Skip to main content

Liberal Theory and European Integration

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series ((PSIR))

Abstract

Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) has established itself as the baseline theory” for explaining the big decisions in European integration. It is also the only integration theory that has the adjective liberal” in its name. It is, however, a truncated liberal theory. Whereas LI starts from neoliberal institutionalism” and includes domestic politics in its account of European integration — as any liberal theory should — it builds mainly on a single variant of liberal theory: commercial liberalism. As a consequence, LI neglects important facets of European integration that derive from the nature of the European Union (EU) as a liberal community. Fundamental developments and outcomes in European integration are difficult to explain, unless the role of liberal values, norms, and identities are properly theorised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Cederman, L. (2001). “Political Boundaries and Identity Tradeoffs”, in L. Cederman (ed.) Constructing Europe’s Identity. The External Dimension, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deudney, D. and Ikenberry, G. J. (1999), “The Nature and Source of Liberal International Order”, Review of International Studies, 25(2), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetze, S. and Rittberger, B. (2010), “A Matter of Habit? The Sociological Foundations of Empowering the European Parliament”, Comparative European Politics, 8(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golub, J. (1999), “In the Shadow of the Vote? Decisionmaking in the European Community”, International Organization, 53(4), 737–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998), Die postnationale Konstellation: Politische Essays, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. (2002), “Constitutional Agenda-setting through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam”, British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. and Marks, M. (2005), “Calculation, Community, and Cues: Public Opinion on European Integration”, European Union Politics, 6(4), 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2008), “A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus”, British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. (2008). “The Remains of Conditionality: The Faltering Enlargement of the Euro Zone”, Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 826–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. (1984), After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. and Nye, S.J. (1977), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuffen, D., Rittberger, B. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2012), Differentiated Integration. Explaining Variation in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1993), “Preferences and Power in the European Community. A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1997), “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics”, International Organization, 51(4) 513–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. and Nicolaidis, K. (1999), “Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(1), 59–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2009), “Liberal Intergovernmentalism”, in A. Wiener and T. Diez (eds) European Integration Theory, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. and Vachudova, M. (2003), “National Interests, State Power, EU Enlargement”, East European Politics and Societies, 17(1), 42–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C. (2002), “Showing Ideas as Causes. The Origins of the European Union”, International Organization, 56(1), 47–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1988), “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”, International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reus-Smit, C. (1997), “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions”, International Organization, 51(4), 555–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2010), A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. (1995a), Cooperation among Democracies. The European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. (1995b), “Democratic Peace — Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument”, European Journal of International Relations, 1(4), 491–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger, B. (2005), Building Europe’s Parliament. Democratic Representation beyond the Nation-State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rittberger, B. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2006), “Explaining the Constitutionalization of the European Union”, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(8), 1148–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roederer-Rynning, C. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2012), “Bringing Codecision to Agriculture: A Hard Case of Parliamentarization”, Journal of European Public Policy, 19(7), 951–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G. (1993), “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution”, in J. G. Ruggie (ed.) Multilateralism Matters. The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, New York: Columbia University Press, 3–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. (2001), “The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union”, International Organization, 55(1), 47–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, F. and Winzen, T. (2012), “Instrumental and Constitutional Differentiation in European Integration”, Paper, Swiss Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, H. and König, T. (2000), “Institutional Reform and Decision-making Efficiency in the European Union”, American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2013 Frank Schimmelfennig

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schimmelfennig, F. (2013). Liberal Theory and European Integration. In: Friedman, R., Oskanian, K., Pardo, R.P. (eds) After Liberalism?. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137303769_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics