Introduction: Does the Size of Member States Matter in the European Union?

Archer, Clive; Nugent, Neill

doi:10.1080/07036330500480466

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent scholarship has also devoted attention to size and its role in shaping a country's stance on further integration (Antola, 2002; Archer and Nugent, 2006). Although the size of a state can be measured in many different ways, we suggest the salience of size in the shaping of national preference is tied to a country's self‐perception of its size and importance (Thorhallson, 2006).…”

Section: Existing Scholarly Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Size, however, is not merely influential in the setting of strategy, but also in the formation of preferences (e.g. Archer and Nugent, 2006). In a system which includes states of varying sizes we might assume that a small state would have a stronger preference for more powerful common institutions and the consequent ceding of a degree of sovereignty partly to defend better its interests ‘against the dominance, perceived or real, of large Member States’ (Antola, 2002, p. 75).…”

Section: Existing Scholarly Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous explorations into the nature of national preferences and their formation in EU Member States have generated a large body of scholarly literature highlighting a number of different explanations including size, societal interests, dependency, ideology and unique historical experiences (e.g. Archer and Nugent, 2006; Aspinwall, 2002, 2007; Stone Sweet and Sandholtz, 1997; Dimitrakapoulos and Kassim, 2005), many of which feed into the grand explanatory theories of European integration (e.g. Moravcsik, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Choices for Europe: National Preferences in New and Old Member States*

Copsey

Haughton

2009

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on the existing body of literature that deals with national preference formation and building on the role played by vulnerability and deficits in shaping policy choices at the European level, this article provides a synthetic framework to explain the stances of the Older Member States (OMS) and New Member States (NMS). We subsequently apply the model to NMS, focusing largely, although not exclusively, on Poland. We argue that although many of the policy preferences can be explained by the framework, the size of states, especially with regard to ambition and capacity, and the nature of the country's post-communist transition appear significant for the NMS and need to be incorporated into future theory-building. We conclude by highlighting areas in need of further empirical research. Copyright (c) 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Existing Scholarly Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Scholarly Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Choices for Europe: National Preferences in New and Old Member States*

Copsey

Haughton

2009

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholarly explorations into the national preference formation of Member States have generated a number of different explanations including unique historical experiences, size, societal interests and ideology (e.g. Archer and Nugent, 2006; Aspinwall, 2002), many of which feed into the grand explanatory theories of European integration (e.g. Moravcsik, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Patterns of EU Membership: Drawing Lessons from Slovakia's First Two Years as a Member State

Haughton

Malovà

2007

Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2004 enlargement of the European Union has provided political scientists with 10 additional cases to examine national preference formation and behaviour in the EU. The first two years of Slovakia's membership suggest that while unique historical experiences and size contribute to explaining Slovakia's stance on further integration, ideology, powerful societal interests and the opportunities of membership (as opposed to accession) hold the key. These findings not only feed into broader debates surrounding preference formation and related theories of European integration, but also cast light on the behaviour of new Member States following the period shaped by accession conditionality.

show abstract

“…Small states are more vulnerable than large states in political, economic and strategic terms (Archer & Nugent 2002;Commonwealth Secretariat 1997;Commonwealth Secretariat 1985). Small states have fewer resources (military, administrative and diplomatic) than large states with which to influence the international arena (Handel 1981;Thorhallsson 2000;Archer & Nugent 2002). Therefore, they tend to be reactive in the international system compared to the more pro-active character of large states.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%