POLITICAL SCIENCE 404

SENIOR SEMINAR ON BUILDING A NEW EUROPE

Fall 1999 SYLLABUS

 

Mark Franklin

Wed 1.15 to 3.55pm in LSC-133

Office: SH201

Office hours Tues 2-4; Wed 11-12
or by appointment made by email

Phone: 297-5292

Email: Mark.Franklin@mail.trincoll.edu

This seminar focuses on the origins and development of the entity now known as the European Union. Its main purpose is to help you to gain a critical appreciation of the enormous accomplishment that this union represents, and of the enormous task that still lies ahead. At the same time, by examining the process of nation-building in a contemporary and well-documented setting, the seminar will shed light on the manner in which the United States came into being and developed as a continental nation, two hundred years ago. In the process you will learn much about political science and much about Europe. Your daily reading of the New York Times will get you into the habit of being a discerning consumer of current events reporting.

You will explore critically the political and socioeconomic factors leading to the creation of successive institutional arrangements that culminated in the formation of the European Union in 1993, focussing especially on the political consequences of these institutions for member states and for the future of democratic government in Europe.

The final part of the syllabus has been tailored specifically to the research of the course instructor.

 

Books and other materials for purchase

Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to the European Union

Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubb, The European Union: Readings on the Theory and Practice of Integration

Jeremy Richardson, European Union: Power and Policy-making

Cees van der Eijk and Mark Franklin: Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union

New York Times (Mon-Fri)

Other materials for library use

Finn Laursen and Sophie Vanhoonacker, The Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union: Institutional Reforms, New Policies and International Identity of the European Community (Maastricht: Martinus Nijhoff) 1992.

Reading

The reading for each week must be completed before the class meets. As you read, try to think of questions about the topic that you can answer in your reading Some questions will be proposed on the class website (see below) but you should replace those with your own questions as you go along. By 9am on Wednesdays, send me an email (Mark.Franklin@mail.trincoll.edu) containing a critical appreciation (about one page is enough) of the reading, focussing on the most important thing you learned and listing one important question that you still have about the topic. If you can make your question flow from your critical appreciation, so much the better. I will pick from the questions I receive the ones that will be the focus of the ensuing class.

In addition to the readings for the seminar as a whole, each of you will be responsible for reading up on the situation of one specific EU member country in relation to the European Union. You can start by reading the chapter about that country in van der Eijk and Franklin's Choosing Europe? and following up the references in that chapter. I will make additional suggestions for country-specific reading as the semester progresses.

 

Seminar participation

The class will divide into two 'teams' which will alternate in taking a pro-European and anti-European position on the readings for each week. Each team will contain an 'expert' on each of five countries. The five countries I have in mind are Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Denmark (I will entertain appeals to substitute other countries in place of Spain and Denmark, but we need TWO experts on each country, so two people will have to agree on any substitution). As an expert on a particular European country, you should be prepared to contribute to the debate with a viewpoint tailored to that country's interests and concerns. The seminars will be conducted as debates between these two teams, focussing on material derived from the week's reading. The debates are also opportunities to discuss current affairs pertaining to the course, based on your reading of The New York Times. At the end of each seminar there will be a short period set aside to write down the conclusions YOU have reached about the topic, together with ONE question you still have about the topic. Note that entering or leaving the room while class is in progress is not acceptable. My classes start at three minutes past the hour to allow for accidents.

 

Written work

Each week you will hand in your conclusions about the topic for the week, written in class time (see above). In addition, starting after the class on Sept 22nd, you will pick a topic for individual research. Email me with suggested topics and we will pick one in consultation before the class of Sept 29th. On Oct 6th you will hand in a summary on not more than one page of the topic you propose. Suggestions for how to write a critique will be posted on the class website. Through the remainder of the semester you will write successive drafts of this paper and critique successive drafts of the paper being written by different members of the class (in this way you will end up reading drafts of four papers other than your own). Drafts (and critiques) will be due approximately every two weeks (see below) and each new draft will be graded in part on how well it incorporates additional material covered in the latest section of the course. Material to be incorporated in each draft does NOT include material read for the week in which the draft is handed in. Critiques will be due the week following the handing in of each draft.

 

Midsession research

At Midsession, the two of you who work on each country will metamorphose into the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the county concerned, and will prepare for your roles in a mock session of the Intergovernmental Conference that led to the signing of the Single European Market Treaty. See under readings for Oct 11th-15th for more details.

