Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:04:17.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Several Roads Lead to International Norms, but Few Via International Socialization: A Case Study of the European Commission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2009

Liesbet Hooghe
Affiliation:
Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Professor in Multilevel Governance, Free University of Amsterdam
Jeffrey T. Checkel
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Get access

Summary

To what extent can an international organization socialize those who work within it? In order for international institutions in Europe to socialize states and state agents into international norms, they must themselves emanate these norms. But can one simply presume that the people who work within international organizations share international norms, and if so, what are the causal mechanisms?

The Commission of the European Union (hereafter the European Commission) is a crucial case for examining socialization within an international organization. Crucial cases “offer valuable tests because they are strongly expected to confirm or disconfirm prior hypotheses.” Compared with other international organizations in Europe, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the Council of Europe, the European Commission is extraordinarily autonomous and powerful, and this, socialization theory predicts, should make it the most likely site for socialization. The European Commission is the steering body of the world's most encompassing supranational regime. It has a vocation to identify and defend the European interest over and above—and if need be, against—particular national interests. It is the agenda setter in the European Union (EU). It also has the authority to select and groom its employees with minimal national interference. So there are strong reasons to expect international socialization to be effective in the European Commission. If this powerful body cannot shape its employees' preferences, which international organization can?

How can one make sense of top Commission officials' support for, or opposition to, the European Commission's core norms?

