4. :1: definitions
What is a policy process?
policy process is a process when
agents produce political outcomes
in given structures/institutions
according to their preferences
5. :1: definitions
rationalism is 'an individualist or agency theory,
which requires an explanation of, first, actor
preferences and, second, collective outcomes
as a result of aggregated individual actions
based on these preferences' (Schimmelfennig,
Rittberger: 86-87)
7. :1: definitions
The three new institutionalisms (Hall, Taylor: 942;
Rosamond: 123)
rationalism constructivism
Rational Choice i. Historical i. Sociological i.
Calculus approach Cultural approach
8. :1: definitions
constructivists 'see interests as socially constructed
rather than pre-given, which means that regularities in
the international system are the consequence of
collective... meanings' (Rosamond: 130)
constructivism 'demonstrates how European institutions
can construct, through a process of interaction, the
identities and interests of member states' (Checkel
2001a: 52)
10. :2: what's wrong with rationalism?
how do they define
the preferences?
outcome = Σ of preferences x institutions
11. :2: what's wrong with rationalism?
how do they define the preferences?
Moravscik (1998) -> the aggregated economic interest
Hoffmann (1966) -> the security and sovereignty
precariousness
12. :2: what's wrong with rationalism?
outcome1 = Σ of preferences x institutions1
outcome2 = Σ of preferences x institutions2
outcome3 = Σ of preferences x institutions3
…
Preferences remain
the same
13. :2: what's wrong with rationalism?
That's the way they model reality
14. :3: how constructivism can help fix it?
outcome = Σ of preferences x institutions
institutions define preferences because of
'social learning' (Checkel 2001b: 562-563)
15. :3: how constructivism can help fix it?
social learning occurs:
in new environments;
when external constraints are low;
in a less formal situation
(Checkel 2001b: 562-563)
=> that means, quite often
especially in the EU
16. :3: how constructivism can help fix it?
outcome1 = Σ identities1 x institutions1 =>
(1) => outcome2 = Σ identities2 x institutions2 but also
(2) => outcome2 = outcome1 x institutions2
…
Outcomes are determined by the present institutions
and by actor's learning while interacting in the previous
institutions. The learning can change identities.
18. :4: how it works in practice /examples/
two examples:
high and low
politics
19. :4: how it works in practice /examples/
High politics: Explaining the Constitutionalization of the
European Union (Rittberger, Schimmelfennig)
community environment: (1) creates the
framework for arguing process, (2) community
ethos is used as a resource of support for the
argument, (3) actors care for their good images
of credible and consistent arguers.
20. :4: how it works in practice /examples/
Low politics: construction of organic farming policy
field as a discoursive process (Lynggaard)
shows the ideational nature of institutional
change
21. :: conclusion
(1)promising study agenda
(2)problems with implementation
(3)usage of 'constructivism' as a label
(4)most likely, future cohesion with
rationalism
22. :: literature
Checkel, Jeffrey, (2001a) 'Social Construction and European Integration', in
Christiansen, Thomas, Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener, Antje (eds.), The
Social Construction Of Europe, London, Sage, pp. 50-65.
Checkel, Jeffrey, (2001b) 'Why Comply? Social Learning and European
Identity Change', International Organization, vol. 55, no. 3, 2001 pp. 553-
588.
Christiansen, Thomas, Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener, Antje,
'Introduction', in Christiansen, Thomas, Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener,
Antje (eds.), The Social Construction Of Europe, London, Sage, pp. 1-21.
Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary C.R. Taylor, 'Political Science and the Three
New Institutionalisms', Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 5, 1996, pp. 936-957.
23. :: literature
Hoffmann, Stanley, 'Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of Nation-State and
the Case of Western Europe', Daedalus, vol. 95, no. 3, 1966, pp. 862-915.
Lynggaard, Kennet, 'The institutional construction of a policy field: a
discursive institutional perspective on change within the common
agricultural policy', Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 14, no. 2, 2007,
pp. 293-312.
Moravscik, Andrew, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State
Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1998.
Pollack, Mark, 'Rational Choice and EU Politics' in K.Joegensen, M.Pollack
& B.Rosamond (eds.), Handbook of European Union Politics, London:
Sage Publications, 2007, pp. 31-55.
24. :: literature
Rittberger, Berthold, Schimmelfennig, Frank, 'Explaining the
Constitutionalization of the European Union', Journal of European Public
Policy, vol. 13, no. 8, 2006, pp. 1148-1167.
Rosamond, Ben, 'New Theories of European Integration' in M. Cini (ed.)
European Union Politics (2nd edition), Oxford: OUP, 2007, pp. 117-136.
Schimmelfennig, Frank, Rittberger, Berthold, 'Theories of European
Integration: Assumptions and Hypotheses' in J. Richardson (ed.),
European Union: Power and Policy-making (3rd edition), London:
Routledge, 2006, pp. 73-95.
Pictures by various photographers, downloaded from
www.flickr.com
25. :?: questions
1. Can institutions change the identity of actors or can they only change their
behaviour?
2. Is constructivism more than just an additional set of views to complement findings of
rational theory? Can constructivism become a theory?
3. Proponents of constructivist approaches often cite aspects of the enlargement
process as an argument to prove the usefulness of their approach. But what can
rationalism teach us about the enlargement process?
4. Has rationalism sufficiently responded to the criticism of
‚ontological blindness’ and the criticism of ‚explaining
change’?
5. Do you agree with Checkel that constructivism needs
a more rational epistemology or do you think that purely
interpretative and qualitative methods are sufficient?
