Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:33:17.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paradigm formation and paradigm change in the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2015

Sebastiaan Princen  and
Femke van Esch
Sebastiaan Princen*
Affiliation:
Professor, Governance and Policymaking in the European Union, School of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Femke van Esch
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, School of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses whether the European Union’s (EU) Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) has been underpinned by a policy paradigm. In doing so, it seeks to contribute to the debate on the existence and importance of paradigms in policy-making. It uses a causal mapping technique to reconstruct the beliefs behind three key policy documents in the SGP’s development, assessing to what extent these beliefs conform to two dominant economic policy paradigms. The analysis shows that the policy beliefs behind the SGP have been a mixture of economic policy paradigms, in which the emphasis placed on each paradigm has changed over time. This implies that internally coherent mixtures of policy paradigms are possible. This is likely also to be the case in many other areas of (EU) policy-making. Our findings have important implications for the debate on policy-change, as they suggest that paradigmatic change is likely to proceed more through gradual changes within mixes of paradigms than through radical paradigm shifts.

Keywords

causal mappingcognitive mappingEuropean Unionpolicy paradigmsStability and Growth Pact
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , August 2016 , pp. 355 - 375
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2015 

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

Allen, C.S. (2004), ‘“Ordo-liberalism” trumps Keynesianism: economic policy in the federal republic of Germany and the EU’, in Moss, B.H. (ed.), Monetary Union in Crisis, The European Union as Neo-Liberal Construction, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 199–221.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (ed.) (1976), Structure of Decision. The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. and Jones, B.D. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, M. (2013a), Austerity. The History of a Dangerous Idea, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, M. (2013b), ‘Paradigms and paradox: the politics of economic ideas in two moments of crisis’, Governance 26(2): 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bougon, M., K. Weick and Binkhorst, D. (1977), ‘Cognition in organizations: an analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra’, Administrative Science Quarterly 22(4): 606–639.Google Scholar
Bulmer, S. (2014), ‘Germany and the Eurozone crisis: between hegemony and domestic politics’, West European Politics 37(6): 1244–1263.Google Scholar
Carson, M., Burns, T.R. and Calvo, D. (eds) (2009), Paradigms in Public Policy. Theory and Practice of Paradigm Shifts in the EU, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Carstensen, M.B. (2011), ‘Paradigm man vs. the bricoleur: bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change’, European Political Science Review 3(1): 147–167.Google Scholar
Cashore, B. and Howlett, M. (2007), ‘‘Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry’’, American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 532–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, W.D., Skogstad, G.D. and Atkinson, M.M. (1996), ‘Paradigm shifts and policy networks: cumulative change in agriculture’, Journal of Public Policy 16(3): 273–301.Google Scholar
Curseu, P.L., Schalk, M.J.D. and Schruijer, S.G.L. (2010), ‘The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40(5): 1258–1291.Google Scholar
Dullien, U. and Guerot, S. (2012), The Long Shadow of Ordoliberalism: Germany’s Approach to the Euro Crisis, European Council on Foreign Relations Policy Brief, February 2012.Google Scholar
Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999), The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Economic and Monetary Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
European Commission (1996), ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Strengthening of the Surveillance and Coordination of Budgetary Positions’, COM(96) 496 final, Brussels: European Commission, October 16.Google Scholar
European Commission (2004), ‘Strengthening economic governance and clarifying the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact’, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2004) 581 final, Brussels: European Commission, September 3.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010), ‘Reinforcing economic policy coordination’, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2010) 250 final, Brussels: European Commission, May 12.Google Scholar
Garzon, I. (2006), Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy: History of a Paradigm Change, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gwet, K.L. (2012), Handbook of Inter-rater Reliability, Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LCC.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A. (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A. (2012), ‘The economics and politics of the euro crisis’, German Politics 21(4): 355–371.Google Scholar
Hart, J.A. (1977), ‘Cognitive maps of three Latin American policy makers’, in World Politics 30(1): 115–140.Google Scholar
Hay, C. (2001), ‘The “Crisis” of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in Britain. An ideational institutionalist approach’, in J.L. Campbell and O.K. Pedersen (eds), The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 193–218.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2009), ‘Process sequencing policy dynamics: beyond homeostasis and path dependency’, Journal of Public Policy 29(3): 241–262.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2005), The Politics of Attention. How Government Prioritizes Problems, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, B.D., Sulkin, T. and Larsen, H.A. (2003), ‘Policy punctuations in american political institutions’, American Political Science Review 97(1): 151–169.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1996 [1962]), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1959), ‘The science of “muddling through”’, Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. (1979), ‘Still muddling, not yet through’, Public Administration Review 39(6): 517–526.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (eds) (2010), Explaining Institutional Change. Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNamara, K.R. (1998), The Currency of Ideas. Monetary Politics in the European Union, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G., Pierre, J. and King, D.S. (2005), ‘The politics of path dependence: political conflict in historical institutionalism’, The Journal of Politics 67(4): 1275–1300.Google Scholar
Princen, S. (2010), ‘‘Venue shifts and policy change in EU fisheries policy’’, Marine Policy 34(1): 36–41.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. and Weible, C.M. (2007), ‘The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications’, in P.A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edn, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 189–220.Google Scholar
Segers, M.L.L. and Van Esch, F.A.W.J. (2007), ‘Behind the veil of budgetary discipline. The political logic of the budgetary rules in EMU and SGP’, Journal of Common Market Studies 45(5): 1089–1109.Google Scholar
Siems, M. and Schnyder, G. (2014), ‘Ordoliberal lessons for economic stability: different kinds of regulation, not more regulation’, Governance 27(3): 377–398.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G. (2011a), ‘Constructing a transnational paradigm in the European Union: the case of GMO risk regulation’, in G. Skogstad (ed.), Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism, and Domestic Politics, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 91–118.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G. (2011b), ‘Conclusion’, in G. Skogstad (ed.), Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism, and Domestic Politics, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G. and Schmidt, V. (2011), ‘Introduction: policy paradigms, transnationalim, and domestic politics’, in G. Skogstad (ed.), Policy Paradigms, Transnationalism, and Domestic Politics, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
True, J.L., Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2007), ‘Punctuated equilibrium theory. Explaining stability and change in public policymaking’, in P.A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edn., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 155–187.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van Esch, F.A.W.J. (2012), ‘Why Germany wanted EMU. The role of Helmut Kohl’s belief-system and the fall of the Berlin wall’, German Politics 21(1): 34–52.Google Scholar
Van Esch, F.A.W.J. (2013), ‘A matter of personality? Mapping stability and change in EU leaders’ beliefs during the euro-crisis’, Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, September 4–7, Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Van Esch, F.A.W.J. (2014), ‘Exploring the Keynesian-Ordoliberal divide. Flexibility and convergence in French and German leaders’ economic ideas during the euro-crisis’, Journal of Contemporary European Studies 22(3): 288–302.Google Scholar
Young, M.D. and Schafer, M. (1998), ‘Is there method in our madness? Ways of assessing cognition in international relations’, Mershon International Studies Review 42(1): 63–96.Google Scholar