Hubbry Logo
search
logo
Liberal intergovernmentalism avatar
Liberal intergovernmentalism
Liberal intergovernmentalism
current hub
L

Liberal intergovernmentalism

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
Liberal intergovernmentalism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
International relations theory
Constructivism
Liberalism
Marxism
Realism
Other theories
Classifications
Other approaches
Scholars
Categories
International relations
icon Politics portal

Liberal intergovernmentalism is a political theory in international relations developed by Andrew Moravcsik in 1993 to explain European integration. The theory is based upon and has further developed the intergovernmentalist theory and offers a more authentic perspective than its predecessor with its inclusion of both neo-liberal and realist aspects in its theory.[1]

Theory

[edit]

Liberal intergovernmentalism was created to be a "grand theory"--that is, a synthesis of mid-range theories. Liberal intergovernmentalism argues that it is impossible to explain the concept of the European Union with a single factor and believe that different approaches or theories are needed to genuinely understand the complexity of the EU. It was originally created to explain broad evolution of regional integration, though it applies also to many everyday decisions.

In his book The Choice for Europe (1998), Moravcsik describes EU integration from 1957 to 1992 as follows: "EU integration can best be understood as a series of rational choices made by national leaders. These choices responded to constraints and opportunities stemming from the economic interests and relative power of powerful domestic constituents, the relative power of states stemming from asymmetrical interdependence, and the role of institutions in bolstering the credibility of interstate commitments."[2] Moravcsik himself, Frank Schimmelfennig and others have subsequently observed that LI explanations need not be limited to economic interests, but that these were simply the social interests most relevant for explaining the period covered in that book.[3] Subsequent work has extended the model.[3][4][5]

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) views states as the main political actors in political interactions, and sees the EU as an international institution that can be studied by viewing states as the main actors in a situation of anarchy, where each state achieves their goal through negotiations and bargaining. Yet there are two important caveats. First, while states are the main political actors, LI is a liberal not a realist theory, and thus all states are understood as representative institutions acting to advance the pre-strategic preferences of some (usually biased) coalition of domestic social groups with a stake in the way social, cultural or economic interdependence is managed. So, while states are superficially the primary actors or "transmission belts" whereby social interests are aggregated, advanced and enforced, the most fundamental actors in LI remain transnationally active individuals and social groups. Second, LI posits, following conventional regime theory, that states delegate or pool sovereignty in regional institutions in order to coordinate their policies and establish credible commitments. This the critical third step in the theory. So while states ultimately are in anarchy (as Brexit shows), at any given moment, they are often making decisions within an institutionalized international environment and they create such institutions in the expectation that they will shape state behavior.[6]

Liberal intergovernmentalism has demonstrated its usefulness with its methods of organizing and constructing empirical studies. Studies of the scholarly literature, however, show that it serves as a "baseline" theory of integration: that is, it is the theory that most empirical studies either confirm or use as a basic control in order to define anomalies.[7] However, liberal intergovernmentalism has also been heavily criticized.[1] A general criticism of liberal intergovernmentalism is that it focuses on the theory of grand bargaining and major decisions, and that it has no way of explaining everyday decision-making procedures. Many critics point out that Moravcsik's early work focuses on the treaty-amending moments and member-states economic interests, rather than the everyday policy agendas that represent the majority of EU policies.[8] However, Moravcsik responds that the theory obviously has utility in explaining everyday decisions: few analysts today would deny that the European Council and Council of Ministers remain the EU's most important decision-making bodies (perhaps more so than 25 years ago), that the starting point for analyzing the Council's behavior is to understand the nature and intensity of state preferences and the relative influence of different states. Indeed, recent years have witnessed the emergence of a so-called "New Intergovernmentalism," which reasserts the primacy of LI. Furthermore, Moravcsik's scholarship is criticized for never put forward a detailed liberal intergovernmentalist account of the powers of the European Court of Justice, although a (modified) liberal intergovernmentalist account of European legal integration is certainly possible.[9]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Moravcsik, Andrew; Schimmelfennig, Frank (2009). "Liberal intergovernmentalism". In Wiener, Antje; Diez, Thomas (eds.). European integration theory (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 67–87. ISBN 978-0-19-922609-2. OCLC 277068135.
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Liberal intergovernmentalism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Liberal intergovernmentalism is a theory of international cooperation and regional integration that attributes major institutional outcomes, particularly in the European Union, to a sequence of domestic preference formation followed by interstate bargaining among self-interested governments acting as rational unitary actors.[1] Developed by political scientist Andrew Moravcsik, it integrates elements of liberal international relations theory—emphasizing how societal groups shape state preferences—with intergovernmental realism, where relative bargaining power determines agreements, and supranational delegation occurs only to resolve commitment problems or transaction costs.[2] The theory's core logic unfolds in three linked stages: first, national governments aggregate preferences from domestic constituencies, such as commercial interests seeking market access or protection, rather than from supranational ideologies or spillovers; second, leaders negotiate bargains reflecting asymmetric power distributions, often favoring larger states like Germany or France in EU contexts; and third, credible commitments are enforced via delegated institutions, but without independent causal influence from those bodies.[2] Moravcsik's seminal application in The Choice for Europe (1998) empirically tests this framework against historical cases from the 1950s to the 1990s, including the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Single European Act, arguing that outcomes consistently reflect commercial liberal preferences and hard bargaining over federalist visions.[1] As a "baseline" model, liberal intergovernmentalism prioritizes observable state-driven causal mechanisms over untestable functionalist dynamics or constructivist norms, yielding predictions validated by treaty revisions where veto power and side-payments align with national economic stakes.[3] It has faced critiques for potentially underweighting supranational entrepreneurship or post-material values in later integrations, yet proponents counter that such factors remain subordinate to verifiable interstate exchanges, maintaining its parsimony amid empirical scrutiny from rival paradigms.[1][4]

Origins and Development

Historical Context and Influences

Liberal intergovernmentalism arose from mid-20th-century debates in international relations theory concerning the drivers of regional integration, particularly in Europe. Post-World War II efforts to prevent conflict through economic cooperation inspired functionalist approaches, evolving into neofunctionalism as articulated by Ernst B. Haas in The Uniting of Europe (1958), which explained early institutions like the European Coal and Steel Community (established 1951) via "spillover" dynamics: initial sectoral integration creating functional pressures for supranational expansion.[5] This framework predicted progressive erosion of national sovereignty through elite socialization and institutional momentum, aligning with the Treaty of Rome (1957) forming the European Economic Community.[6] Setbacks, including the 1965–1966 Empty Chair Crisis—where France under Charles de Gaulle boycotted Council meetings to block majority voting—and the resulting Luxembourg Compromise (January 1966) preserving veto rights on vital national interests, undermined neofunctionalist optimism.[7] Traditional intergovernmentalism emerged as a corrective, with Stanley Hoffmann's 1966 analysis portraying integration as episodic state bargains constrained by divergent national priorities and power asymmetries, rather than inexorable supranational logic.[8] This perspective dominated explanations for the 1970s "Eurosclerosis," marked by stalled progress amid economic divergence and sovereignty assertions, such as Britain's 1975 referendum on EEC membership. Andrew Moravcsik refined intergovernmentalism in the early 1990s amid post-Cold War relaunch, incorporating liberal elements to address gaps in preference origins. Influenced by realist bargaining models and commercial liberal theories emphasizing societal interests (e.g., export-oriented firms pressuring for market access), Moravcsik's framework—initially detailed in his 1993 study of Community decision-making—posits that domestic coalitions form state preferences, followed by hard bargaining yielding outcomes reflecting relative power. Empirical roots trace to his 1980s research on French agricultural policy and transatlantic trade disputes, revealing causal chains from producer groups to government stances, as systematized in The Choice for Europe (1998) analyzing bargains like the Common Agricultural Policy (1962) and Single European Act (1986).[4] This synthesis countered supranational accounts by privileging verifiable national interest calculations over ideational or institutional autonomy.[9]

Formulation by Andrew Moravcsik

Andrew Moravcsik first articulated liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) in a 1993 article, positing it as a framework to explain major steps in European integration through a synthesis of liberal theories of national preference formation and intergovernmental bargaining dynamics.[2] He refined and empirically tested the theory in his 1998 book The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, analyzing key decisions from the 1955 Messina Conference to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.[2] In this work, Moravcsik argued that integration outcomes reflect deliberate choices by national governments advancing domestically derived interests, rather than automatic functional spillovers or supranational entrepreneurship emphasized in rival theories like neofunctionalism.[2] LI's formulation rests on a sequential three-stage model of regional integration. The initial stage involves the formation of national preferences, where societal actors—such as firms, interest groups, and social movements—generate demands based on underlying interests in economic exchange, security, or ideology; these are then filtered and aggregated by domestic political institutions into coherent government positions.[10] Moravcsik contended that variations in these preferences across states, rooted in heterogeneous domestic coalitions, explain why governments pursue specific integration agendas, as seen in France's emphasis on agricultural protectionism during the Common Agricultural Policy negotiations in the early 1960s.[2] The second stage centers on interstate bargaining, where governments negotiate outcomes based on asymmetric interdependence—the relative costs each state faces from failing to reach agreement—rather than raw military power or supranational influence. Moravcsik maintained that bargaining success correlates with a state's ability to withhold concessions in areas of high opportunity costs for partners, evidenced by Germany's leverage in securing monetary concessions during the 1980s push for the Single European Act.[2] This realist-inflected intergovernmentalism prioritizes relative gains and credible commitments over absolute efficiency.[2] Finally, the third stage addresses institutional delegation, where governments design supranational bodies to enforce bargains and reduce transaction costs, but retain ultimate control through ratification and veto powers; Moravcsik viewed institutions like the European Commission or Court of Justice as agents reflecting state principals' designs, not autonomous drivers of integration, as demonstrated in the limited delegation during the 1957 Treaty of Rome.[2] Overall, Moravcsik's LI formulation positioned states as rational actors aggregating societal demands in a decentralized system, challenging federalist narratives by emphasizing causal primacy of national interests over institutional or ideational factors.[2]

Theoretical Framework

Domestic Preference Formation

In liberal intergovernmentalism, domestic preference formation constitutes the foundational stage, wherein national governments derive their policy positions on international cooperation from the underlying interests of domestic societal actors rather than from exogenous geopolitical imperatives or supranational dynamics. Andrew Moravcsik, the theory's primary architect, argues that these preferences emerge endogenously through liberal processes: individuals and organized groups—such as firms, labor unions, and sectoral lobbies—pursue their material welfare, ideological commitments, or institutional routines, generating demands that political institutions aggregate into coherent state stances.[2] This aggregation reflects asymmetric power among domestic constituencies, with stronger societal coalitions imposing their priorities on governments acting as agents rather than autonomous principals.[11] The mechanism emphasizes variation across issue areas and over time, driven by changing domestic economic structures and social cleavages. For instance, Moravcsik contends that preferences respond to "shifting pressure from domestic social groups, whose preferences are aggregated through political institutions," prioritizing commercial advantages like export competitiveness or protectionist barriers over abstract security concerns or federalist ideals.[1] In the context of European integration, this manifests in patterns such as French agricultural producers shaping Paris's insistence on the Common Agricultural Policy, or German industrial exporters favoring single-market liberalization to secure access to foreign markets—outcomes rooted in tangible sectoral gains rather than elite-driven ideological convergence.[12] Institutions like electoral systems or corporatist bargaining forums mediate this process, filtering societal inputs into government demands while constraining leaders from deviating too far from powerful domestic veto players.[13] This liberal foundation distinguishes domestic preference formation in liberal intergovernmentalism from realist or constructivist alternatives, which posit states as unitary actors with predefined interests or ideational identities. Moravcsik critiques such views for neglecting how "the arrangement of national preferences" derives from disaggregated domestic politics, treating governments as reflective conduits rather than originators of foreign policy goals.[14] Empirical testing, as in Moravcsik's analysis of post-war European decisions from the 1950s to the 1990s, supports this by tracing integration breakthroughs—such as the European Coal and Steel Community or the Single European Act—to alignments of national economic stakes, not spillover effects or supranational entrepreneurship.[3] Critics, however, note potential underemphasis on non-economic factors like public opinion or bureaucratic autonomy in shaping these preferences, though proponents maintain that material incentives remain the dominant causal driver.[11]

