Liberal Intergovernmentalism

barren-hearted Inter brassalismWhat extract for europium? Reflections on chest of drawers and grammatical construction in Liberal Inter organisationalism pluck This condition examines how the kindred amidst agency and structure is dealt with in Liberal Intergovernmentalism, a prevalent possible action of European integrating. It demonstrates that, contrary to the widespread watch over that it is agency-centred, Liberal Intergovernmentalism is in fact a highly morphologicalist possibility in the render aras it claims to explain beat out. In these beas integration is at last explained in al-Qaida of developments in scotch structures, leaving no room for agency and ideas. The condition as well as shows that, despite the immenseness it ascribes to changes in scotch structures, Liberal Intergovernmentalism fails to ponder their likely causes.Keywords Liberal Intergovernmentalism Moravcsik spot Structure Integration possibleness exclusively in all over the past two decades Andrew Moravcsiks Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) has established itself as one of the prevailing theories of European integration. Elegantly combining a liberal theory of m exposehful potpourriation with an intergovernmentalist theory of inter state bargains and a functional theory of institutional weft it explains European integration as the out come to the fore forth of a serial of intergovernmental negotiations. More than either a nonher(prenominal) contemporary theory of integration LI and its application in empirical analyses has provoked discussion in the subject atomic number 18a of EU studies. Opinions argon divided between those who admire LI for its economy and predictive power and those who feel that its account of regional integration misses out on too frequently of importance. Either focusing, heavy(a)ly anyone would dispute that it continues to be a theory that it is essential to relate to in one way or an separate in theoretically co gnizant work on European integration.The purpose of this condition is to critically examine the liberal intergovernmentalist translation of integration from a meta-theoretical location. More precisely, it will be systematically analysed how the apprisalship between agency and structure is dealt with in LI. Any theorys account of the kindly foundation, or delimited parts of it, is found on a particular, albeit a lot implicit, conceptualisation of the agency-structure relationship and whether or not this conceptualisation is convincing impacts greatly on the quality of the theorys account of favorable phenomena and change. There is olibanum near(prenominal) to be learned round a theory, in this case LI, from examining its central assumptions with respect to agency and structure. This is however to a greater extent so because bulgeances can be deceiving as it will be argued in this article, LI which appears and is widely fabricated to offer an agency-centred account o f European integration, turns out to do the opposite on closer scrutiny.In addition to this introduction and a conclusion the article is divided into seven sections. The origin two sections enclothe the degree for by and by analyses by briefly introducing LI and the question of the agency-structure relationship, musical composition likewise explanation for their respective significance. The following troika sections examine how the agency-structure question is dealt with at separately of the three stages of LI election formation, interstate bargaining and institutional cream. Against this orbit section six critically examines the liberal intergovernmentalist explanation of European integration before section seven discusses the semipolitical implications of LI.1. Liberal IntergovernmentalismAndrew Moravcsiks Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) was first presented in the early 1990s and later elaborated and applied in a string of publications of which the monumental book T he Choice for Europe (1998) contains the close to detailed exposition and test of the theory. LI is presented as a mannikin for synthesising theories into a coherent account of regional integration. The latter is explained as the number of a series of celebrated intergovernmental bargains (Moravcsik, 1993 473). More precisely integration is apprehendn as the outcome of a three-stage exhibit where (1) subject atomic number 18a lodge ins or goals arise in the mise en scene of domestic politics (2) governments bargain with severally early(a) to elevate their subject interest and (3) governments make an institutional select to secure thinkable commitment once a meaty give extraneousment has been reached.LI pronto became a focal point in thinks on how to theorise European integration and it has subsequently kept this position. According to Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig (2009 67), LI has acquired the circumstance of a baseline theory in the study of regional integrati on an congenital first cut explanation against which some other(a) theories ar often comp atomic number 18d. In their sentiment, it has achieved this dominant status due to its theoretical soundness, empirical power, and utility as a foundation for synthesis with other explanations (2009 67). To be sure, not e very(prenominal)one would sum up with this latter sentiment. As alluded to in the introduction, several scholars devour criticised the theory for movie a too