholar
  12. Cotta, M., & Russo, F. (2012). Europe à la carte? European Citizenship and Its Dimensions from the Perspective of National Elites. In H. Best, G. Lengyel, & L. Verzichelli (Eds.), The Europe of Elites. A Study into the Europeanness of Europe’s Economic and Political Elites (pp. 14–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, R. W., & Jacobson, H. K. (Eds.). (1973). The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organization. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Winter, L., & Swyngedouw, M. (1999). The Scope of EU Government. In H. Schmitt & J. Thomassen (Eds.), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union (pp. 47–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Döring, H. (2007). The Composition of the College of the Commissioners. European Union Politics, 8, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duff, A. (2013). On Dealing with Euroscepticism. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51, 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EES. (2016). European Elites Survey. http://www.circap.org/ees.html. Date Accessed 25 Aug 2016.
  18. Foster, W. Z. (1968). History of the Three Internationals: the World Socialist and Communist Movements from 1848 to the Present. Westport: Greenwood Pub Group.Google Scholar
  19. Grabendorff, W. (1996). International Support for Democracy in Contemporary Latin America: The Role of the Party Internationals. In L. Whitehead (Ed.), The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas (pp. 201–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grilli, P. (1989). Le crisi politiche nei regimi comunisti. Ungheria, Cecoslovacchia e Polonia da Stalin agli anni ottanta. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
  21. Haas, E. B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haas, E. B. (1990). Where Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. University of California Press: Berkeley.Google Scholar
  23. Haller, M. (2008). European Integration as an Elite Process. The Failure of a Dream? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hix, S. (2001). Legislative Behaviour and Party Competition in the European Parliament: An Application of Nominate to the EU. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, 663–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hix, S., Noury, A. G., & Roland, G. (2007). Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooghe, L. (2001). The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hooghe, L. (2003). Europe Divided? Elites vs. Public Opinion on European Integration. European Union Politics, 4, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooghe, L. (2012). Images of Europe: How Commission Officials Conceive their Institution’s Role’. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2008). A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Sociology, 39, 1–23.Google Scholar
  30. Inglehart, R. (1970). Public Opinion and Regional Integration. International Organisation, 24, 764–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lang, A., & Scott, J. (2009). The Hidden World of WTO Governance. European Journal of International Law, 20, 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leconte, C. (2015). From Pathology to Mainstream Phenomenon: Reviewing the Euroscepticism Debate in Research and Theory. International Political Science Review, 36, 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindberg, L. N., & Scheingold, S. A. (1970). Europe’s Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. MacMullen, A. (1997). European Commissioners: National Routes to a European Elite. In N. Nugent (Ed.), The Heart of the Union: Studies of the European Commission (pp. 27–48). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDermott, K., & Agnew, J. (1996). The Comintern: A History of International Communism from Lenin to Stalin. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Milward, A. (1992). The European Rescue of the Nation-state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Niedermayer, O. (1995). Party System Change in East Germany. German Politics, 4, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips, A. L. (1999). Exporting Democracy: German Political Foundations in Central-East Europe. Democratization, 6, 70–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pierson, P. (1996). The Path to European Integration A Historical Institutionalist Analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollack, M. A. (2003). The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raunio, T. (2000). Losing Independence or Finally Gaining Recognition? Contacts between MEPs and National Parties. Party Politics, 6, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russo, F., & Cotta, M. (2013). Beyond Euroscepticism and Europhilia: Multiple Views About Europe. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 43, 411–434.Google Scholar
  45. Sanders, D., & Toka, G. (2013). Is Anyone Listening? Mass and Elite Opinion Cueing in the EU. Electoral Studies, 32, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandholtz, W., & Sweet, A. S. (Eds.). (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Scheuer, A. (1999). A Political Community? In H. Schmitt & J. Thomassen (Eds.), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union (pp. 25–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmitt, H. (2005). The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-Order? West European Politics, 28, 650–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmitt, H., & Thomassen, J. (Eds.). (1999). Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Scott, J. M. (1999). Transnationalizing Democracy Promotion: The Role of Western Political Foundations and Think-Tanks. Democratization, 6, 146–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sklar, H. (Ed.). (1980). Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. Cambridge: South End Press.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, A. (2003). Why European Commissioners Matter. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steinwand, M., & Stone, R. W. (2008). The International Monetary Fund: A Review of Recent Evidence. Review of International Organizations, 3, 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stone, R. W. (2002). Lending Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Post-Communist Transition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thacker, S. (1999). The High Politics of IMF Lending. World Politics, 52, 38–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomassen, J., & Schmitt, H. (1999). Issue Congruence. In H. Schmitt & J. Thomassen (Eds.), Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union (pp. 186–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomassen, J., Noury, A. G., & Voeten, E. (2004). Political competition in the European Parliament: Evidence from Roll Call and Survey Analyses. In G. Marks & M. Steenbergen (Eds.), European Integration and Political Conflict (pp. 141–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomson, R. (2008). National Actors in International Organizations the Case of the European Commission. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Transworld. (2016). Transworld: Transatlantic Relations and the Future of Global Governance. http://www.transworld-fp7.eu/. Date Accessed 25 Aug 2016.
  60. Vaubel, R. (1996). Bureaucracy at the IMF and the World Bank: A Comparison of the Evidence. The World Economy, 19, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verzichelli, L., & Edinger, M. (2005). A Critical Juncture? The 2004 European Elections and the Making of a Supranational Elite. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11, 254–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vreeland, J. R. (2005). The International and Domestic Politics of IMF Programs. Yale University/Mimeo.Google Scholar
  63. Whitaker, R. (2014). Tenure, Turnover and Careers in the European Parliament: MEPs as Policy-Seekers. Journal of European Public Policy, 21, 1509–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Whitehead, L. (1996). The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wille, A. (2012). The Politicization of the EU Commission: Democratic Control and the Dynamics of Executive Selection. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wonka, A. (2008). Decision-Making Dynamics in the European Commission: Partisan, National or Sectoral? Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 1145–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Woods, N. (2006). The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and their Borrowers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Woods, N., & Narlikar, A. (2001). Governance and the Limits of Accountability: The WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. International Social Science Journal, 53, 569–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Cotta
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations