The course provides an introductory understanding of how the European Union (EU) works as a political system and aims at accomplishing this by using the toolkit of comparative politics. The main aim of the course is to provide American students different perspectives on the European integration process. The course links historial, theoretical, and policy-orientated analyses of the EU institutions and policy processes. Political Science.
Prerequisites:
None
Attendance policy:
IES ATTENDANCE POLICY: Attendance is mandatory for all IES classes, including field studies. Any exams, tests, presentations, or other work missed due to student absences can only be rescheduled in cases of documented medical or family emergencies. If a student misses more than three classes in any course half a letter grade will be deducted from the final grade for every additional absence. Seven absences in any course will result in a failing grade.
Learning outcomes:
With regard to Knowledge, by the end of the course students are able to:
• outline the historical process of the European integration;
• distinguish the main institutions of the EU;
• indicate the main political debates surrounding the EU;
• analyze critically the main arguments in favor and against European integration.
With regard to Skills, by the end of the course students are able to:
• demonstrate presentational abilities;
• reconstruct and justify diverse arguments in class discussions;
• assess the methodological virtues/deficiencies of the academic works he reads;
• develop research techniques.
With regards to Values, by the end of the course students are able to:
• recognize the cultural differences and similarities between Europe and the US: are the Americans from Mars and the Europeans from Venus? Or are we more similar than what we thought at first sight?
Method of presentation:
LECTURES : where basics on the EU institutions will be presented
CLASS DISCUSSIONS : where we will compare and contrast different views on the EU. READER : where we have a first contact with the subjects of study.
DEBATES : where we will deploy our analytical and discussion abilities.
CASE STUDIES : where the outcomes of different EU policies will be critically analyzed.
LANGUAGE OF PRESENTATION: English
Required work and form of assessment:
Class participation + debate (25%); summaries +
questions about readings (25%); mid-term exam (25%); final exam (25%).
• EXAMS: The midterm and final exams will consist of analytical questions on the topics covered in the course. The midterm exam will cover topics covered in the first half of the course, while the final exam will cover topics covered at the end of the course.
• SUMMARIES AND QUESTIONS: At the beginning of each session students will submit a two-page summary of the assigned reading, instructor will also specify sessions where students can submit discussion questions instead of summary. These summaries can be used during the in-class exam
• CLASS PARTICIPATION + DEBATE: Students are encouraged to participate in broad class discussions
as well as team exercises they will be attending to. During the term, students will be informed two times about their possible participation grades.
content:
Session 1: Introduction to the Course: What is the European Union and why Americans
should bother?
Session 2: History of the European Union. 1945-1957
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 81-93.
Session 3: History of the European Union. 1957-1985
Required Reading:
McCormick, Understanding the European Union, 62-78.
Session 4: History of the European Union. 1985-2011
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 157-177.
Session 5: The Institutional Architecture of the EU I
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 229-238.
Session 6: The Institutional Architecture of the EU II
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 238-250.
Session 7: Organized Interests
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 333-351.
Session 8: Single market Policy
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 403-427.
Session 9: Competition Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 133-149, 153-157.
Session 10: Economic and Monetary Union
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 427-456.
Session 11: Common Agricultural Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 181-207.
Session 12: Regional and Cohesion Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 229-253.
Session 13: Mid-term exam.
Session 14: Environmental Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Politics in the European Union, 307-330.
Session 15: Trade Policy I
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 381-400.
Bache, Ian. and Stephen George. Politics in the European Union, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford UP., 2011. pp. 81-93; 157-177; 229-238; 238-250; 333-351; 403-427; 427-456.
Church, Clive and David Phinnemore. “The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Treaty” in European Union Politics. Ed. Cini, Michelle. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. pp. 46-65.
Hix, Simon. The Political System of the European Union. London: Palgrave, 2004. pp. 175-207
McCormick, John. Understanding the European Union, London: Palgrave, 1999. pp. 62-78.
Moravcsik, Andrew. “In Defense of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union,” in Journal of. Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4 (2002), pp. 603-624.