Interstate Bargaining

In liberal intergovernmentalism, interstate bargaining represents the second stage of analysis, where national governments, treated as unitary rational actors with aggregated domestic preferences, negotiate substantive agreements on issues of economic interdependence. These negotiations occur in a decentralized system characterized by high uncertainty, asymmetric information, and the absence of a central enforcer, leading states to pursue cooperative outcomes only when they exceed the net benefits of unilateral action or alternative bilateral deals. [1] Bargaining outcomes are shaped primarily by relative state power, defined not by military or overall capabilities but by issue-specific asymmetric interdependence—the differential costs imposed by the failure to reach agreement. States with lower opportunity costs for non-cooperation hold greater leverage, enabling them to extract concessions through credible threats of breakdown or alternative partnerships, akin to Schelling's concept of power as control over the agenda or exit options. [2] This power asymmetry ensures that agreements reflect a distribution of joint gains proportional to bargaining strengths, rather than equal shares or supranational dictates. Moravcsik emphasizes the efficiency of these bargains, arguing that repeated interactions, package deals, and side-payments—facilitated by low transaction costs in advanced democracies—yield Pareto-superior outcomes that all parties prefer to the status quo. Distributive conflicts are resolved through logrolling across issues, minimizing inefficiencies from holdouts, though rare high transaction costs may lead to suboptimal delegation to institutions. Supranational actors, such as the European Commission, serve merely as agents or forums, lacking autonomous influence over results, which remain intergovernmental consent-based.[2] [1] This stage thus privileges causal realism in explaining major integration steps, such as treaty revisions, as reflections of hard-nosed national interest convergence rather than ideational or functional spillovers.

Institutional Delegation and Design

In liberal intergovernmentalism, the third analytical stage—following domestic preference formation and interstate bargaining—concerns the delegation of authority to supranational institutions and the deliberate design of their structures to facilitate the implementation of intergovernmental agreements.[2] Governments delegate sovereignty not due to supranational entrepreneurship or functional spillover, but to address specific collective action problems arising from incomplete contracts, such as ensuring credible commitments to bargains, reducing transaction costs through centralized enforcement, or providing impartial information and dispute resolution.[15] This delegation is functional and endogenous to state interests, with institutions acting as agents rather than autonomous actors that reshape national preferences or drive further integration.[2] The design of institutions reflects the asymmetric distribution of bargaining power and the specific content of negotiated agreements, prioritizing mechanisms that lock in policy outcomes favorable to powerful states while minimizing agency losses.[15] For instance, delegation often involves pooling of sovereignty in limited domains, such as majority voting in the Council of the European Union to overcome vetoes in areas of mutual gain, but retains national ratification requirements or opt-outs to preserve control.[2] Moravcsik argues that such designs exhibit path dependency, with institutional choices in the European Union—evident in treaties from Rome (1957) to Maastricht (1992)—serving to credibly commit governments to future policies without diffuse effects that would undermine state autonomy.[2] Empirical analysis of EU institutional evolution shows that supranational bodies like the European Commission gain influence only insofar as they align with the lowest common denominator of state demands, countering claims of independent institutional momentum.[15] Critiques within the literature highlight potential underestimation of delegation's unintended consequences, such as bureaucratic drift, yet liberal intergovernmentalism maintains that institutional choices remain rational responses to foreseeable risks, evidenced by repeated treaty revisions that recalibrate powers without eroding intergovernmental primacy.[1] In cases like the establishment of the European Central Bank in 1998, delegation was tailored to enforce fiscal discipline among heterogeneous members, demonstrating how design mitigates time-inconsistency problems while embedding national veto points.[2] Overall, this stage underscores that supranational institutions enhance the efficiency of state-centric cooperation but do not supplant it, with their form and scope dictated by the bargains they are meant to sustain.[15]

Applications to European Integration

Major Case Studies

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) has been applied to several pivotal moments in European integration, demonstrating how domestic socioeconomic interests shape state preferences, which are then resolved through asymmetric interstate bargaining and limited delegation to supranational bodies. Andrew Moravcsik's seminal analysis in The Choice for Europe (1998) examines key cases, including the negotiation of the Treaty of Rome, the establishment of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Single European Act (SEA), arguing that outcomes reflected commercial rather than ideological motivations. In these instances, governments aggregated demands from producer groups—such as French farmers seeking market protection and German industrialists prioritizing tariff reductions—leading to bargains where larger states like France and Germany leveraged their market size for concessions.[16] The Treaty of Rome, signed on March 25, 1957, and establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), exemplifies LI's emphasis on domestic preference formation. French preferences stemmed from agricultural constituencies demanding guaranteed outlets and price supports amid post-war reconstruction, while West German and Benelux states prioritized industrial exports and access to French markets over supranational political union. Interstate bargaining involved side-payments, such as commitments to a common external tariff, with France extracting CAP precursors in exchange for accepting industrial liberalization; delegation to the Commission for tariff negotiations addressed enforcement asymmetries without ceding core sovereignty. Moravcsik contends this reflected realist power dynamics, where France's agricultural leverage forced compromises, rather than spillover from coal and steel integration.[16][17] The CAP's evolution from 1958 to 1962 further illustrates LI, as French President Charles de Gaulle prioritized domestic farm lobbies facing surplus production and low incomes, pushing for community financing and price guarantees covering 90% of EEC agricultural output by 1964. German reluctance to subsidize French agriculture was overcome through bargaining, yielding variable levies on imports and structural funds, with the 1962 regulations delegating implementation to the Commission to bind future governments against defection. This case underscores LI's causal chain: societal pressures (e.g., 20% of French workforce in agriculture) drove hard-line preferences, enabling France to extract rents from bargaining counterparts, while institutions served as credible commitment devices rather than autonomous drivers. Critics note potential underemphasis on geopolitical factors, but empirical records of negotiations support preference-driven outcomes.[18][19] The SEA, negotiated in 1985 and entering force on July 1, 1987, revitalized the internal market by mandating completion by 1992 through qualified majority voting in 12 policy areas. Domestic interests—British and German firms seeking regulatory relief amid 1980s stagflation, contrasted with French protectionism—formed preferences for deregulation, with bargaining reflecting Thatcher-era liberalization and Delors' Commission proposals aligning with state goals. Delegation expanded Court and Parliament roles modestly to overcome vetoes in Council, but LI posits this as functional for bargaining efficiency, not supranational entrepreneurship; Moravcsik's analysis shows outcomes tracked economic heavyweights' positions, with France conceding on competition policy for market access gains. Applications to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty similarly highlight monetary union as a German preference for stability exported via bargaining, delegating central banking to the ECB on November 1, 1993, to lock in low-inflation commitments amid asymmetric shocks.[19][18]

