The Governance Approach to European Integration

Abstract

This article argues that the study of European integration is divided into two distinct approaches: classical integration theory for which the shape of the Euro-polity is the dependent variable; and the governance approach for which it is the independent variable. An historical and conceptual overview of the approach focuses on the efficiency side of governance and excludes issues of democracy and legitimacy. From a sociology of knowledge perspective, the first part traces the roots of the present discussion back to three bodies of literature, namely studies on Europeanization, regulatory policy-making and network concepts. The second part presents the achievements of the approach: putting EU studies in a comparative perspective, directing attention towards democratic governance and bypassing old dichotomies on the future of the nation-state. The final section evaluates present shortcomings, most notably a bias toward problem-solving, the proliferation of case studies and the lack of a coherent theoretical perspective.

EU external governance in 'wider Europe'

“…This multi-level and multi-actor constellation may best be captured in the notion of 'governance' as a form of political organization which cannot be adequately described anymore by the concept of externally and internally sovereign states (Jachtenfuchs 2001;Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999;Marks et al 1996). With its emphasis on hierarchical and horizontal, formal and informal forms of policy-making, the notion of governance is particularly useful for studying relations with third countries which, although not EU member states, are included in the pursuit of (internal) policy goals.…”

“…This approach focuses attention on the importance of the institutional setting for the kind of policy outcomes produced, and highlights the continuity between internal and external developments in EU policy-making (Jachtenfuchs 2001;Smith 2003). It allows us to look at the 'wider Europe' agenda as the continuation of an internal process of institutionalization, underlines the legacy of previous rules and procedures developed towards accession countries, and explains ruleexpansion as an attempt to manage the external interdependence of the EU as a nascent political system.…”

La nouvelle architecture financière : gouvernance globale ou régime international ?

“…La governance (ou bonne gouvernance) apparaît alors comme une réflexion normative pour expliquer comment il est devenu aujourd'hui à la fois possible et nécessaire de gouverner, à l'intérieur des nations et au plan mondial, en dehors des autorités étatiques en associant les acteurs de la « société civile » à la gestion collective. La global governance est donc d'abord une théorie normative cherchant à légitimer une régulation intentionnelle des relations sociales fondée sur des compromis entre acteurs plutôt que sur l'utilisation directe de la violence et du pouvoir 58 . Autrement dit, la « gouvernance » cherche à rompre avec les conceptions marxienne ou weberienne de l'État et du pouvoir, c'est-à-dire à explorer des formes de gouvernement ne reposant pas sur la coercition mais sur une logique contractuelle du règlement des conflits.…”

The Future of Sovereignty in Multilevel Governance Europe ‐ A Constructivist Reading

“…11 As such attention is moved from the process of integration ('where do we come from, where do we go'), to the subject itself: the European Union as a complex and dynamic institution. Consequently, it has changed position from explanandum to explanans (Jachtenfuchs, 2001;Caporaso, 1996). Rather than explaining the EU and European integration, their existence is taken as a (social) fact and attention is shifted from process to polity.…”

“…After all, theory is not neutral and facts are always theory-laden. 6 See, e.g., Christiansen (1997); Hooghe (1996b); Marks (2001a, b, 2003); Jachtenfuchs (1995Jachtenfuchs ( , 1997Jachtenfuchs ( , 2001); Jachtenfuchs and Kohler-Koch (1996); Kohler-Koch (1996a, b); Kohler-Koch and Eising (1999); Marks et al (1996a, b, c); Scharpf (1994Scharpf ( , 2001); Wallace (1999); Zürn (1999) and special issues of Policy andPolitics (2001, Vol. 29, No.…”