Nye, Joseph. “The US and Europe: Continental Drift?,” in International Affairs, Vol. 76, No.1 (2000), pp. 51-59
Sapir, André. Fragmented Power. Europe and the Global Economy. Brussels: Bruegel, 2007. Pp. 61-93.
Wallace, Helen, William Wallace, and Mark Pollack. Policy-Making in the European Union, 6th edition. Oxford: Oxford UP., 2010. pp. 15-26; 133-149; 153-157; 181-207; 229-253; 307-330; 381-400; 401-430; 431-456.
Recommended readings:
On Realist Intergovernmentalism:
Hoffmann, Stanley. “Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe,” in Daedalus No: 95 (1966), pp. 862-915.
Grieco, Joseph. “The Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union and the Neorealist Research Programme,” in Review of International Studies No: 21 (1995), pp. 21-40.
Hoffmann, Stanley. “Towards a Common European Foreign and Security Policy?,” in Journal of Common
Market Studies No: 38 (2000), pp: 189-198.
On Liberal Intergovernmentalism:
Moravcsik, Andrew. The Choice for Europe: Social Power and State Purpose from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1998.
Rittberger, Berthold. “Which Institutions for Post-war Europe? Explaining the Institutional Design of Europe’s First Community,” in Journal of European Public Policy No: 8 (2001), pp. 673-708.
On Rationalist Supranationalism:
Farrell, Henry and Adrienne Héritier. “Formal and Informal Institutions under Codecision: Continuous Constitution-Building in Europe,” in Governance No: 16 (2003), pp. 577-600.
Fligstein, Neil and Alec Stone Sweet. “Constructing Polities and Markets: An Institutionalist Account of European Integration,” in American Journal of Sociology No: 107 (2002), pp. 1206-1243.
Hix, Simon. “Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam,” British Journal of Political Science No: 32 (2002), pp. 259-280.
Pierson, Paul. “The Path to European Integration. A Historical Institutionalist Analysis,” in Comparative Political Studies no: 29 (1996), pp.123-63.
Stone Sweet, Alec and Wayne Sandholtz “European Integration and Supranational Governance” in
Journal of European Public Policy No: 4 (1997), pp. 297-317.
On Constructivist supranationalism:
Rittberger, Berthold. Building Europe’s Parliament: Democratic Representation Beyond the Nation State. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Fligstein, Neil and Iona Mara-Drita. “How to Make a Market: Reflections on the Attempt to Create a Single Market in the EU,” in American Journal of Sociology Vol. 102, No. 1 (1996), pp. 1-33.
On the institutional order of the EU as independent variable:
Holler Manfred and Mika Widgren. “Why Power Indices for Assessing European Union Decision-Making?” in Journal of Theoretical Politics, No: 11 (1999), pp. 321–330.
Baldwin, Richard, Erik Berglof, Francesco .Giavazzi and Mika Widgren. Nice Try: Should the Treaty of Nice be ratified? CEPR (2001), <http://heiwww.unige.ch/~baldwin/>
König, Thomas and Mirja Pöter. “Examining the EU Legislative Process: The Relative Importance of Agenda and Veto Power,” in European Union Politics No: 2 (2001), pp. 329-351.
Selck, Torsten. “Veto Players, Decision Rules, and Dimensionality: The Effects of Institutional Change on Organizational Decision-Making,” in Homo Oeconomicus Vol. 23 No. 1 (2006), pp. 43-55.
Tsebelis, George and Geoffrey Garrett. “Legislative Politics in the European Union,” in European Union Politics Vol. 1, No. 1 (2000), pp. 9-36.
Tsebelis, George and Anastassios Kalandrakis. 1999. “The European Parliament and Environmental Legislation: The Case of. Chemicals,” in European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 36, No.1 (1999), pp. 119-54.
On PA-analysis:
Majone, Giandomenico. “Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance,” in European Union Politics Vol. 2, No. 1 (2001), pp. 103-22.
Pollack, Mark. “Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the European Community,” in International Organization No. 51 (1997), pp. 99-134.
Franchino, Fabio. “Efficiency or Credibility? Testing the Two Logics of Delegation to the European Commission,” in Journal of European Public Policy No. 9 (2002), pp. 677-694.