Explanatory Power in Key EU Milestones

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LIG) posits that major EU treaty revisions, such as the Treaty of Rome (1957), the Single European Act (1986), and the Maastricht Treaty (1992), result from interstate bargains reflecting governments' domestically derived preferences and relative bargaining power, rather than supranational entrepreneurship or functional spillovers.[2] In Andrew Moravcsik's analysis, these milestones align with national economic interests, where integration advances when it resolves commercial or macroeconomic dilemmas, such as trade barriers or currency instability, but stalls where sovereignty costs exceed benefits. For instance, the Treaty of Rome's establishment of the European Economic Community stemmed from France's push for agricultural protections via the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Germany's pursuit of export markets for manufactured goods, and smaller states' leverage for side payments, yielding a grand bargain that preserved veto powers in sensitive areas.[2] This framework underscores how outcomes mirrored asymmetric interdependence, with stronger economies dictating terms.[1] The Single European Act (SEA), signed on February 17, 1986, and effective from July 1, 1987, exemplifies LIG's emphasis on preference convergence amid geopolitical shifts, including the 1980s recession and U.S. trade pressures, which heightened demands for a barrier-free internal market by 1992.[2] Governments like those in Germany and the UK, prioritizing industrial competitiveness, advocated qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council to bypass vetoes from protectionist holdouts, while France conceded on market liberalization to secure CAP funding continuity.[4] Moravcsik contends this was not supranational-driven but a calculated delegation to Commission implementation powers, limited to low-sovereignty commercial policies, preserving intergovernmental control in foreign policy via European Political Cooperation.[2] Empirical evidence from negotiations shows bargaining power—measured by trade volumes and alternative fora—determined compromises, such as Denmark's opt-outs, affirming LIG's causal chain from domestic interests to institutional tweaks. For the Maastricht Treaty, ratified on November 1, 1993, LIG explains the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) as a Franco-German bargain addressing divergent preferences: France sought monetary ties to anchor German dominance post-reunification, while Germany demanded strict convergence criteria (e.g., inflation below 1.5% above the best performer, debt-to-GDP under 60%) to safeguard the Deutschmark's stability legacy.[20] Institutional designs, including the European Central Bank's independence modeled on the Bundesbank and no-bailout clauses in Article 104b, reflected power asymmetries, with Germany extracting credibility-enhancing rules despite French fiscal union ambitions.[2] The treaty's limited supranationalism in justice and home affairs, via the Schengen opt-out for the UK and Denmark, further illustrates governments delegating only where credible commitment problems were acute, without ceding ultimate ratification authority.[1] Critics note LIG underemphasizes Commission agenda-setting, yet archival records confirm state preferences predominated, as in the 1991 intergovernmental conference where bargaining resolved deadlocks. Overall, LIG's strength lies in predicting milestone outcomes as efficient equilibria of national utilities, tested against 1950s–1990s data showing integration depths correlating with economic stakes over ideological spillovers.[3]

Criticisms and Theoretical Debates

Neofunctionalist and Supranational Critiques

Neofunctionalists argue that liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) overemphasizes state sovereignty and bargaining power while underestimating the autonomous dynamics of integration processes, particularly the mechanisms of functional and political spillover. Originating with Ernst B. Haas's work in the 1950s, neofunctionalism posits that economic cooperation generates unintended consequences—such as regulatory gaps or elite socialization—that propel further integration through supranational institutions, independent of initial national preferences.[21] LI's rejection of spillover as a core driver is seen as empirically deficient, as it attributes integration solely to exogenous state interests and bargains, ignoring how early Community achievements, like the customs union by 1968, fostered pressures for deeper policy harmonization via Commission-led initiatives.[1] A key neofunctionalist counterpoint is the "failing forward" dynamic during crises, where flawed intergovernmental decisions create instability that supranational actors exploit to advance integration incrementally. For example, in the Eurozone crisis responses—such as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), formalized on March 25, 2011, with a €700 billion lending capacity—neofunctionalists highlight the Commission's entrepreneurial role in pooling resources and addressing spillover from monetary union, outcomes that LI frames merely as reflections of asymmetric state dependencies rather than institutional momentum.[22][23] This critique underscores LI's alleged inability to predict or explain non-bargained advancements, such as elite-driven shifts in loyalties toward supranational governance, which neofunctionalism traces through historical patterns like the shift from sectoral to polity-building integration in the 1980s Single European Act.[1] Supranational critiques extend this by challenging LI's portrayal of EU institutions as passive tools for state delegation, asserting instead that actors like the European Commission, Parliament, and Court of Justice (ECJ) wield causal influence through agenda-setting, judicial interpretation, and ideational leadership. Critics contend that LI's "institutional plateau" thesis—positing stable, limited delegation since the mid-1990s—overlooks post-crisis power shifts, such as the European Central Bank's (ECB) autonomous interventions during the 2010–2012 sovereign debt crisis or the ECJ's expansive rulings on competencies, which have incrementally eroded national vetoes.[1] For instance, scholars like Vivien Schmidt describe a "new supranationalism" where institutions engage in discursive entrepreneurship to legitimize expanded roles, as in fiscal governance reforms, contradicting LI's rationalist assumption of state primacy.[1] Similarly, analyses of the ECJ's legal integration emphasize its role in creating "supranational governance" beyond mere credible commitments, with rulings like Costa v ENEL (1964) establishing direct effect and supremacy, effects LI attributes retrospectively to state consent but which supranationalists view as institutionally generated.[23] These perspectives collectively fault LI for a static, reductionist ontology that privileges national executives while marginalizing the feedback loops between functional needs, institutional agency, and transnational pressures—dynamics evident in integration milestones like the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, where spillover from the internal market arguably necessitated monetary union despite divergent state preferences.[1] Empirical tests, such as process-tracing in crisis bargaining, often reveal supranational inputs influencing outcomes in ways not reducible to pre-existing domestic bargains, though neofunctionalist explanations themselves face scrutiny for vague microfoundations.[23]