 

Important dates (always Wednesdays, unless otherwise specified)

Sept 29th, topic for class project must be agreed with me by class time on this date

Oct 6th, Outline of topic and critique of one other outline due by 9am

Oct 20th, Version 1 of project due by 9am, incorporating material from Parts I and II of the course

Oct 27th, Critique of your partner's Version 1 due by 9am

Nov 10th, Version 2 of project due by 9am, adding material from Part III of the course

Nov 17th Critique of your partner's Version 2 due by 9am

Nov 23th (Tuesday), Version 3 of project due by 5pm, adding material from Part IV of the course

Dec 1st, Critique of your partner's Version 3 due by 9am

Dec 15th, final version of project due by 9am

Dec 17th (Friday), Critique of your partner's final version due by 9am

 

Grades

20% for class participation ( 15% ), including contributions to the course listserver (see below), questions prepared before each class, and class conclusions; plus 5% for your participation in the mock session of the Intergovernmental Conference (see Midsession Research, below).

40% total for your topic outline and for each of versions 1-3 of the term paper (10% each).

20% for the final version of the term paper.

20% for your critiques of other people's term papers, being 5% each for critiques of versions 1-3 and the final version.

LATE SUBMISSIONS WILL BE PENALIZED 2% PER DAY (or any part thereof)

 

Study aids

There is a web site (http://www2.trincoll.edu/~mfrankli/pols404.html) and discussion list (pols404-list@mail.trincoll.edu) devoted to the class. The web site contains this syllabus, late-breaking news about the course, and a list of pointers that you should bear in mind when doing the readings. These pointers will be updated weekly, partly based on the feedback that I receive at the end of each class. You should consult the list of pointers before you start your reading each week, and keep them in mind as you do the reading. Feel free to share any comments or questions you might have regarding the reading (or any other aspect of the course) with other members of the course by writing an email message addressed to the discussion list that is devoted to the course. All members of the class will receive these postings automatically each time they check their email, and everyone should feel free to respond to or amplify any point that is made on the list. You may also consult me privately by addressing email to Mark.Franklin@mail.trincoll.edu. Contributions to the discussion list count towards your grade for class participation. Private communications with me do not.

 

OUTLINE AND READINGS

Wed, Sept 1st: Preliminary meeting: roll call taken and syllabus handed out.

Suggestions for how to approach the readings for the course.

-Richard Rose "What is Europe?" from Politics Review (handout)

 

PART I: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION

Wed, Sept 8th: Origins of the European Union

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Introduction and Chapter 1

-Robert Schuman, "The Schuman Declaration," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Winston Churchill, "A Tragedy of Europe," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Jean Monnet, "A Ferment of Change," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. What reasons made the early 1950s a good time for European integration to start?
  2. What was the role if individuals as opposed to nation states in getting a united Europe off the ground?
  3. Which nations played a crucial role and why?
  4. Remember that much of Europe was in ruins until well into the 1950s

Wed, Sept 15th: Evolution of the European Community, 1958-1988

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Chapters 2-5

-Sonia Mazey, "The Development of the European Idea: From sectoral integration to political union" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 2.

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. What were the mechanisms that made it possible to widen the scope of the EEC without continually having to negotiate new treaties to replace the Treaty of Rome?
  2. What sort of factors would cause the 'widening' process to stall?
  3. When the widening process stalled, was there any single factor that was important in getting things moving again?
  4. Remember that the politicians who sat in the Council of Ministers needed to win elections in their home countries in order to continue being national leaders.

Wed, Sept 22rd: From Community to Union: 1989-1999

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Chapters 6-7

-Gary Marks, "A Third Lens" in Kyte Klausen and Louise Tilly, European Integration in Social and Historical Perspective (available on the class website)

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. How did the mechanisms for widening the scope of the EEC without continually having to negotiate new treaties change after the Single European Market Act?
  2. Why was 'project 1992' so successful?
  3. Was the Maastricht Treaty a step too far?
  4. What sorts of factors give national leaders the sense that they can move forward with the European project without fear of domestic repercussions?