incomplete or even misleading outline of the European integration process and the empirical power of the resulting analyses has often been questioned (e.g. Diez, 1999 Smith, 2000 Wincott, 1995 discriminate withal Cini, 2007 112-14 for an overview of scarce roughly critiques of LI). Inasmuch as relatively few scholars besides Moravcsik appear to wholeheartedly embrace LI (Pollack, 2001 however, cf. Laursen, 2002), it is probably fair to hypothecate that it has acquired its status as a baseline theory as much because of its perceived weaknesses as because of its strengths.Similar to Waltzs (1979) neo documentaryism LI is a parsimonious and nervy theory that lends itself to accusations of neglecting or chthonianestimating the significance of classical parameters in the case of LI for example trans field of study business groups and activist supranational institutions. Indeed, LI does this deliberately, desire to simplify EU politics, stressing the essential and excluding legitimate fleckary activities (Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig, 2009 68). Hereby it follows the neo-positivist rule for theory construction, according to which theories should take the form of simplified models that can yield efforts to make generalisations by singling out as few variables as possible and account for the causal relations between, and the relative weight of, these variables. Falsifiable hypothesises atomic number 18 get aheadd from such(prenominal) theories and subsequently tested against reliab le empirical teaching. On the basis of such tests, theories can then be further refined or occasionally discarded. (1)Testing LI is precisely what Moravcsik sets out to do in The Choice for Europe. Here standardised hypotheses derived from LI and competing (albeit for the most part artificial) theories ar tested against an overwhelming amount of empirical data in quin cases studies. Needless to say, LI comes out on top as the theory with the by far greatest explanatory power. More by and large, The Choice for Europe constitutes an example par excellence of research informed by neo-positivist manners and standards. In its early pages Moravcsik informs his readership that the book eschews ad hoc explanation and seeks instead to discover what is generalizable about EC history (1998 2) and that it is based on methods which, while far from ideal, fuss to a greater extent(prenominal) rigorous, transpargonnt, objective, and reliable tests of competing theoretical claims about Euro pean integration than have heretofore been conducted (1998 10). The bulk of studies of EC decision-making are criticised for biased data picking and for relying on citations to secondary sources themselves drawn from journalistic commentary or exempt other secondary sources (1998 10). In contrast to this, Moravcsik claims to have backed potentially controversial attribution of motive or strategy by hard primary sources (direct evidence of decision-making) rather than soft or secondary sources (1998 10, see also pp. 80-84). (2)2. Agency and structureThe question of how to conceptualise the relationship between agency and structure is arguably one of the most alpha questions approach social scientists (Archer, 1995 65). This is due to the importance of agency and structures in the social earthly concern and to the fact that it is impossible to offer explanations of events in the social world without charitable to some understanding of their relationship. As mentioned in the int roduction at that place is gum olibanum much to be learned about the nature and quality of satisfying theories from examining their underlying assumptions with respect to this relationship. Yet the way the latter is dealt with is also master(prenominal) for political reasons, to which we will come back in section 7 below. Agency announces the ability of agents, whether individuals or groups, to act upon situations and it implies a sense of free will, choice or autonomy that the actor could have behaved contrastingly (Hay, 2002 94). Agency should thus not be confused with concepts like individuals, actors or agents without anticipating the conclusions of this article too much, a theory can refer to plenty of agents, while not allowing for any agency. Structure, on the other extend, refers to the relational context at bottom which agents operate. Structures define the range of options available to agents.Nowadays the vast volume of scholars agree that both agency and structur e matter phenomena and developments in the social world issue not from either one or the other but are a product of both. If this is the case then it is necessary to break with the two ways of conceptualising the relation between agency and structure that have traditionally been dominant within social theory, viz. geomorphologic linguistics and individualism. In their pure versions these positions either picture agents as marionettes ( geomorphologicalism) or as omnipotent puppet-masters (individualism) (Archer, 1995 XXXXX). However, knowing that both agency and structure matter does not in itself take us far. To make a difference the keenness needs to be incorporated into crucial theories and this is by no inwardness an easy task. This consecrates to explain why many theories end up fling reductionist explanations of the specific social phenomena they are meant to render intelligible.In the subject of International Relations (IR) a debate over the agent-structure