The Uniting of Europe

Haas, Ernst B.

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-14817-2_15

Cited by 96 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, some scholars have even claimed that public opinion is inelevant to integration. Ernest Haas (1958) explicitly downplayed public opinion and political culture in the integration process, claiming that what moves political actors to shift loyalties to a new center is elite learning derived from agreements that advance group interests. Other scholars disagree.…”

Section: Role Of Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Europe Exist Without Europeans? Problems of Identity in a Multinational Community

Citrin¹,

Sides²

2004

Advances in Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Role Of Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Europe Exist Without Europeans? Problems of Identity in a Multinational Community

Citrin¹,

Sides²

2004

Advances in Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This study argues that the European Commission (Commission) faces enduring conflicts between dependence on the member-state governments (Moravcsik 1998), supranational autonomy (Haas 1958), inter-DG conflicts and departmental rivalries (Cini 1996;Smith 1994), and professional concerns (Haas 1992). The purpose of this study is to illuminate to what extent and how the Commission balances these four dynamics and weaken the dependence on the member-state governments, leaving more space for supranational, departmental and epistemic dynamics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This tension is not only challenged during large-scale intergovernmental conferences where the future constitutional fabric is negotiated (Moravcsik 1998), but also during day-to-day decision-making processes within the Commission (Haas 1958). The conflict between the concern for national preferences and community preferences is built into the role as a SNE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing at the frontier of the European commission: The case of seconded national officials

Trondal¹

2006

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of executive institutions have largely dealt separately with national and international executive institutions (IEIs). This study unpacks and repacks four conflicting decision-making dynamics that unfolds at the frontier of IEIs -that is, at the institutional rim where national and international executive institutions meet, interact and collide. The empirical laboratory utilised is seconded national experts in the European Commission. The survey and interview data presented demonstrates that the decision-making behaviour of seconded national experts includes a mix of departmental (portfolio), epistemic (expert) and supranational behaviour. The suspicion early voiced by Coombes (1970) that seconded national experts to the European Commission are highly conscious of their national background and that they represent domestic Trojan horses into the European Commission is severally challenged by this study. Arguably, the decision-making dynamics observed at the frontier of the Commission seem less affected by the member-state administrations and the international organisation in which the Commission is embedded, and strongly by organisational characteristics of the Commission itself.

show abstract

“…To be exact, "the system of engrenage whereby networks of interest groups, organized labour and firms become involved in the making of public policy (Haas, 1958), prefigures governance by technocratic consensus" (Radaelli, 1999: p. 759). Opposing interests of course need a consensus to work together, but cannot agree on everything at once, and therefore work on specific issues or particular themes, what fits with the polycentric and network make-up described above.…”

Section: Distinguishing the Bureaucracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening up das Schloβ: Creating Room for Thinking by Combining the Territorial Cohesion Discourse and the Debate on the European Union Polity

Muller¹

2016

ADR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To widen the debate about territorial cohesion, one can have a look at political science. We can namely critique the territorial cohesion discourse's exclusion of reasoning about the political by showing the relevance of the simultaneous debate on the European Union polity. It thereby also comes forward that the concept's power practices illustrate the bureaucratic, multi-level, polycentric, and network governance in flux that characterizes this polity. The territorial cohesion discourse might then exemplify how this opaque organization of governing leads to and is made possible by an associated form of expertise, which raises new questions on the role of social and spatial science in our society.

show abstract

The Uniting of Europe

Cited by 96 publications

References 0 publications

Can Europe Exist Without Europeans? Problems of Identity in a Multinational Community

Can Europe Exist Without Europeans? Problems of Identity in a Multinational Community

Governing at the frontier of the European commission: The case of seconded national officials

Opening up das Schloβ: Creating Room for Thinking by Combining the Territorial Cohesion Discourse and the Debate on the European Union Polity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About