The three articles all touch on the idea that the
most powerful/elite actors played key roles during the process of finalizing
the SEA but I found Moravcsik’s article to be the most compelling; however, some
aspects of this article were not well articulated. The article proposes that through
intergovernmental institutionalism, the role of supranational institutions in strengthening
“existing interstate bargains as the foundation for renewed integration” (56) was
dominant in finalizing the SEA. Moreover that European integration stems from
the states and their relative power in the EU.
The three principles of intergovernmental institutionalism
are as follows: 1). Intergovernmentalism is the expression of state interests
at the national level, meaning the interests of the state are influenced at the
domestic level not the international level 2). Lowest-common-denominator
bargaining is that of the dominant state interests 3). The protection of
sovereignty seeks to maintain state sovereignty without much loss to the supranational
organization (Marovcsik 25-26).
Moravcsik explains the three nationalistic goals by the dominant
states that lead to the overall approval of the SEA. Historically, Germany has profited
“directly from economic integration” (29); France moved forward for political
reasons as France’s term for EC presidency happened to come around at the time
of negotiations; and Britain was in favor of liberalizing the market so long as
the budgetary issues were resolved to their liking.
Through Weiner’s policy analysis guide I believe that this
theory effectively describes the account of the SEA. As Marovcsik explains, there
were three supranational factors that consistently recurred in EC reforms and
thus lead to the successful passage of the SEA in 1986: “pressures from EC
institutions; lobbying by transnational business interest groups; and the
political entrepreneurship of the Commission” (21).
Where Moravcsik struggled was in the definition of the problem as to why the SEA was sought.
The issue that lead to the passage of the SEA was not
explicitly defined as did the other two articles. According to the findings of Sanholtz &
Zysman and Garrett, the catalyst for reforms was the perceived decline
of American economic dominance (particularly in technology) and the rise of Asian
economies, specifically Japan. Clearly further research needs to be done to incorporate definitions of catalysts and domestic policy implications on the international level.
Rachel - I agree with you. I thought Moravcsik's article did the best in describing how the SEA came about, particularly through the perspective of intergovernmental institutionalism. I also agree that it didn't define the problem as to why the SEA was sought as well as the Garrett and Sanholtz & Zsyman articles. However, I think thought that the article did provide a glimpse of that through its discussion of the negotiating process, which I think provides a good way of understanding what the actors were trying to achieve. One thing that I thought both the Garrett and Sanholtz & Zysman article did better in, was in describing the institutional change that occurred along with the creation of a single internal market. The outlines/tables/figures given in both articles helped to me visualize what this change would like.
ReplyDeleteMight it be important to distinguish between the factors that lead to a certain policy process, on the one hand, and the factors that explain the positions actors take and the final form of the policy once the policy process has begun, on the other? I ask because I'm curious as to how domestic level political interests (farmers, business groups, retirees, etc.) can or did articulate a preference for a common market. This goes to the question that you note regarding Moravcsik's gap concerning the reason for why the SEA as opposed to other options, which is a very pertinent question!
DeleteI actually thought that Moravcsik over-emphasized the role of Heads of State and under-emphasized the role of business interests in the formation of the SEA, although he does seem to briefly acknowledge them on page 21 as you noted. But perhaps this stems from my dislike of intergovernmental institutionalism more generally, which (as Emily pointed out above) he seems to favor.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as you said Emily, I liked that the Garrett and Sanholtz/Zysman articles described more thoroughly the impact of the SEA on EU institutions generally. I think it's important to emphasize that the reach of the SEA goes well beyond the economy, since to secure its very formation it was necessary to revise the voting procedures of the EC and streamline the legislative process more generally, which has no doubt enhanced EU integration and helped bring an end to the 'doldrums era' of lagging EU integration after the Luxembourg Compromise.
Good observations here Ryan! I'm curious about what you and others think about the fit of the institutional changes (especially the changes to EC voting procedures) contained in the SEA with Mroavcsik's theory (especially his contention that states seek to preserve autonomy and sovereignty)?
DeleteI agree with Rachel in that Moravcsik struggled in defining the situation in the European Community that led to the creation of the single market. This is why I immediately had a greater preference for the other articles. And, although Moravcsik was very clear in his incorporation of theory, Garrett and Sanholtz & Zysman presented a more complete timeline of the SEA and it's institutional implications.
ReplyDeleteA good comment/question, Cassandra. Drawing on all of the readings and/or any background knowledge you might have, who were the key actors in bringing the idea of the SEA to the forefront of European politics in the 1980?s
DeleteThis post/thread has developed into a great discussion that helps illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the various accounts of the SEA. In general, I'm curious about what additional information we might need to more thoroughly adjudicate between the various accounts for the SEA and the advent of the Common Market? As you look at the steps for policy analysis described in the readings, where (at which step) do you find yourself looking for more information to figure out which account is most logical and accurate?
ReplyDelete