Challenges from New Intergovernmentalism and Postfunctionalism

New intergovernmentalism, developed by scholars such as Christopher Bickerton, Dermot Hodson, and Uwe Puetter, posits that post-Maastricht European integration has occurred through deliberative processes in informal intergovernmental bodies like the European Council, rather than the hard bargaining over predefined national preferences emphasized in liberal intergovernmentalism. Unlike liberal intergovernmentalism's assumption of stable, domestically derived economic preferences driving interstate bargains, new intergovernmentalism argues that state preferences are often indeterminate amid uncertainty, leading governments to pursue "integration by stealth" via supranational delegation to manage complex interdependence without broad treaty revisions or public mandates.[7] This challenges liberal intergovernmentalism's explanatory power for phenomena like the Eurozone crisis responses, where decisions in bodies such as the Eurogroup prioritized elite deliberation over veto-prone negotiations, bypassing the large-scale bargains central to Andrew Moravcsik's framework.[24] New intergovernmentalism further critiques liberal intergovernmentalism for underestimating the role of new governance modes, such as the Open Method of Coordination, which facilitate integration without robust supranational enforcement, contradicting the delegation-for-credibility mechanism in liberal intergovernmentalism where institutions are designed to lock in bargains against domestic defection.[1] Proponents contend that this "integration paradox"—deepening integration despite declining public support—reveals liberal intergovernmentalism's failure to account for states' deliberate choice of supranationalism as a tool for domestic political leadership, rather than a mere outcome of relative power asymmetries in bargaining.[25] Empirical observations from the 2000s onward, including the Lisbon Treaty's incremental adjustments, support this by showing persistent state control without the grand causal sequences of preference formation, bargaining, and delegation predicted by liberal intergovernmentalism.[26] Postfunctionalism, advanced by Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, introduces a constraint-based view where European integration is limited by mass-level identity cleavages and politicization, directly contesting liberal intergovernmentalism's emphasis on elite-driven economic preferences as the primary motivator. It argues that the post-1990s shift from "permissive consensus" to "constraining dissensus" stems from transnational polity contestation, where integration spillovers provoke identity-based backlash mobilized by political parties along a GAL-TAN (green/alternative/libertarian vs. traditional/authoritarian/nationalist) dimension, rendering further advances dependent on public opinion rather than governmental supply.[27] This challenges liberal intergovernmentalism's causal chain, as evidenced by events like the 2005 French and Dutch referendum rejections of the EU Constitution, which halted integration despite economic incentives, highlighting how national identity trumps material interests in preference formation.[28] By integrating politicization dynamics, postfunctionalism explains the rise of Eurosceptic parties and nationalism—such as the 2016 Brexit vote—as functional limits to integration, where attempts to deepen without addressing identity costs provoke "external rebordering" and constrain elite bargains, a dynamic liberal intergovernmentalism attributes insufficiently to domestic economic aggregation alone.[29] Hooghe and Marks' framework, drawing on Eurobarometer data showing identity-based opposition peaking in the 2010s, posits that transnational actors can mitigate but not override these constraints, critiquing liberal intergovernmentalism for overlooking how mass mobilization reshapes state preferences endogenously through electoral pressures.[30] Together, new intergovernmentalism and postfunctionalism underscore liberal intergovernmentalism's limitations in a politicized era, where deliberation amid uncertainty and identity conflicts drive outcomes more than rational economic bargaining.[31]

Responses and Defenses by Proponents

Proponents of liberal intergovernmentalism (LI), foremost Andrew Moravcsik, counter neofunctionalist and supranational critiques by asserting that empirical analyses of major EU treaties, such as the 1986 Single European Act and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, demonstrate outcomes driven by asymmetric interstate bargaining over heterogeneous domestic economic preferences rather than endogenous spillover or supranational agency.[31] They argue that supranational institutions like the European Commission exert influence only where delegated by states to enhance credibility and reduce transaction costs, but lack independent causal power, as evidenced by governments' repeated overrides of Commission proposals in areas like agriculture policy during the 1960s Common Agricultural Policy negotiations.[1] Moravcsik maintains that neofunctionalist emphasis on functional imperatives overlooks verifiable preference divergence among member states, where larger economies like Germany consistently leverage relative power to secure favorable terms, such as fiscal restraints in the Maastricht criteria.[31] In response to challenges from new intergovernmentalism, which posits deliberate institutional inefficiency and supranational entrepreneurship in "new" governance modes, LI proponents defend the theory's institutional predictions by highlighting states' strategic delegation to intergovernmental bodies, including informal norms like Council consensus practices that promote efficient bargaining without ceding sovereignty.[31] Moravcsik refutes claims of supranational dominance in daily policymaking, noting that even in expanded competences post-Lisbon Treaty (2009), national governments retain vetoes and reverse course, as in the 2015-2018 migration crisis where bilateral deals reduced irregular crossings from over 1 million in 2015 to under 100,000 by 2018 through functional state-led responses.[31] They argue new intergovernmentalism conflates descriptive observations with causal mechanisms, failing to explain why states pool sovereignty selectively only when it aligns with credible commitment needs, evidenced by the European Council's ascendance in crisis management.[1] Addressing postfunctionalist critiques from scholars like Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, which emphasize identity-based constraints and politicization halting integration, Moravcsik contends that LI's micro-foundational focus on issue-specific preferences—encompassing economic, social, and now non-material factors—better accounts for populist mobilizations as reactions to policy salience rather than exogenous identity shifts lacking testable predictions.[31] In the Eurozone crisis (2008-2012), LI explains suboptimal designs like no fiscal transfers as reflections of short-term bargaining asymmetries, with subsequent reforms (e.g., 2012 European Stability Mechanism) driven by functional imperatives rather than identity lock-in, countering postfunctionalist overemphasis on symbolic politics.[31] Proponents adapt LI to incorporate feedback loops, such as public opinion influencing domestic preferences, while rejecting disintegration narratives; for instance, Brexit negotiations from 2016-2018 yielded minimal substantive divergence, preserving common market access for goods and underscoring states' reluctance to forgo functional gains.[1][31] Overall, LI's defenders position it as a parsimonious baseline theory, empirically superior for grand bargains and adaptable without ad hoc revisions, as validated by its consistency across 25 years of EU history.[32]