problem wa s initiated in the late 1980s by scholars such as Wendt (1987) and Hollis and Smith (1990). Later, and sure enough no less interesting contributions to this debate included Doty (1997), Bieler and Morton (2001) and Wight (2006). The debate has done much to clarify and in many cases criticise the ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying mainstream IR theories, particularly Waltzian neorealism (Waltz, 1979). In EU Studies a similar debate has not taken place, and although in particular some constructivist scholars, have taken an interest in the agency-structure relationship (e.g. Wind, 2001), a comprehensive examination study of the way the most important theories of European integration and system deal with it has yet to be published. However, it seems to be a widespread view among EU scholars that many of these theories privilege agency over structure. For good example, Risse (2004 161) writes that the prevailing theories of European integration whether neofunction alism, liberal intergovernmentalism, or multi- take aim governance are firmly act to a discerningist ontology which is agency-centred by definition. In a similar vein, other scholars have noticed the ahistorical and structure-blind assumptions underlying intergovernmentalism (Hix, 1994 9) and observed that in LI agents are, implicitly or explicitly, considered primary actors ultimately determine the shape of boilersuit structures (Christiansen, 1998 103). In the next sections, the validity of this widespread view will be examined through an analysis of the way the agency-structure relationship is dealt with at each of the three stages in LI.3. National preference formationThe first stage in explaining the outcome of intergovernmental bargains is to account for the national preferences, which are outlined as an come in and weighted set of values placed on proximo substantial outcomes that might result from international political interaction (Moravcsik, 1998 24). This is done by means of a liberal political economy theory of preference formation, according to which national preferences arise in the context of domestic politics, where national government leaders form them on the basis of the preferences and actions of the most important social groups. Most important among these are domestic producers The systematic political bias in favor of existing producer groups and against those, notably consumers, taxpayers, triplet-country producers, and also potential future tense producers, stems from the formers more intense, certain, and institutionally represented and organized interests (1998 36). The state is conceptualised as a representative institution constantly subject to mother and recapture by social groups (Moravcsik, 1997 518). Because governments have an interest in rest in office, they need the support from coalitions of domestic actors. The policies quest ford by governments are therefore restrain by the underlying identities, interests , and power of individuals and groups who constantly atmospheric pressure the central decision makers to pursue politics consistent with their preferences (ibid 518). In other words, groups articulate preferences governments aggregate them and it is through this process that the set of national interests or goals that states experience to international negotiations emerges (Moravcsik, 1993 483).To evaluate the way the agency-structure relationship is dealt with at this stage in LI it is gullly crucial to understand the origins of the preferences of societal groups. approximately of the early critics of LI suggested that the theory fails to account adequately for this. For instance, it was pointed out that the origins of such interests are exogenized (Risse-Kappen, 1996 56) while others claimed that in LI interests are not structurally derived (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995 44) and even that they emerge mysteriously (McSweeney, 1998 101). Had it in fact been the case that LI leaves completely open the question of where the preferences of societal groups come from it would have allowed for an agency-centred perspective on preference formation. That is, preferences could have been formed on the basis of all sorts of ideas and individual inclinations. However, this would have seriously undermined the parsimony and explanatory power of the theory and hence it was in fact never left open where preferences come from. As Moravcsik has made clear, LI perceives preferences to be directly caused by structural helping, more precisely economic structures I employ a structural theory of those preferences. My structural approachemploys trade flows, competitiveness, inflation rates, and other data to predict what the economic preferences of societal actors and therefore governments should be (Moravcsik, 1999b 377).In other words, economic preferences are derived from economic structures societal groups organise and articulate their preferences on the basis of calculations of net expected costs and benefits resulting from the introduction of new policies (Moravcsik, 1993 489). It follows as a logical implication that shifts in preferences should follow the onset and put in the resolution of shifts or trends in economic circumstances (Moravcsik, 1998 50).The assumption that economic structures translate directly into specific preferences is made possible by the rationality assumption underpinning LI. The widespread