     

PART II: THEORY AND PRACTICE

Wed, Sept 29th: Theoretical perspectives on European integration

-David Mitrany, "A Working Peace System," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Ernst B. Haas, "The Uniting of Europe," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Leon Lindberg, "Political Integration: Definitions and Hypotheses," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Bela Balassa, "The Theory of Economic Integration: An Introduction," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Stanley Hoffman, "Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Laura Cramm, "Integration theory and the study of the European policy process" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 3.

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. Think about the different meanings that are being given to the words 'integration' and 'community' by these theorists. Are they really talking abot the same thing?
  2. Do any of these theoretical approaches help to make sense of the details we have been mired in over the past three weeks?
  3. When reading the Bela Balassa chapter (which was published in 1961) ask yourselves if later changes in the way integration proceeded (notably with the Single European Act) might have owed something to its ideas.

Wed, Oct 6th: European integration and the pre-existing nation state

-John Pinder, "European Community and Nation State: A Case for a Neo-Federalism?," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration.

-Gary Marks, Liesbet Hooghe, and Kermit Blank, "European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-Level Governance," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration

-Wayne Sandholtz and John Zysman, "1992: Recasting the European Bargain" in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration

-Andrew Moravcsik, "Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community" in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. What role have the citizens of member countries played in the process of European integration?
  2. Why do you suppose they have not wanted to play a larger role?
  3. Do elections to the European Parliament serve the same function as elections to national parliaments?

Mon-Fri, Oct 11-15th: ** MIDSESSION RESEARCH **

Starting with the chapters for YOUR COUNTRY in Finn Laursen and Sophie Vanhoonacker, The Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union: Institutional Reforms, New Policies and International Identity of the European Community , and building on the readings for last week, you will work in groups of two to prepare a brief setting out your country's position regarding the creation of a single European market. This brief will provide the foundation for your role in a mock session of the Intergovernmental Conference that led up to the signing of the Single Market Treaty. This Mock Session will be held at a date and time to be arranged.

 

PART III: INSTITUTIONS

Wed, Oct 20th: The Commission, the Council and the Council of Ministers

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Chapters 8-9

-Thomas Christiansen, "A maturing bureaucracy? The role of the Commission in the policy process" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 5

-Geoffrey Edwards, "National sovereignty vs integration? The Council of Ministers" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 7

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. Think about how many people have been involved in the making of European integration policy over the years. All these committees with all these civil servants from national capitals, probably sometimes the same ones but often new ones as they themselves move through their career paths, meeting with each other all the time. What must this be doing to the outlook and orientation of all of them?
  2. Think about the role of COREPER. Dinan hardly mentions it except to say how important it is. Christiansen and (especially) Edwards have more to say, but you need to read those short passages thoughtfully to start to glimpse the true importance of this body.

Wed, Oct 27th: The Parliament, the Courts and other bodies

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Chapters 10-11

-David Earnshaw and David Judge, "From co-operation to co-decision: The European Parliament's path to legislative power" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 6

-Daniel Wincott, "The Court of Justice and the European policy process" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 9

-Anne-Marie Buley and Walter Mattli, "Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. Think about the way in which co-decisionmaking procedures incorporate aspects both of Senate-House conference committees, and of Congressional procedures for overriding presidential vetos. What do you gather from this?
  2. Think about how strange it is that no-one makes a big fuss about the powers that the European Court of Justice has acquired for itself. Why do you suppose no party leader has thought it worthwhile to publicize this and perhaps win votes on the promise of cutting the court down to size in the interests of maintaining democratic control over the EU?
 

PART IV: POLICYMAKING

Wed, Nov 3trd: Creating the free trade area and single market

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Chapters 12-15

-Jeremy Richardson, "Policy-making in the EU: Interests, ideas and garbage cans of primeval soup" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 1

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. I have difficulty, in contemplating this week's readings, in thinking of any pointers that would make your lives easier. I was as overwhelmed as I am sure you all are by the sheer volume of legislation that was needed to launch the Single European Market and Maastricht Treaty. But since my major reaction - 'how did they possibly get through so much STUFF!' - is I am sure just the same as your reaction would be without my giving you any pointers at all, I don't think I am going to be very helpful to you this week. Perhaps the most useful thing I can do is to tell you that an appreciation of how much legislation was necessary will prove useful in the next part of this course.
  2. More importantly, in terms of this week's reading, I would like you to think about the theoretical perspectives offered by authors other than Dinan. Do any of them make sense in explaining the burst of energy that gave rise to the SEA and to Maastricht? Or is there something left to explain that their approaches seem unable to shed light on?