On the legitimacy of the EU’s institutional order:
Kohler-Koch, Beate and Berthold Rittberger (eds.). Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007.
Fernández-Albertos, José. and Victor Lapuente-Gine. “When Veto Players do not Agree. Why Democratizing the EU Might Not Be a Good Idea.” Nuffield College Working Papers in Politics, 2004-W6, May 2004.
On the EU’s democratic deficit:
Crombez, Christophe. “The Democratic Deficit in the European Union: Much Ado about Nothing?,” in European Union Politics Vol. 4, No. 1 (2003), pp. 101-120.
Majone, Giandomenico. “Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards,” in European Law Journal Vol. 4, No. 1 (1998), 5-28
Follesdal, A. und Simon Hix. “Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik,” in Eurogov, European Governance Papers, Nr. C-05-02 (2005),
< http://www.connex- network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-connex-C-05-02.pdf>
On public support to the EU:
Easton, David. “A Reassessment of the Concept of Political Support,” in British Journal of Political Science Vol. 5, No. 4 (1975), pp. 435-457.
Franklin, Mark, Michael Marsh and Lauren McLaren. “Uncorking the Bottle: Popular Opposition to European unification in the wake of Maastricht,” in Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 32, No. 4 (1994), pp. 101-117.
Gabel, Matthew. “Public Support for European Integration: An Empirical Test of Five Theories,” in Journal of Politics. Vol. 60, No.2 (1998), pp. 333-354.
Katz, Richard. “Models of Democracy: Elite Attitudes and the Democratic Deficit in the European Union,” in European Union Politics. Vol. 2, No.1 (2001), pp. 53-79.
The course provides an introductory understanding of how the European Union (EU) works as a political system and aims at accomplishing this by using the toolkit of comparative politics. The main aim of the course is to provide American students different perspectives on the European integration process. The course links historial, theoretical, and policy-orientated analyses of the EU institutions and policy processes. Political Science.
None
IES ATTENDANCE POLICY: Attendance is mandatory for all IES classes, including field studies. Any exams, tests, presentations, or other work missed due to student absences can only be rescheduled in cases of documented medical or family emergencies. If a student misses more than three classes in any course half a letter grade will be deducted from the final grade for every additional absence. Seven absences in any course will result in a failing grade.
With regard to Knowledge, by the end of the course students are able to:
• outline the historical process of the European integration;
• distinguish the main institutions of the EU;
• indicate the main political debates surrounding the EU;
• analyze critically the main arguments in favor and against European integration.
With regard to Skills, by the end of the course students are able to:
• demonstrate presentational abilities;
• reconstruct and justify diverse arguments in class discussions;
• assess the methodological virtues/deficiencies of the academic works he reads;
• develop research techniques.
With regards to Values, by the end of the course students are able to:
• recognize the cultural differences and similarities between Europe and the US: are the Americans from Mars and the Europeans from Venus? Or are we more similar than what we thought at first sight?
LECTURES : where basics on the EU institutions will be presented
CLASS DISCUSSIONS : where we will compare and contrast different views on the EU. READER : where we have a first contact with the subjects of study.
DEBATES : where we will deploy our analytical and discussion abilities.
CASE STUDIES : where the outcomes of different EU policies will be critically analyzed.
LANGUAGE OF PRESENTATION: English
Class participation + debate (25%); summaries +
questions about readings (25%); mid-term exam (25%); final exam (25%).
• EXAMS: The midterm and final exams will consist of analytical questions on the topics covered in the course. The midterm exam will cover topics covered in the first half of the course, while the final exam will cover topics covered at the end of the course.
• SUMMARIES AND QUESTIONS: At the beginning of each session students will submit a two-page summary of the assigned reading, instructor will also specify sessions where students can submit discussion questions instead of summary. These summaries can be used during the in-class exam
• CLASS PARTICIPATION + DEBATE: Students are encouraged to participate in broad class discussions
as well as team exercises they will be attending to. During the term, students will be informed two times about their possible participation grades.
Session 1: Introduction to the Course: What is the European Union and why Americans
should bother?
