Suchergebnisse

There appears to be a divide in the literature between American & European approaches to European integration studies. This article discusses the differences between the two types of approaches, & what problems occur from having this divide. It is argued that IPE offers a venue for dialogue between those who focus exclusively on the EU (labeled here as "European approaches") & those who see the EU case to be part of more general phenomena & who seek to produce general theories ("American approaches"). The article suggests that IPE offers a useful body of literature to narrow the gap between "American" & "European" studies of European integration. 88 References. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on a book by Kenneth Dyson & Kevin Featherstone, The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Economic and Monetary Union (Oxford: Oxford U Press, 1999), a study of how the economic & monetary union (EMU) provisions were integrated into the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. Verdun contends that Dyson & Featherstone have offered a comprehensive explanation of how the EMU provisions were included & of the negotiation processes behind their incorporation into the treaty; specific attention is directed toward Dyson & Featherstone's discussion of the Delors Committee's role in supporting the EMU provisions. Despite identifying additional diplomatic, economic, & political causes for integrating the EMU provisions, Dyson & Featherstone's analysis of the EMU provisions' implications for theories of negotiation is critiqued. In Response, Dyson & Featherstone address the criteria behind selecting EMU negotiations that involved primarily French, German, Italian, & British actors. The theoretical problems raised by Verdun are refuted; it is emphasized that the text was designed to produce an empirical account of the EMU negotiations. J. W. Parker