 

Wed, Nov 10th: Contemporary problems

-Desmond Dinan, Ever Closer Union, Chapters 16 and 17

-Loukas Tsoukalis, "Economic and Monetary Union: The Primacy of High Politics," in Brent Nelson and Alexander Stubbs, Readings on the Theory and Practice of European Integration

-Gerda Falkner, "Enlarging the European Union" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 13

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. Delors talks about the political pressure and impetus towards EMU. What sort of political pressure? Apparently it is not pressure from voters, so what is he talking about?
  2. This is perhaps an unanswerable question, one worth thinking about: Why did European politicians not worry that the consequence of a single currency for Europe might be the same as the consequence of a single currency for Germany: impoverishment of the weaker economies?
  3. Is there any possible link between the apparent desire of the governments of member countries to 'tie their hands' through monetary union and the desires of aspirant members to be accepted into the EU? Can one of these processes illuminate the other?

 

PART V: THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION

 

Wed, Nov 17th: Elections, Public Opinion and interest representation

-Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson, "The logic of organization: Interest groups" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union, Chapter 11

-Cees van der Eijk and Mark Franklin, Choosing Europe? Chapters 1-2 and 17

-Mark Franklin, "European Elections" in Jeremy Richardson, European Union Chapter 10

Pointers for effective reading:
  1. According to van der Eijk and Franklin, elections to the European Parliament do not perform the representation functions that are customary in European political systems. Are European elections more like American elections? If so, in what ways? Are there respects in which the American model might reassure us about the supposed deficiencies of European Parliament elections?
  2. From your reading about interest representation, do you get the impression that this route provides an adequate alternative to the electoral route for ensuring that EU institutions are responsive and responsible?
  3. Do you see parallels to the United States in the way in which interests are represented in the EU? Is it possible that the American model might give us a key to understanding why the EU is evolving in the way it is?

 

  • Wed, Nov 24th: ** THANKSGIVING BREAK **

     

    Wed, Dec 1st: Studying popular choices regarding Europe

    -Cees van der Eijk and Mark Franklin, Choosing Europe? Chapters 3 and 18-20

    -Cees van der Eijk, Mark Franklin and Michael Marsh, "What Voters Teach Us About Europe-Wide Elections; What Europe-Wide Elections Teach Us About Voters" Electoral Studies 1995 (available on the class website)

    Pointers for effective reading:
    1. Why does a political scientist study voting in elections to the European Parliament in order to better understand voting in national elections?
    2. Read Chapters 18-20 of Choosing Europe AFTER reading the article by van der Eijk, Franklin and Marsh which summarizes those chapters. Do not expect to understand the technical stuff. The important thing about the chapters is that they try to demonstrate that European elections COULD be different. It is not that European voters are myopically provincial that keeps European elections from being about Europe.
    3. Make sure you understand the research questions in Chapter 3 before trying to understand how those research questions are answered, in Chapters 18-20.

    Wed, Dec 8th: The concerns of voters

    -Cees van der Eijk and Mark Franklin, Choosing Europe? Chapter 21

    -Cees van der Eijk, Mark Franklin and Michael Marsh, "Referendum Outcomes and Trust in Government: Public Support for Europe in the Wake of Maastricht" in Jack Hayward, The Crisis of Representation in Europe (available on the class website)

    -Mark Franklin and Christopher Wlezien, "The Responsive Public: Issue Salience, Policy Change, and Preferences for European Unification," Journal of Theoretical Politics 1997 (available on the class website)

    -Mark Franklin and Fiona McGillivray, "Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul: European Union Politics as a Multi-Level Game against Voters" (paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1999).

    Pointers for effective reading:
    1. Why is it useful to understand voting in the Maastricht referenda in order to understand voting in European elections? (Hint: there is a passage in Chapter 21 of Choosing Europe? that explains the link).
    2. How do the findings in "The Responsive Public" answer at least one question left over from Choosing Europe?.
    3. When reading the recommendations for reform of EU institutions, in Chapter 21 of Choosing Europe?, try to understand how each proposed change would contribute to an electoral context in which proper (in the sense set out in Chapter 1 of Choosing Europe?) European elections could take place.
    4. The final paper listed above is quite technical. Just read the first two and final sections; and browse the rest if you feel inclined.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ends