Session 2: History of the European Union. 1945-1957
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 81-93.
Session 3: History of the European Union. 1957-1985
Required Reading:
McCormick, Understanding the European Union, 62-78.
Session 4: History of the European Union. 1985-2011
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 157-177.
Session 5: The Institutional Architecture of the EU I
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 229-238.
Session 6: The Institutional Architecture of the EU II
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 238-250.
Session 7: Organized Interests
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 333-351.
Session 8: Single market Policy
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 403-427.
Session 9: Competition Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 133-149, 153-157.
Session 10: Economic and Monetary Union
Required Reading:
Bache and George, Politics in the European Union, 427-456.
Session 11: Common Agricultural Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 181-207.
Session 12: Regional and Cohesion Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 229-253.
Session 13: Mid-term exam.
Session 14: Environmental Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Politics in the European Union, 307-330.
Session 15: Trade Policy I
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 381-400.
Session 16: Trade Policy II
Required Reading:
Sapir, Fragmented Power, 61-93.
Session 17: External Relations
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 431-456.
Session 18: Enlargement Policy
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 401-430.
Session 19: Constitutional Treaty
Required Reading:
Church, and Phinnemore, “The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Treaty,” 46-65.
Session 20: Is EU Democratic? Part I
Required Reading:
Hix, The Political System of the European Union, 175-207.
Session 21: Is EU Democratic? Part II
Required Reading:
Moravcsik, “In Defense of the ‘Democratic Deficit’,” 603-624.
Session 22: The Present and the future of the EU
Required Reading:
Balibar, “Europe: Final Crisis? Some Theses” ): http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.2.balibar.html
Session 23: Which Theory for the European Union?
Required Reading:
Wallace, Wallace, and Pollack, Policy-Making in the European Union, 15-26.
Session 24: Class debate. The EU versus the US. Is the Atlantic Widening?
Required Reading:
Nye, “The US and Europe: Continental Drift?,” 51-59.
FINAL EXAM
Balibar, Etienne. “Europe: Final Crisis? Some Theses,” in Theory & Event, Vol. 13, No: 2 (2010): http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v013/13.2.balibar.html
Bache, Ian. and Stephen George. Politics in the European Union, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford UP., 2011. pp. 81-93; 157-177; 229-238; 238-250; 333-351; 403-427; 427-456.
Church, Clive and David Phinnemore. “The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Treaty” in European Union Politics. Ed. Cini, Michelle. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. pp. 46-65.
Hix, Simon. The Political System of the European Union. London: Palgrave, 2004. pp. 175-207
McCormick, John. Understanding the European Union, London: Palgrave, 1999. pp. 62-78.
Moravcsik, Andrew. “In Defense of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union,” in Journal of. Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 4 (2002), pp. 603-624.
Nye, Joseph. “The US and Europe: Continental Drift?,” in International Affairs, Vol. 76, No.1 (2000), pp. 51-59
Sapir, André. Fragmented Power. Europe and the Global Economy. Brussels: Bruegel, 2007. Pp. 61-93.
Wallace, Helen, William Wallace, and Mark Pollack. Policy-Making in the European Union, 6th edition. Oxford: Oxford UP., 2010. pp. 15-26; 133-149; 153-157; 181-207; 229-253; 307-330; 381-400; 401-430; 431-456.
On Realist Intergovernmentalism:
On Liberal Intergovernmentalism:
On Rationalist Supranationalism:
On Constructivist supranationalism:
On the institutional order of the EU as independent variable:
< http://hei.unige.ch/~baldwin/PapersBooks/Decisionmaking_and_theCT.pdf>
On veto players analysis:
On PA-analysis:
On the legitimacy of the EU’s institutional order:
On the EU’s democratic deficit:
< http://www.connex- network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-connex-C-05-02.pdf>
On public support to the EU:
The EU website:
http://europa.eu/index_en.htm
A Glossary of EU-related terms:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3595155.stm
On the EU Constitution:
http://europa.eu.int/constitution/index_en.htm
http://www.europeanconstitution.ie/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_constitution
Press:
http://www.economist.com/index.html
http://www.ft.com/home/uk