Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration?
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration? From an ambitious project originally envisaged to remove the catastrophe of war from such a war-torn continent, the European project has proceeded in 'fits and starts'. Since its inception, there has been much debate regarding what forces drive the integration process forward. Why now, when interstate war in Europe seems impossible, do member states continue to 'pool' their sovereignty in so many areas? Two theories have dominated previous attempts to answer the question of "how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours, so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty."1 Neofunctionalism, the idea that the integration process, once started, develops its own momentum for further integration, saw the height of popularity in the 1960s, following the initial success of the ECSC/EEC and the hugely influential theoretical explanation by Ernst Haas. The second theory, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, surfaced in the 1990s and was championed by Andrew Moravcsik. It saw flaws in neofunctionalist thinking and instead offered an alternative account in which the integrative process was always, and remains, in the hands of national governments;
Critically assess Rhodes' (1997) argument that 'Policy networks of resource dependent organisations are a characteristic of the British policy process.'
Richard Swann Critically assess Rhodes' (1997) argument that 'Policy networks of resource dependent organisations are a characteristic of the British policy process.' Policy networks first emerged in the early 1980's. The origins of the theory were constructed by Richardson and Jordan however it was the work of Professor Rod Rhodes that moved the theory and our understanding of it on. Rhodes (1997) argument that, "policy networks of resource dependent organisations are a characteristic of the British political system," was one of his core themes in his book Understanding Governance. Despite the fact that Rhodes has written extensively on this area it is still debatable to what extent this statement is true. In an effort to assess Rhodes argument as well as considering the usefulness of the policy network approach I will examine it in the context of a policy area. My chosen case study is the internal market in health focusing on the G.P. fund holding scheme. For the purpose of looking at the relevance of Rhodes argument in the contexts of the policy process in this area I will evaluate policy networks activities from the 1991 Conservative reforms till the present New Labour government. The policy process in Britain in resent years can best be described as complex and hard to define. In British politics policy is not constructed in one single area, the policy process is not
Was Thatcherism just 'old-fashioned' Liberalism?
Was Thatcherism just 'old-fashioned' Liberalism? The panorama of the British political domain in the 1970s, and indeed since the end of the Second World War, has been one of apparent relative economic decline and social unrest. The Conservative election victory of 1979 marked the end of Keynesian economic management and consensus politics, signified clearly in the neoliberal rhetoric of the rising Thatcherite movement. In this context, Thatcherism can be seen in response to the 'creeping socialism' of the post-war period, but also in terms of Conservatism regaining the political ascendancy under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, following the disillusionment in the party caused by the what many saw as the failures of the Heath government of 1970-74. Thatcher and her allies, identifying the problems of the country illustrated by the economic decline since the war, the increasing role of the state and growing strength of organized labour, merely added zeal and vigour to New Right ideals and practice. Essentially this called for a rolling back of the state and the clear objective of promoting free market mechanisms as a means of preserving political freedom and individualism, the latter being diluted by the vastness of the bureaucracy of state. Indeed, this may lead to the conclusion that Thatcherism is, in its essence, Libertarian, echoing as it does (in theoretical terms)
How presidential is the premiership of Tony Blair.
HOW PRESIDENTIAL IS THE PREMIERSHIP OF TONY BLAIR? INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT The traditional view of the UK's constitutional arrangement of power in government has been that decision making in the executive rests with the cabinet, with the Prime Minister acting as "first amongst equals". However, this has been challenged by many recently, who argue Margaret Thatcher in particular challenged and now Tony Blair has almost eliminated cabinet government, and is the most powerful Prime Minister in the modern era. Some have claimed that Blair is now more of a Presidential figure than a Prime Minister working within the context of cabinet government, in that he exercises personal control over the executive branch and we have an executive decision and policy making process based on an individual rather than a collective body. Obviously there are some major differences between a Presidential system of government and the current British system. In the US, which is Presidential, you vote directly for who you want to become President. In Britain, you are voting for an individual who will become an MP in the Commons. The public has no direct say over who becomes PM; they have been chosen internally within the particular party. However, exit polls from the 2001 British general election do suggest that voters are increasingly influenced by the personalities of the party leaders1. During
What evidence is there that the state is still the dominant actor in World Politics?