Empirical Evidence and Testing

Methodological Approaches

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) adopts a rationalist methodology grounded in two-level game theory, wherein national governments pursue domestically derived preferences through interstate bargaining while anticipating ratification constraints at home.[2] This approach posits that integration outcomes can be explained by tracing causal mechanisms from societal interests to state positions and then to negotiated agreements, emphasizing observable implications such as preference intensity, bargaining leverage via asymmetric interdependence, and institutional delegation only when it resolves commitment problems.[33] Scholars test LI through idiographic methods that prioritize historical depth over broad statistical generalization, allowing for multi-causal explanations without assuming unitary actors or fixed preferences.[1] The first analytical stage focuses on preference formation, empirically identifying state positions via evidence of domestic politics, including interest group mobilization, electoral pressures, and policy legacies. For instance, Moravcsik reconstructs preferences in case studies by examining primary sources like parliamentary debates, government documents, and trade data from the 1950s–1980s, revealing how economic interdependence—measured by bilateral trade volumes and sectoral vulnerabilities—shapes demands in negotiations such as the Common Market or Single European Act.[34] This liberal bottom-up process contrasts with realist assumptions of exogenous security threats, with testing involving congruence checks: do revealed preferences align with domestic socioeconomic cleavages rather than geopolitical variables? Quantitative supplements, such as ideal point estimation from voting records in Council of Ministers data spanning 1984–2006, have corroborated that economic stakes predict positions more robustly than supranational ideology.[2] Interstate bargaining, the second stage, employs process-tracing to unpack negotiation dynamics, documenting how relative bargaining power—derived from issue-specific alternatives to agreement and side-payments—yields compromises. Case studies of milestones like the Maastricht Treaty (1992) trace sequences of proposals, veto threats, and concessions, using archival records from foreign ministries and diplomatic cables to verify that outcomes reflect weighted averages of preferences weighted by leverage, not spillover or supranational entrepreneurship.[35] Empirical challenges include endogeneity risks, addressed by temporal sequencing: preferences must precede bargains, as evidenced in pre-negotiation position papers. Critics note potential confirmation bias in selective case selection, prompting defenses via falsification tests, such as instances where strong preferences failed due to symmetric interdependence, as in failed monetary union attempts pre-1970s.[36] Institutional design and delegation form the third stage, tested for functional necessity: do supranational bodies emerge only to lock in bargains against domestic defection, per credible commitment logic? Process-tracing in cases like the European Central Bank's creation (1998) examines ratification debates and treaty texts to confirm that delegation resolves time-inconsistency problems, such as inflation bias in high-debt states, rather than fostering unintended autonomy. Extensions incorporate elite interviews and simulations of two-level games, modeling linked domestic and international constraints with game-theoretic parameters calibrated to historical data.[37] Overall, LI's methods favor rigorous causal inference over correlational breadth, yielding high internal validity in EU-specific applications but requiring caution in generalizing beyond advanced democracies with transparent domestic politics.[9]

Key Empirical Findings

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) has been empirically tested primarily through qualitative case studies of major European Union treaty negotiations and policy decisions, where outcomes are assessed against predictions of state preference formation via domestic interests and subsequent interstate bargaining based on asymmetric interdependence. Andrew Moravcsik's seminal analysis in The Choice for Europe (1998) examines three pivotal episodes: the establishment of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the 1960s, the European Monetary System (EMS) in 1978–1979, and the Single European Act (SEA) in 1986. In each, national preferences—such as France's protectionist agricultural demands, Germany's monetary stability priorities, and the United Kingdom's market liberalization stance—emerged from aggregated societal pressures rather than supranational spillovers or federalist ideologies, with bargaining leverage (e.g., Germany's opt-out threats in the EMS) determining compromises like qualified majority voting in the SEA.[2][1] Subsequent applications to the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) reinforce these patterns, as Germany's Bundesbank-driven insistence on strict convergence criteria (e.g., inflation below 1.5% above the best performer and debt-to-GDP ratios under 60%) reflected its export-dependent economy's aversion to inflation risks, while less dependent states like France accepted these to gain access to the Deutsche Mark's stability halo, yielding an outcome where delegation to the European Central Bank was limited and conditioned on national vetoes. Empirical reviews of these "grand bargains" indicate that supranational institutions played marginal roles in agenda-setting or enforcement, with transaction costs remaining low relative to cooperation gains, as states retained control over ratification and implementation.[9][2] Testing on EU enlargement decisions, such as the 2004 and 2007 waves, aligns with LI's emphasis on cost-benefit calculations by incumbents; core states like Germany prioritized market access for exports (e.g., €300 billion annual trade potential with Central Europe) over fiscal burdens (estimated at 0.02–0.04% of EU GDP annually), leading to bargains that deferred deeper integration until asymmetric dependencies shifted post-accession. In the European Stability Mechanism (2010–2012), LI accounts for creditor states' (e.g., Germany's) leverage in imposing conditionality on debtors, mirroring EMS dynamics, though critics note incomplete fits where ideational factors influenced preference intensity. Overall, cross-case comparisons yield substantial evidence for LI's baseline explanatory power in high-stakes decisions, with bargaining power asymmetries predicting 70–80% of variance in outcomes across studies, though less so in low-salience regulatory policies.[2][9][35]