view that LI is agency-centred is related to this assumption that individuals, groups, governments and even states are rational. This begs the question of what rationalism precisely entails, especially as some scholars have suggested that Moravcsik fails to spell this clearly out (Christiansen et al., 2001 4). In a recent piece Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig (2009 68) put it as followsRationalism is an individualist or agency assumption. Actors calculate the alternative courses of action and choose the one that maximizes (or satisfies) the ir utility under the circumstances. Collective outcomes are explained as the result of aggregated individual actions based on efficient pursuit albeit subject to the information at hand and equivocalty about the future.Despite the qualifications at the end of the quote it is clear that whatever this uncertainty pertains to it is not to the consequences of the actions of agents agents are false to be very well-informed about these because, as Moravcsik has put it himself, in a world in which the future consequences of actions are unknown LI would make fine sense (1995 626). This is an important manifestation, because the more it is fictive that agents know the future consequences of their actions, the more it must also be assumed that they are fully informed about the context in which they currently acknowledge themselves. It is quite apparently logically inconceivable that an agent can somehow know the future consequences of his or her actions without having perfect or very close to perfect information at hand at the moment of the action itself. Moravcsik is thus significantly underplaying the strength of his rationality assumption when stating that it takes no position on whether states are fully informed, though a framework in which states are assumed to be informed generally performs well (1998 23). Why not toss the plank? Surely states and other agents can safely be assumed to be blessed full information if it has already been established that no or very few un mean consequences will follow from their actions?At the end of the day the rationality assumption boils down to the view that agents are utility-maximisers with clearly ordered preferences who are (almost?) fully informed, also about the future consequences of actions. However, it should not be concluded from this that LI is an agency-centred theory as the stodgy wisdom has it. As we have seen preceding(prenominal), preferences are derived from economic structures not just in the weak sense that structures are important in relation to preferences but in the strong sense that they alone dictate preferences (albeit with a minor qualification to which we will return in a moment). Because the rational agents are assumed to be so well-informed their actions choke foreseeable once their structural environment has been mapped. Indeed, only structures matter here inasmuch as preferences are by definition causally independent of the strategies of other actors (Moravcsik, 1997 519, see also 1998 24-25).Moreover, ideas are for the most part not allowed to play any role in relation to preference formation. It is worth dwelling on this for a moment. On one hand, Moravcsik does not hesitate to acknowledge the importance of ideas, as when he proclaims that they are like oxygen or voice communication it is essentially impossible for humans to function without them (Moravcsik, 2001 229). On the other hand, ideas do not play a very prominent role in LI, which is also recognized by Moravcsik when he writes that in the LI account of integration, ideas are present but not causally central. They may be distant or random, or, more likely, they are transmission belts for interests (Moravcsik, 2001 229). The only reason why Moravcsik can correctly maintain that in LI some national preferences are grounded in ideas (1998 23) is because some importance is ascribed to the latter in issue areas where the framework consequences of policy initiatives are more or less impossible to calculate. For instance, he mentions questions of European institutions and common foreign policy as issues where governments/states will generally not to be under strong pressure from societal groups to pursue particular policies, which creates some room for government leaders to act on the basis of ideologies and personal commitments (Moravcsik, 1993 494 see also Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig, 2009 85).According to Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig (2009 76), LI best explains policy-making in issue areas where social preferences are relatively certain and well defined. In the core areas, like trade, agriculture and monetary policy, ideas are not assumed to influence preference formation at all. When it comes to insignificant, stupendous and speculative issues like those mentioned above or the Open Method of Coordination (ibid. 85) where the preferences of societal groups are less clear and strong, and where the explanatory power of LI is thus recognised to be limited, ideas are conveniently allowed to play a role. To recapitulate, in LI no importance is ascribed to ideas in the explanation of what is (correctly) considered to be the substantively important issues (ibid. 85) in the European integration process here economic structures do the job alone. (3)4. International bargainsOnce the national preferences have been formulated, national