Alcide de Gasperi and Palmiro Togliatti were the two pivotal figures of the early postwar period. Despite their different political outlook, the two collaborated during the last phase of the war and in the period just after its end. The tenor of postwar politics, with the Communist Party never straying from the ground of democratic confrontation, was due both to Togliatti’s moderation and to De Gasperi’s determination to maintain the “constitutional pact.” Co-operation enabled the successful setting up of democratic institutions and the drafting of the constitution. However, the relationship between the two politicians was always fraught with mistrust and deteriorated as the international situation evolved toward confrontation and as economic policy aims diverged. By the 1948 elections the split was evident, and from then on their political outlook became more and more incompatible.
Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti played a leading role in Italy’s political life in the 1980s. Andreotti rose to prominence as Defense Minister in the 1960s, developing close links with Washington. In 1976 he became prime minister, confirming his political acumen and his commitment to Atlanticism, while also pursuing European integration. Craxi became leader of the Socialists in 1976 and was able to establish his leadership and to renew the image of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), presenting himself as a radical reformer. Craxi led several cabinets in the 1980s, with Andreotti as foreign minister. The two successfully balanced loyalty to the US with an often independent stance on regional interests. Domestically, Craxi defeated inflation but, despite significant growth, was unable to carry out broader economic or constitutional reform. In 1989 Andreotti formed a new government, but soon after the eruption of the Tangentopoli scandal engulfed both him and Craxi, ending their careers.
Charlie Jeffrey and Carolyn Rowe
Analysis of the ‘regional dimension’ of the EU has long since noted how the European integration process reframes the space for political action that regions can access. Clearly, integration has expanded the coalitional possibilities of sub-national and national actors beyond the nation state, allowing both national and sub-national actors to be outflanked. What remains less clear, however, is whether the conditions under which European integration, understood here as a new space for political action, provide an opportunity for regional governance actors, or a threat? This article seeks to unpack what is broadly understood as ‘the regional dimension’ of EU politics, by considering these varying strategies and understandings of Europe as an opportunity space for autonomous political action or as a threat to independent political capacities, as provided for by domestic constitutional and legal arrangements. The picture painted here is one of a much more complex and varied pattern of regional engagement in the EU than the most common metaphors of a ‘Europe of the Regions’ or the EU's ‘Third Level’ would lead us to believe.
References to ‘burden-sharing’, ‘responsibility-sharing’, or what the Lisbon Treaty now prefers to call ‘solidarity between the member states’ are frequently heard in the context of EU policy making. Most recently, such references have been prominent in the fields of financial bailouts in the context of the EMU, EU climate change policy, and member states' defence collaboration. This article aims to contribute to the nascent debate on European burden-sharing by addressing the following questions: Why and under what conditions does burden-sharing among the member states take place? Why are ‘burdens’ so unequally distributed and how can one explain existing patterns of burden distribution among states? Why are effective and equitable burden-sharing arrangements so difficult to achieve? These questions are addressed by first providing on overview of the theoretical debate on the motivations and mechanisms of EU burden-sharing; and second, by illustrating some of the challenges and limitations of equitable burden-sharing in the case of EU refugee management.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was the European Economic Community's (EEC) first (and for a long time only) common policy. Following the trauma of World War II, it was based partly on the idea that the EEC should if possible be self-sufficient in food. Though building on pre-war national agricultural policies, the CAP was an essential part of post-war European welfare states; it extended the welfare state to farmers. In the early years of European integration, the CAP also had political objectives; in France its welfarist orientation was intended partly to guarantee rural political stability. These features were clearly visible in the concept of ‘agriculture’ that was elaborated in CAP law. Its basic idea was that public policy should support agricultural production and regulate access to agricultural markets. By the mid-1980s, however, the CAP was no longer central to the politics of European integration. Since then, due to both endogenous and exogenous factors, its policy objectives, fundamental rules, and organizational structures have largely been transformed. This article traces its evolution, discusses major reforms, and identifies future challenges. It emphasizes the impact of the international context, changes in regulatory goals and instruments within a stable Treaty framework, the interpretative role of the European Court of Justice, and the need for further reform.
This article examines the political challenges of the European Union (EU). It explains that political theorists and scientists alike have viewed European integration as a laboratory for exploring how far the nation state, and the forms of domestic and international politics to which it gave rise, has been affected by the various processes associated with globalization. It discusses the Charter of Rights and Constitutional Treaty of the EU and suggests that the EU can be plausibly characterized as an intergovernmental organization of an advanced kind, a nascent federation of states, and a new form of post-national and post-state entity.
This chapter aims to characterize the French administrative system and its contemporary transformations, by identifying the dynamics and diversity of the research conducted on this subject in the disciplines of sociology, political science, and in history. Adopting a comparative perspective, it emphasizes the richness of research programs on the French bureaucracy, its institutions, regulation, reforms, and agents. Four pillars of the French administrative system are identified (centralization, territoriality, administrative law, and administrative elites). The chapter emphasizes the renewal of academic studies of French public administration, exploring the various dimensions and effects of neo-managerial reforms (policy elites, street-level bureaucrats, professional groups). The chapter also characterizes the “French touch” in the study of French public administration and claims that French scholars of the bureaucracy, influenced by stimulating sociological perspectives, offer an interesting dialogue with the approaches that are currently dominant at the international level, and might sometimes even reinvigorate them.
Běla Plechanovová, Madeleine O. Hosli, and Anatolij Plechanov
This chapter studies voting and representation in the European Union, specifically the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, over time. The authors assess the linkages between decision-making and democratic legitimacy, and then focus on potential alternatives to decision-making in the Council. They discuss development of the double-majority rule in view of aspects such as democratic representation, efficiency, and equitability and then offer analyses for different scenarios for the EU’s future, assuming different membership constellations and changes in member-states’ population sizes. They offer new calculations on voting power, the institution’s capacity to act, and equitability. Equitability, also with new rules incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty and effective as of November 2014, still deviates from the ideal value and with this, might induce the need for a rule change again in the future.
Since 1954, when the six founding European member states of the European Coal and Steel Community chose not to create a European Defence Community (EDC), the member states of the EU (previously the European Community) have been striving to find an effective way of working together on foreign and security policy matters. Had the EDC gone ahead, it would have been legitimized by a European Political Community directed by a European executive (government) that would have been accountable to an elected European Parliament. Such a construction would have been far more state-like than the present EU and there is a sense in which this proposal proved to be ‘too much integration too soon’. The search has been on ever since for an institutional format or political superstructure that could underpin an effective EU foreign and security policy whilst at the same time preserving the ‘national sovereignty’ of the member states. This article describes these efforts, first of all via the European Political Cooperation process that the European Community member states developed from 1969.
Comparative regional integration has emerged over the last decade as an exciting area of research. Interest was sparked, in part, by a new wave of integration in Asia, Africa, and the Americas that grew in strength in the 1990s. Like earlier waves, this one generated integration schemes that show puzzling differences and variations. Some integration schemes fail to attain most or any of their objectives, whilst others are highly successful. Some integration schemes confer significant authority on supranational agencies, encourage the use of qualified or simple majority in joint decision making, and make provisions for strong dispute settlement procedures, powerful enforcement tools, as well as extensive common monitoring. Other schemes, however, are strictly intergovernmental in character and shy away from any institutional elements that weaken or undermine national sovereignty. These striking differences in outcomes and in regional governance have prompted scholars to search for comprehensive analytical frameworks of comparative regional integration. This article, which reviews three such frameworks – neo-functionalism, externality theory, and contracting theory – considers their strengths and weaknesses, and raises key issues for future research.