Comparisons with Rival Theories

Versus Neofunctionalism

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LIG), as articulated by Andrew Moravcsik, posits that European integration results from inter-state bargaining among national governments, whose preferences are shaped by domestic liberal interests and institutions, with supranational bodies serving primarily as delegated agents to reduce transaction costs rather than autonomous drivers of change.[2] In contrast, neofunctionalism, originally developed by Ernst Haas in the 1950s and revived in neo-functionalist forms, emphasizes functional spillover effects whereby initial cooperation in low-politics sectors like coal and steel creates technocratic and societal pressures for deeper integration across policy areas, often led by supranational entrepreneurs such as the European Commission.[28] This divergence highlights LIG's state-centric realism in negotiation dynamics versus neofunctionalism's multilevel, functionalist logic of automatic deepening through elite socialization and interest group mobilization.[23] A core critique from LIG scholars is that neofunctionalism overpredicts inexorable integration by underestimating the veto power of national governments and the politicized nature of bargains, as evidenced in historical milestones like the 1986 Single European Act, where integration advanced not via spillover but through asymmetric concessions reflecting disparate national economic interests—France gaining agricultural protections, Germany securing monetary stability commitments, and Britain extracting budget rebates.[21] Moravcsik argues that neofunctionalist reliance on "supranational activism" fails to explain periods of stagnation, such as the 1970s Euro-sclerosis, where domestic vetoes and preference divergence halted progress absent exogenous shocks or side-payments, whereas LIG accounts for these via rational choice bargaining under incomplete information and enforcement challenges.[38] Empirical tests, including Moravcsik's analyses of the 1950s Rome Treaties and 1992 Maastricht Treaty, demonstrate that outcomes aligned with aggregated national utility maximization rather than technocratic momentum, with supranational institutions exhibiting agency only when delegated by states.[2] Neofunctionalists counter that LIG neglects endogenous dynamics like bureaucratic entrepreneurship and transnational coalitions, which propelled spillover in sectors like environmental policy post-1987, where Commission initiatives fostered regulatory harmonization beyond mere state bargains.[28] However, LIG proponents respond that such cases still trace back to prior intergovernmental agreements creating institutional forums, and that neofunctionalism's path-dependent optimism struggles with reversals like the 2005 French and Dutch referendum rejections of the EU Constitution, driven by domestic identity politics overriding functional gains.[21] Overall, LIG's emphasis on verifiable preference revelation through historical process-tracing offers greater causal traction for "grand bargains" than neofunctionalism's abstract spillover mechanisms, though hybrids acknowledging both state power and functional feedbacks have emerged in post-2000 scholarship to address integration's multifaceted drivers.[39]

Versus Other Integration Paradigms

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LIG) contrasts with supranational paradigms, which attribute significant causal autonomy to EU institutions such as the European Commission and Court of Justice in steering integration beyond member state preferences.[2] In supranational accounts, these bodies engage in agenda-setting, policy entrepreneurship, and judicial activism to promote spillover effects, thereby constraining or overriding national governments.[15] LIG counters that such institutional actions reflect prior state bargains, with delegation occurring only to lock in credible commitments or reduce enforcement costs, as evidenced in analyses of the Single European Act of 1986, where national leaders retained veto power over major outcomes.[2] This state-centric view rejects supranationalism's emphasis on institutional path dependency, arguing instead that empirical patterns, like asymmetric delegation in treaty reforms from 1957 to 1993, align with governments' asymmetric power and interests rather than autonomous supranational influence.[40] Unlike multi-level governance (MLG) frameworks, which depict EU integration as a diffuse network of authority-sharing among subnational, national, and supranational actors, LIG maintains a parsimonious focus on national executives as primary agenda-setters and bargainers.[41] MLG, often critiqued as a descriptive metaphor rather than a falsifiable theory, highlights vertical and horizontal interactions that erode state centrality, such as regional committees influencing policy in cohesion funds post-1988.[2] LIG responds that these dynamics stem from deliberate state choices to accommodate domestic societal demands, not emergent governance structures independent of interstate negotiation; for instance, bargaining over the 1992 Maastricht Treaty prioritized national economic interests over decentralized authority diffusion.[42] Empirical tests, including veto player analyses from 1985 onward, support LIG's claim that outcomes correlate more closely with state preferences than MLG's predicted bargaining fragmentation.[40] LIG also diverges from constructivist paradigms, which emphasize ideational factors like shared norms, identities, and discursive practices in fostering integration, over material interests.[15] Constructivists argue that EU developments, such as the eurozone's normative convergence in the 1990s, arise from evolving "we-feelings" among elites rather than fixed domestic preferences. LIG integrates liberal preference formation but subordinates ideas to underlying economic and societal pressures, positing that norm entrepreneurship succeeds only when aligned with state bargaining leverage, as seen in the restrained ideational impact during the 2004 Eastern enlargements.[2] This rationalist-materialist orientation critiques constructivism for under-specifying causal mechanisms, favoring LIG's sequential model of preference revelation through commercial and ideological cleavages traceable to events like the 1973 oil crisis.[40]

Recent Developments and Relevance

Applications Beyond Traditional EU Cases

Liberal intergovernmentalism (LI) has been extended analytically to regional integration efforts outside the European Union, where its emphasis on state preferences formed through domestic interests, followed by intergovernmental bargaining and institutional delegation, provides a framework for understanding asymmetric outcomes driven by national priorities rather than supranational spillovers. Scholars apply LI's three-stage model—formation of national preferences via societal pressures, hard bargaining among governments, and choice of institutions—to cases in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa, and North America, often highlighting how uneven economic dependencies and geopolitical calculations limit deeper cooperation.[43][44] In Latin America, LI elucidates the establishment of Mercosur in 1991 as a product of converging economic interests among Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, where governments prioritized market access and trade liberalization to counter domestic protectionist coalitions and external competition, leading to the Treaty of Asunción. However, the theory accounts for subsequent stagnation, attributing internal asymmetries—such as Brazil's dominant GDP share of over 80% in the bloc by 2020—and bargaining failures to divergent preferences, resulting in flexible, intergovernmental structures rather than robust supranational authority.[43][44] Applications to broader Latin American initiatives, like the unfulfilled Union of South American Nations (Unasur) launched in 2008, similarly stress how ideological shifts in national leaderships, such as Brazil's pivot under Jair Bolsonaro in 2019, undermined commitments when domestic electoral pressures clashed with integrationist bargains.[45] For Southeast Asia, LI has been invoked to analyze ASEAN's evolution since its 1967 founding, particularly the 2003 ASEAN Economic Community blueprint, as outcomes of bargaining among member states with heterogeneous development levels, where larger economies like Indonesia and Thailand conceded limited institutionalization to accommodate smaller states' sovereignty concerns. Research finds LI relevant for explaining preference convergence on trade pacts, such as the 2010 ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, driven by export-oriented business lobbies, yet critiques note its underemphasis on normative consensus-building in ASEAN's "ASEAN Way" of non-interference.[46][47] In Africa, LI frameworks the African Union's 2002 constitutive act and subsequent Agenda 2063 as reflections of elite-driven preferences for security and economic stabilization amid domestic vulnerabilities, with bargaining yielding weak delegation to supranational bodies like the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights due to fears of sovereignty erosion. A 2017 analysis concludes that LI explains integration variances across sub-regions, such as the Economic Community of West African States' (ECOWAS) 1993 revised treaty, where resource-rich states like Nigeria dominated negotiations to align with their geopolitical interests, though institutional inefficiencies persist from incomplete preference aggregation.[48][49] North American integration under NAFTA, effective from January 1, 1994, and its 2020 successor USMCA, has been examined through LI to highlight U.S. leverage in bargaining, stemming from asymmetric market power, which imposed side agreements on labor and environment reflecting domestic U.S. societal demands while Canada and Mexico delegated dispute resolution to binational panels to mitigate ratification risks. Studies affirm LI's utility in tracing how U.S. preferences, shaped by manufacturing lobbies, prevailed in investment provisions, yet note extensions incorporating North American variations in federalism challenge pure intergovernmental assumptions.[50][51]

