European Union Political Theories in Times of Crisis. The Cases of Economic and Monetary Union and of the European Union Migration and Asylum Policy





In the last decades, the EU has been analysed by many scholars through diff erent theoretical perspectives. In this context, the 2008 fi nancial crisis has provoked diff erent EU policy crises which have in turn led to a reassessment of the theoretical frameworks needed to analyse them. Th is paper seeks to contribute to this reassessment, taking the EMU and the European migration and asylum policy as case studies to investigate to what extent these regimes have suff ered internal policy crises via the application of two theoretical perspectives: neo-functionalism and neo-institutionalism. On the one hand, under the neo-institutionalism approach, institutions constrain political actors in a norm-based way. According to this perspective, migration and asylum policy change during the crisis may be explained by European institutional constraints on the Member States. On the other hand, neo-functionalism may be used to investigate the EMU Europeanization policy process in which EU Member States’ cooperation has reinforced the process of integration in this policy domain. In addition, due to the recent developments in European asylum cooperation, many important questions arise about the nature of the legal measures within the criteria of internal security. Th is paper tries to shed light on the problématique of asylum and migration policy-making process by looking at an innovative theoretical framework based on the cost/benefi t and public goods theories.

  • Aspinwall M., Grenwood J. (1998). Collective Action in the European Union: Interests and the New Politics of Associability, London: Routledge.
  • Betts A. (2003). “Public goods theory and the provision of refugee protection: the role of the joint-product model in burden-sharing theory”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(3): 274–296.
  • Caporaso J., Jupille J. (1999). “Institutionalism and the European Union: Beyond International Relations and Comparative Politics”, Annual Review of Political Science, 2: 429–444.
  • Collett E., Le Coz C. (2018). “Aft er the Storm: Learning from the EU response to the migration crisis”, Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe.
  • European Commission (2017). “Annex to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council. Fourteenth Report on Relocation and Resettlement”, 26 July. Source: airs/sites/homeaff airs/ fi les/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170726_fourteenth_report_ on_relocation_and_resettlement_annex1_en.pd [accessed on: 10 October 2018].
  • Falkner G. (2016). “Th e EU’s current crisis and its policy eff ects: research design and comparative fi ndings”, Journal of European Integration, 37(3): 219–235.
  • Haas E. (1964). “Technocracy, pluralism and the new Europe”. In: S. Graubard (ed.), A New Europe? Boston, MA: Beacon Press: 62–88.
  • Hass E. (2004). “Introduction: institutionalism or constructivism?”. In: E. Haas, Th e Uniting of Europe, 3rd ed, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 13–56.
  • Hall P.A., Taylor R.C.R. (1996). “Political Science and the Th ree New Institutionalisms”, Political Studies, (44): 936–957.
  • Hooghe L., Marks G. (2009). “A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus”, British Journal of Political Science, 39(1): 1–23.
  • Jachtenfuchs M., Kasak C. (2017). “Balancing Sub-unit autonomy and collective problemsolving by varying exit and voice. An analytical framework”, Journal of European Public Policy, 24(4): 598–614.
  • Jones E. (2012). “Th e JCMS annual review lecture: European crisis, European solidarity”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(Annual Review): 53–67.
  • Jones E. (2018). “Towards a theory of disintegration”, Journal of European Public Policy, 25(3): 440–451.
  • Liberman L. (2013). “Garbage Can Model of Decision Making”. In: Encyclopedia of Management Th eory, (eds.) E.H. Kessler. Th ousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc: 307–310.
  • March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1984). “Th e New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life”, American Political Science Review, 74(3): 734–749.
  • Meyers E. (2000). “Th eories of International Immigration Policy. A Comparative Analysis”, Th e International Migration Review, 34(4): 1245–1282.
  • Miller M.J. (1992). “Evolution of Policy Modes for Regulating International Labor Migration”. In: International Migration Systems, (eds.) M.M. Kritz, L.L. Lim, H. Zlotnik. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 300–314.
  • Moravcsik A. (1993). “Preferences and power in the European community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4): 473–524.
  • Niemann A., Zaun N. (2018). “EU Refugee Policies and Politics in Times of Crisis: Th eoretical and Empirical Perspectives”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1): 3–22.
  • Niemann A., Ioannou D. (2015). “European economic integration in times of crisis: a case of neofunctionalism?”, Journal of European Public Policy, 22(2): 196–218.
  • Niemann A., Ioannou, D., Leblond P. (2016). European Integration in Times of Crisis: Th eoretical perspectives, New York: Routledge.
  • Olson M. (1965). Th e logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Pachocka M., Visvizi A. (2018). “Rethinking the Twin Migration and Refugee Crises in Europe through the Lens of Safety and Security”. In: Th e European Union and the Eastern Partnership: Security Challenges, (eds.) C.E. Pacheco Amaral, V. Cucerescu, G. Gabrichidze, I. Horga, A. Kruglashov, E. Latoszek, M. Pachocka, Tipografi a “Print- Caro”, Chişinău, Tbilisi, Cernăuți.
  • Schimmelfennig F. (2018). “European integration (theory) in times of crisis. A comparison of the euro and Schengen crises”, Journal of European Public Policy, 25(7): 969–989.
  • Schimmelfennig F. (2018). “Brexit: diff erentiated disintegration in the European Union”, Journal of European Public Policy, 25(8): 1154–1173.
  • Suhrke A. (1998). “Burden-sharing during refugee emergencies: the logic of collective versus national action”, Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4): 396–415.
  • Tanja A., Börzel T.A, Risse T. (2017). “From the euro to the Schengen crises: European integration theories, politicization, and identity politics”, Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1): 83–108.
  • Thielemann E.R. (2002). “Th e ‘Soft ’ Europeanisation of Migration Policy: European integration and Domestic Policy Change”, Paper presented at the 2002 ECPR Joint Session of Workshops, Turin, 22–27 March.
  • Thielemann E.R., Armstrong C. (2013). “Understanding European asylum cooperation under the Schengen/Dublin system: a public goods framework”, European Security, 22(2): 148–164.
  • Thielemann E.R. (2018). “Why Refugee Burden-Sharing Initiatives Fail: Public Goods, Free- Riding and Symbolic Solidarity in the EU”, Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1): 63–82.
  • Tosun J., Wetzel A., Zapryanova G. (2014). “Th e EU in Crisis: Advancing the Debate”, Journal of European Integration, 36(3): 195–211.
  • Trauner F. (2016). “Asylum policy: the EU’s ‘crises’ and the looming policy regime failure”, Journal of European Integration, 38(3): 311–325.
  • Verdun A. (2002a). Th e Euro: European Integration Theory and Economic and Monetary Union. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
  • Verdun A. (2002b). “Why EMU Happened: A Survey of Theoretical Explanations”. In: Before and Beyond EMU: Historical Lessons and Future Prospects, ed by P. M. Crowley. London: Routledge.
  • Vollaard H. (2014). “Explaining European disintegration”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(5): 1–18.
  • Zolberg A. R. (1991). “Bounded States in a Global Market: The Uses of International Labor Migration.” In: Social Th eory for a Changing Society. (eds.) P. Bourdieu, J.S. Coleman. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 301–335.