Search

Jean Monnet was the inventor of the community method; by placing economic integration before the political one, he reversed the criteria of unification that had characterised the development of nat...

Amongst the Italian exiles who arrived at the Canton of Ticino following repression perpetrated by the Di Rudini and Pelloux administrations – after the popular uprisings of 1898 – are Enrico Bigna...

Presentation du debat allemand sur la relation entre les civilisations, a travers les figures d'E. Troeltsch et K. Jaspers. Alors que l'europanisme du premier est une position courante dans les annees 1920, le cosmopolitisme defendu par le second a l'originalite de revendiquer un dialogue mutuel entre les civilisations.

(1995). The crisis of historicism and Troeltsch's Europeanism. History of European Ideas: Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 195-207.

Observers have often discussed the ways in which private interests’ have contributed towards European Community’ (EC)politics.3 This debate has been particularly intense, following the arrival of a large number of lobbyists in Brussels and Strasbourg after the Single European Act was passed in 1986. In this paper some data which contribute to this debate are presented and discussed.4 The discussion of the data examines the impact of interest representation on the EC policy-making process and on the wider process of EC integration. In addition, the idea that supranational interest organisations have the potential to socialise EC citizens into a more European orientated attitude is briefly explored. Clearly, if private interests can contribute to EC politics in these three areas, they must be regarded as a key factor in the development of post-war Europe. Finally, the conclusion moves beyond the immediate implications of the data and speculates on the meaning of Europeanism and the future development of European integration. Early students of post-war European developments formulated a theory of regional integration which is usually referred to as neofunctionalism.5 Neofunctionalism is based on a pluralist conception of politics, and neofunctionalists and pluralists alike believe that private interests are capable of contributing to EC politics in all three areas specified above.6 Neofunctionalism differs from pluralism in that it is a comprehensive and detailed theory which maintains that there is an incremental, but inexorable process towards regional’ integration as a result of economic and political spill-over pressures.‘I With regard to interest representation, neofunctionalism also differs in one important way from classical pluralism. Classical pluralists have either been ambiguous about the relationship between interest groups and government agencies, including the state bureaucracy, or they have not regarded the latter as autonomous bodies who influence policies in their own right.9 Neofunctionalists however considered the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, and later the Commission of the European Community, as an important and dynamic body which interacted with private interests in such a way that the latter were able to contribute in the three key areas of European development mentioned above.‘O