What evidence is there that the state is still the dominant actor in World Politics? For some 300 years from its emergence in the mid seventeenth century the state - in the specific form of the nation state - was rightly regarded as the dominant actor in international economic relationships. (Dicken; 1998, pp 79) One of the most prominent features of the global political system in the second half of the twentieth century is the significant surge in numbers and importance of non state entities. The rise of these transnationally organised non state actors (NSA) and their growing involvement in world politics challenge the assumptions of traditional approaches to international relations which assume that states are the only important units of the international system. This essay plans to analyse the extent of the states dominance in the sphere of world politics. The analysis of NSA influence and the states gradually decreasing dominance shall be explored with reference to two vastly different schools of thought. The first school of thought to be examined is that of 'realism' where a state-centric approach is adopted. The second school of thought to be considered is that of a complex interdependence system where NSA enjoy an almost equal pegging to that of states in the field of international relations. This essay shall refer to and question amongst other things, the growing
DOES TONY BLAIR RUN A PRESIDENTIAL-STYLE ADMINISTRATION
DOES TONY BLAIR RUN A PRESIDENTIAL-STYLE ADMINISTRATION? In this paper, I intend to analyse the extent to which the current Labour administration shows the characteristics of a presidential government. To do this, the term 'presidential' must first be defined. A definition of a presidential government that is generally accepted by political analysts is 'a system of government in which the powers of the president are constitutionally separate from those of the legislature.' The British system of government is parliamentary and does not match the definition of presidential. Therefore, the question must be answered by looking at the individual features of a presidential government and comparing them with aspects of the Labour administration and Tony Blair in particular. I will conclude by summarising the arguments presented. In 1997 it is fair to say that the Labour party was desperate after being out of power for fifteen years. But there was hope. A relatively new face had emerged to become the leader of New Labour. In an era when political parties are run like organisations and rely on numbers and strong leaders, Tony Blair filled his party with excitement and anticipation. He went on to lead the party to a landslide victory in the general election after a campaign that focused significantly on his personality. Inevitably, Tony Blair was idolised by his party for
'A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do'. Does this sum up the essence of political power?
'A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do'. Does this sum up the essence of political power? Political power has been described as an "essentially contested concept1" and for good reason. Of all of the concepts in political science, power is probably that which is debated most often. This is perhaps unsurprising due to its importance within the discipline. Heywood suggests that "without doubt, students of politics are students of power2". The quote in the question refers to Robert Dahl's "intuitive idea of power3" outlined in his early article 'The Concept of Power4'. It is also the most commonly used 'definition' of power; however, to what extent does it describe the nature and essence of political power? As the extensive debate suggests, there are many problems when defining power. As the 'Oxford Dictionary of Politics explains, issues of "Intentionality", "Comparability and Quantifiability" and "Time and Causation5'" make arriving at a definition very difficult. Without Intentionality, it argues, "we are left with a paradoxical and useless concept of power... the concept of power becomes vague to the point of meaningless". Also, for a universal concept of power, it must allow for comparative analyses in the form of "A has more power than C in context x" or "A has more power than anybody else in context x" for example. This quote in the question
Explain the economic and political deficiencies of the C A P
Explain the economic and political deficiencies of the C A P To answer this question it is essential first to state the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy, as stated in Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome. ) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of all factors of production in particular labour. 2) To ensure thereby a 'fair' standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture. 3) to stabilize markets. 4) to provide certainty of supplies. 5) to ensure supplies to consumers at reasonable prices. The second part of the essay looks at why such a policy was deemed necessary, and also how far politics can account for the consistent failure of the Community to deal with its problems. But the first part concerns why in economic terms the policy is fundamentally flawed. The problems of the C.A.P. go deeper than economic theorising as to why the policy itself has created imbalances within the agricultural system. They are fundamental. `Economic logic dictates agriculture to be a major contributor to economic development. This is true especially in the primary stages, whereby it releases resources to other sectors. By increasing its own productivity the labour
'Critically discuss whether Britainhas been an 'awkward partner' (George) in relation to themovement towards European unity'.
'Critically discuss whether Britain has been an 'awkward partner' (George) in relation to the movement towards European unity'. Great confusion and differences in opinions exist today in Britain when considering the issue of Europe. The British Government seems to hold a wait and see policy on most issues raised within the European Parliament, whilst the citizens remain uncertain of the consequences and gains of deeper European Integration, with no definite leads from either of the main parties. When considering Britain's past involvement with Europe, it is continuing to show reluctance by remaining two steps behind everyone else. This reluctance in accepting all European policies and ideologies is why Britain is often dubbed the 'difficult' or 'awkward' partner. In this essay I intend to analyse these allegations to see to what extent Britain has been awkward. 'In 1902 Britain first entered into a long-term security alliance in peacetime' (Young 1993:02), but it was not only concerned with Europe. This alliance was signed after the Boer war, as it revealed the military weaknesses and problems of Europe uniting against Britain. Britain eventually committed itself to a war against the Central powers, Germany and Austria- Hungary in 1914, this required some large changes (such as restrictions on personnel freedom) and higher taxes. However Britain could not cope with these
'All political parties are prey to the iron law of oligarchy.' Discuss
'All political parties are prey to the iron law of oligarchy.' Discuss The 'iron law of oligarchy' was a phrase first used by the German sociologist Roberto Michels in his book Political Parties, published in 1916. From historic insight and studies of both the German SPD and the Italian Socialist parties, Michels concluded that all parties, whatever their initial intensions, would be controlled by a political elite or oligarchy, who separated themselves, by the control of the bureaucracy, from the masses of their own party ranks. The reasons for this tendency towards oligarchy were the natural necessity for society to have a ruling class, the self fuelling desire for party officials to gain and retain power, and the effectiveness that centralised parties had in a political environment. Since 1916 Michels' work has gained a huge amount of support, particularly as the pressures of parties to centralise power is becoming more important in an increasingly competitive political world, but it is not without its critics. Opponents claim that Michels and his followers paint too black and white a picture and while there does seem to be a strong tendency for oligarchy to form, it can not be said to be an 'iron rule', as there are a number of examples where political parties have not taken on such a form. Much of Michels 'iron rule' theory was influenced heavily by Karl Marx'