Implications for Contemporary Crises like Brexit and Nationalism

Liberal intergovernmentalism frames Brexit as the culmination of long-standing British domestic preferences prioritizing national sovereignty, border control, and regulatory autonomy over deeper EU integration, with the 2016 referendum reflecting aggregated societal interests that empowered the government to invoke Article 50 on March 29, 2017.[52] The theory attributes the outcome to intergovernmental bargaining dynamics, where the UK's asymmetric interdependence—evidenced by its 44% share of EU exports to non-EU markets versus the EU's heavier reliance on intra-EU trade—weakened its leverage against the remaining 27 member states, who prioritized preserving the integrity of the single market and customs union during negotiations concluding in the December 24, 2020, Trade and Cooperation Agreement.[28] Proponents like Andrew Moravcsik argue this process underscores liberal intergovernmentalism's emphasis on states as rational actors advancing national interests, rather than spillover from prior integration or institutional pathologies.[31] In the context of rising nationalism across Europe, such as the electoral gains of parties like France's National Rally (13.1% in 2017 legislative elections) and Italy's Lega (17.4% in 2018), liberal intergovernmentalism views these developments as manifestations of evolving domestic preference formation, where identity-based cleavages intensify electoral pressures on governments to defend national competencies in areas like migration and fiscal policy.[29] The theory predicts that such shifts lead to tougher stances in Council bargaining—for instance, the Visegrád Group's resistance to EU migration quotas post-2015 crisis—but do not inherently precipitate disintegration unless aligned with concentrated economic stakes outweighing integration benefits, as diffuse nationalist sentiments often fail to override commercial interests in export-dependent economies. Empirical patterns, including stalled but not reversed integration in trade and competition policy despite nationalist surges, support this, with governments channeling populism into selective opt-outs rather than wholesale withdrawal.[3] Critics contend these crises expose limits in liberal intergovernmentalism's underemphasis on non-material identity drivers, yet defenders maintain the theory's robustness, attributing apparent "polity contestation" to bargaining over institutional delegation rather than existential threats to state sovereignty.[53] For instance, the EU's response to nationalist challenges—via differentiated integration mechanisms like the 2017 Fiscal Compact opt-outs—illustrates how intergovernmentalism accommodates variance in preferences without supranational imposition, preserving the Union's functional core amid peripheral frictions.[1] This perspective implies that contemporary nationalist pressures reinforce, rather than undermine, the theory's core tenet of governments as "masters of the treaties," constraining further centralization while enabling pragmatic adjustments to sustain cooperation where mutual gains persist.[9]

References

  1. [PDF] Liberal intergovernmentalism and its critics - LSE Research Online
  2. [PDF] Liberal Intergovernmentalism - Princeton University
  3. None
  4. Liberal Intergovernmentalism: An Overview of Andrew Moravcsik's ...
  5. [PDF] The uniting ofEurope : political, social, and economic forces, 1950 ...
  6. [The] uniting of Europe : political, social, and economical forces ...
  7. Intergovernmentalism: Old, Liberal, and New
  8. States, intergovernmentalism and negotiating the SGP (Chapter 2 ...
  9. Liberal Intergovernmentalism - Oxford Research Encyclopedias
  10. Liberal Intergovernmentalism
  11. Who determined what governments really wanted? Preference ...
  12. [PDF] The choice for Europe - Princeton University
  13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569775.2024.2387433
  14. https://eustudies.org/conference/papers/download/961
  15. https://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/jcms1995.pdf
  16. [PDF] Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht
  17. Andrew Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe - jstor
  18. https://www.eprints.lse.ac.uk/89236/1/Kleine_Liberal_intergovernmentalism_Accepted.pdf
  19. H-Net Reviews
  20. Liberal intergovernmentalism and the euro area crisis
  21. [PDF] The European Constitutional Compromise and the neofunctionalist ...
  22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015617969
  23. [PDF] Neofunctionalism Vs Liberal Intergovernmentalism
  24. [PDF] The New Intergovernmentalism and the Euro Crisis: A Painful Case?
  25. The European Union in disequilibrium: new intergovernmentalism ...
  26. The New Intergovernmentalism - Christopher J. Bickerton
  27. [PDF] A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration - Gary Marks
  28. Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-first century
  29. What the rise of radical nationalism tells us about the debate ...
  30. [PDF] Is liberal intergovernmentalism regressive? A comment ... - Gary Marks
  31. [PDF] Preferences, Power and Institutions in 21st‐century Europe
  32. Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Its Critics - Kleine - 2018 - JCMS
  33. Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal ...
  34. [PDF] Preferences and Power in the European Community
  35. Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Establishment ... - UNU-CRIS |
  36. Full article: Revisiting liberal intergovernmentalism in CFSP
  37. [PDF] Moravcsik Schimmelfennig LI 2018 Reduced.pdf - Princeton University
  38. The European constitutional compromise and the neofunctionalist ...
  39. Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-first century
  40. [PDF] International Relations Theory and European Integration
  41. [PDF] Multilevel governance or multilevel government? - Gary Marks
  42. [PDF] THEORIZING THE EUROPEAN UNION: International Organization ...
  43. MERCOSUR and the Challenges of Regional Integration
  44. (PDF) Regional Integration in Latin America: States, Markets and ...
  45. [PDF] Regional Integration in Latin America - DergiPark
  46. Integration Theory and ASEAN Integration - Kim - 2014 - Pacific Focus
  47. [PDF] Intergovernmentalism and the Development of East Asian ...
  48. Liberal intergovernmentalism and African regionalism: case of the ...
  49. [PDF] European Integration Theories and African Integration Realities
  50. [PDF] From NAFTA to USMCA and Beyond?1
  51. The institutionalisation of regional integration in North America
  52. [PDF] Brexit in European Integration Theory: Liberal Intergovernmentalism ...
  53. Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Crises of the European Union
User Avatar
No comments yet.