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abélès, Marc, and Bellier, Irène. 1996. La Commission européenne: du compromis culturel à la culture politique du compromis. Revue Française de Science Politique 46 (3):431–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Beck, Paul, and Jennings, M. Kent. 1991. Family Traditions, Political Periods, and the Development of Partisan Orientation. Journal of Politics 53 (3):742–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caporaso, James. 2000. Changes in the Westphalian Order: Territory, Public Authority, and Sovereignty. International Studies Review 2 (2):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey. 2003. ‘Going Native’ in Europe? Theorizing Social Interaction in European Institutions. Comparative Political Studies 36 (1):209–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 2000. Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack, Green, Donald P., Muste, Christopher, and Wong, Cara. 1997. Public Opinion Toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations. Journal of Politics 59 (3):858–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1991. Political Socialization: Where's the Politics? In Political Science: Looking to the Future, Vol. 3, edited by William Crotty, 125–52. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Coombes, David. 1970. Politics and Bureaucracy of the European Community: A Portrait of the Commission of the E.E.C. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Cram, Laura. 1994. The European Commission as a Multi-Organization: Social Policy and IT Policy in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 1 (2):195–217.Google Scholar
Crano, William D. 1997. Vested Interest, Symbolic Politics, and Attitude-Behavior Consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (3):485–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dod's European Companion. 1992, 1994. London: Dod's Politial Publishing.
Druckman, Daniel. 1994. Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective. Mershon International Studies Review 38 (1):43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchéne, François. 1994. Jean Monnet: The First Statesman of Interdependence. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, edited by Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., 79–137. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Egeberg, Morten. 1999. Transcending Intergovemmentalism? Identity and Role Perceptions of National Officials in EU Decision-Making. Journal of European Public Policy 6 (3):456–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1990. When Rationality Fails. In The Limits of Rationality, edited by Cook, Karen Schweers and Levi, Margaret, 19–51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey. 2002. European Integration, Party Politics and Voting in the 2001 Election. British Elections and Parties Review 12:95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. 1996. First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion 1996. DG XVI, 144, Table 24. Brussels: European Commission.
European Convention. 2003. Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. CONV 850/03. Brussels: European Parliament.
Euro's Who's Who: Who's Who in the European Communities and in the Other European Organizations. 1991. Brussels: Editions Delta.
Fearon, James, and Alexander Wendt. 2002. Rationalism versus Constructivism: A Skeptical View. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A., 52–72. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gabel, Matthew, and Anderson, Chris. 2002. The Structure of Citizen Attitudes and the European Political Space. Comparative Political Studies 35 (8):893–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goren, Paul. 2001. Core Principles and Policy Reasoning in Mass Publics: A Test of Two Theories. British Journal of Political Science 31 (1):159–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Ernst. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces, 1950–1957. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartung, Harald. 2001. Eurobarometer 54.1: Building Europe and the European Union: The European Parliament, Public Safety, and Defense Policy, November–December 2000. Brussels: European Opinion Research Group EEIG.
Hemmer, Christopher, and Katzenstein, Peter. 2002. Why Is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism. International Organization 56 (3):575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Lord, Christopher. 1997. Political Parties in the European Union. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2001. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2002. The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2003. Europe Divided? Elites vs. Public Opinion on European Integration. European Union Politics 4 (3):281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2003. Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. American Political Science Review 97 (2):233–43.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2003. Group Identity and Political Cohesion. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert, 511–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon, and König, Thomas. 2002. In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (4):447–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites. Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4):419–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M Kent, and Stoker, Laura. 2001. The Persistence of the Past: The Class of 1965 Turns Fifty. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. Treating International Institutions as Social Environments. International Studies Quarterly 45 (4):487–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Judith. 2004. International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions. International Organization 58 (3):425–57.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2002. Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (4):743–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legro, Jeffrey. 1996. Culture and Preferences in the International Cooperation Two-Step. American Political Science Review 90 (1):118–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, Leon N., and Scheingold, Stuart A.. 1970. Europe's Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Linden, Ronald H., ed. 2002. Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and East European States. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Marks, Gary, and Steenbergen, Marco, eds. 2004. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Gary, Liesbet Hooghe, Moira Nelson, and Erica Edwards. 2006. Party Competition and European Integration in East and West: Different Structure, Same Causality. Comparative Political Studies 39.CrossRef
McKeown, Timothy. 2004. Case Studies and the Limits of the Quantitative Worldview. In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David, 139–67. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Eric. 1981. On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Edward. 1995. Administering Europe. In Governing the New Europe, edited by Hayward, Jack and Page, Edward, 257–85. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Edward. 1997. People Who Run Europe. Oxford: Clarendon/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Page, Edward C., and Wright, Vincent, eds. 1999. Bureaucratic Elites in Western European States: A Comparative Analysis of Top Officials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, John. 1999. The Santer Era: The European Commission in Normative, Historical and Theoretical Perspective. Journal of European Public Policy 6 (1):46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, Mark. 2000. The End of Creeping Competence? EU Policy-Making Since Maastricht. Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (3):519–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, Mark. 2003. The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1973. The Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict and Democracy in Britain and Italy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2000. ‘Let's Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organisation 54 (1):1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2001. A European Identity? Europeanization and the Evolution of Nation-State Identities. In Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change, edited by Cowles, Maria Green, Caporaso, James, and Risse, Thomas, 198–216. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen, and Sikkink, Kathryn, eds. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, George. 1995. Jacques Delors and European Integration. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searing, Donald. 1986. A Theory of Political Socialization: Institutional Support and Deradicalization in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 16 (3):341–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searing, Donald. 1991. Roles, Rules and Rationality in the New Institutionalism. American Political Science Review 32 (1):47–68.Google Scholar
Searing, Donald. 1994. Westminster's World: Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searing, Donald, Wright, Gerald, and Rabinowitz, George. 1976. The Primacy Principle: Attitude Change and Political Socialization. British Journal of Political Science 6 (1):83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O. 1993. Symbolic Politics: A Socio-Psychological Theory. In Explorations in Political Psychology, edited by Iyengar, Shanto and McGuire, William J., 113–49. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn. 1991. The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 (1):1–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., and Funk, Carolyn. 1999. Evidence of the Long-Term Persistence of Adults' Political Predispositions. Journal of Politics 61 (1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O., and Sheri Levy. 2003. Childhood and Adult Political Development. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert, 60–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sears, David O., and Valentino, Nicholas A.. 1997. Politics Matters: Political Events as Catalysts for Preadult Socialization. American Political Science Review 91 (1):45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, Cris. 2000. Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. American Political Science Review 79 (2):293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, Jacqueline M. 1996. The European Union ‘A View from the Top’: Top Decision Makers and the European Union. Prepared for EOS Gallup Europe's European Omnibus Survey. Brussels: EOS Gallup Europe. Available at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/top/top_en.htm). Accessed 22 June 2005.
Taber, Charles S. 2003. Information Processing and Public Opinion. In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Robert, 433–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomassen, Jacques, Abdul Noury, and Erik Voeten. 2004. Political Competition in the European Parliament: Evidence from Roll Call and Survey Analyses. In European Integration and Political Conflict, edited by Marks, Gary and Steenbergen, Marco, 141–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Eijk, Cees, and Mark N. Franklin. 2004. Potential for Contestation on European Matters at National Elections in Europe. In European Integration and Political Conflict, edited by Marks, Gary and Steenbergen, Marco, 32–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessels, Bemhard. 2004. Contestation Potential of Interest Groups in the EU: Emergence, Structure, and Political Alliances. In European Integration and Political Conflict, edited by Marks, Gary and Steenbergen, Marco, 195–215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Jason, Thomsen, Cynthia J., Borgida, Eugene, Sullivan, John L., and Aldrich, John H.. 1991. When Self-Interest Makes a Difference: The Role of Construct Accessibility in Political Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27:271–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×