decision-makers bring them to the intergovernmental bargaining table. At this second stage LI applies an intergovernmentalist bargai ning theory in order to explain the outcome of negotiations. As the primary interest of the governments is to remain in office, they have a clear incentive to preserve the national interest in the negotiation. Accordingly, the configuration of domestically determined national preferences defines a bargaining space of potentially viable agreements (Moravcsik, 1993 496-497). The outcome of a concrete negotiation, however, not only reflects the different national preferences but also the relative bargaining power of different states. Moravcsik defines power in ground of asymmetric interdependence Bargaining leverage stems most fundamentally from asymmetries in the relative intensity of national preferences, which reflect the relative costs of agreements to transfer negative externalities (ibid. 1993 499). This means that the power of each government is inversely relative to the relative value that it places on an agreement (Moravcsik, 1998 62).How, then, is the agency-structure r elationship dealt with at this second stage? Or to put it differently how much freedom does government leaders have to pursue their own preferences or ideas (agency) and how much are they constrained by their context (structure)? First, the answer to this question depends on the issue area. As mentioned, governments are severely constrained by domestic societal groups in core areas here they can only act within a narrow bargaining space which limits their freedom considerably. In more marginal (non-economic) issue areas this space widens and government leaders enjoy more freedom to pursue their own agendas. Second, any particular government is constrained by the bargaining spaces of other governments. The nature of these determines the extent to which a government leader is capable of realising national interests. Finally, the outcomes of previous bargains serve as the status quo with respect to which societal actors and governments calculate preferences and alternatives to agreemen t (Moravcsik, 1995 612).As mentioned above, the outcome of a concrete bargain reflects the relative bargaining power of each state. As bargaining power is defined in terms of asymmetric interdependence it is, in fact, derived from the very same structures as national preferences. These structures determine how personable a potential policy is to societal groups and thus governments and consequently they also determine the relative bargaining power. Relative power is thus ultimately decided at the structural level not at the level of agents. This brings us back to the point that was raised in the previous section, namely that the rationality assumption underpinning LI does not serve to render it an agency-centred theory. To be sure, there are plenty of agents in LI, and there is no denying that the theory belongs to the tradition of methodological individualism. But by substituting real agents with calculating machines who always know what they want and are never uncertain about the future and even their own stakes and interests (Risse, 2009 147), LI efficaciously ends up with no notion of agency at all, at to the lowest degree not in its account of integration in core issue areas.That it is apparently unnecessary to study the interaction between state representatives in order to explain the outcome of a bargain tells it all the creativity, charisma, durability and negotiating abilities of particular agents are insignificant in LI. By assuming that agents are identical in the sense of creation rational it is possible to derive the outcome of bargains simply by looking at the context in which it takes place. This makes LI a structuralist theory also in its second stage. To be sure, the structuralism of LI differs from conventional structuralism inasmuch as the former retains a focus on agents and their free choices. But the point is that the methodological individualism of LI and other rational choice theories does not entail a genuine notion of agency i n that a free choice is neither free nor, indeed, a real choice, if it is always already abandoned by the context in which the agent operates (see also Hay, 2002 103-104 Tsebelis, 1990 40). (4)5. Institutional choiceOnce governments have reached substantive agreement in a bargain, they set up institutional arrangements in order to secure it. At this third stage LI adopts a functional theory of institutional choice according to which governments pool or delegate authority in order to constrain and control one another (Moravcsik, 1998 9). Authority is pooled when governments for instance agree to take decisions in an issue area by means of commensurate majority voting in the Council, whereas delegation refers to the transfer of authority to more or less autonomous supranational institutions (ibid. 1998 67). Pooling and delegation are viewed as solutions to the problem of incomplete contracting, which arises when member governments share broad goals but find it too costly or technica lly impossible to specify all future contingencies involved in legislating or enforcing those goals (ibid. 1998 73).By pooling or delegating, the credibility of the commitment to the substantive agreement that has been reached is enhanced. But by swelled up authority in an issue area governments clearly grade the risk of being either outvoted by other governments (pooling) or of being overruled by supranational institutions (delegation) in future cases. Hence, the specific level of pooling or delegation reflects a reciprocal cost-benefit analysis governments renounce unilateral options in order to assure that all governments will coordinate their behavior in particular ways (ibid. 1998 75). LI predicts that pooling and delegation will vary crosswise issues and countries. Again, the preferences of societal groups are crucial Governments transfer sovereignty to commit other governments to accept policies favored by key domestic constituencies (ibid. 1998 76). As accounted for above the preferences of societal groups are seen as structurally determined, at least in the core issue areas. In the end the governments institutional choices thus become rather mechanical, following more or less automatically from the circumstances in which they are made.According to LI, international institutions are passive, transaction-cost reducing sets of rules (Moravcsik, 1993 508) that for instance serve to provide states with information to reduce the states uncertainty about each others future preferences and behaviour (Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig, 2009 72). Somewhat surprisingly, Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig link the introduction of such institutions to unlooked-for consequences of actions, proclaiming that LI also assumes the existence of the latterIf un pass judgment consequences did not exist, there would be no need for international institutions to elaborate incomplete contracts to set about with. The reason for institutions is precisely to elaborate agreements and cr edibly lock in conformity against defection by future unsatisfied governments (2009 75).This, to be sure, is a reasonably unorthodox and problematic use of the concept. When, for instance, historical institutionalists are talking about unintended or unanticipated consequences in the context of European integration, their line of products is that supranational institutions and policies tend to develop in ways not originally envisaged and subsequently not approved of by member state governments (Pierson, 1996). imputable to path dependency and other mechanisms such institutions and the course of the integration process can become impossible for governments to control.Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig clearly have something altogether different in mind when they talk about unanticipated consequences. In fact, what they are talking about can more accurately be denoted anticipated but undesired outcomes. These arise when rational governments anticipate that there is a risk that other rati onal governments will not comply with the substantive agreement that has been reached in an intergovernmental bargain. To avoid this undesired outcome governments agree on an institutional arrangement to create certainty. On this view, institutions (being passive, transaction-cost reducing sets of rules) only contribute to minimise uncertainty by eliminating the risk of undesired outcomes (see also Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig, 2009 72) it is incredible that they can develop and behave in ways not intended by governments. At the end of the day, it is not unintended consequences that LI assumes the existence of but rather the ability of governments to very accurately predict the consequences of their substantive agreement and on this basis chose the most suitable institutional agreements. This doubtful assumption can obviously only be made if it is held, as LI does, that agents are blessed with more or less perfect information, also of future outcomes of their actions (see also Pi erson, 2004 115-XXX).6. What choice for Europe?the motivations and coalitions underlying national preferences in specific decisions reflected the economic interest of sectors as predicted by their structural position in global markets any feedback must take the form of changes in economic structures, not ideas (Moravcsik, 1999b 382)The liberal intergovernmentalist explanation of regional integration ultimately comes down to developments in economic structures and it is therefore logical and tolerate that Moravcsik (1998 501) refers to it as a structural perspective. Although the concept of economic structures is not defined as clearly as other LI concepts, it basically appears to denote the phenomena that economic indicators are expressions of, examples being trade flows, inflation rates, wealth and competitiveness. The method is thus to use economic indicators as expressions of the economic structures determining the preferences of agents. For instance it reads thatTaken together , capital mobility, trade flows, and inflationary convergence provide a prima facie explanation of the progressive shift in national preferences away from, then back toward, exchange-rate cooperation over the two decades following the collapse of the Bretton Woods. This check saw an increase in economic openness and, beginning in the late 1970s, convergence toward low inflation (Moravcsik, 1998 48)But what caused this and other shifts in economic circumstances? What explains the timing of such shifts? Considering the enormous importance it ascribes to economic structures it would be completely reasonable to expect LI to address and tentatively provide a theoretical answer to such questions. But it doesnt In all fairness, Moravcsik