Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorANGHEL, Veronica
dc.contributor.authorJONES, Erik
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-24T06:49:14Z
dc.date.available2021-05-24T06:49:14Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationJournal of European public policy, 2021, Vol. 29, No, 7, pp. 1092-1111en
dc.identifier.issn1350-1763
dc.identifier.issn1466-4429
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/71375
dc.descriptionPublished online: 13 May 2021en
dc.description.abstractThe ‘failing forward’ synthesis of liberal intergovernmentalism and neofunctionalism puts European member states governments in charge of the process of integration. However, this placement does not show clearly whether the principals are reactive or proactive. That distinction between proactive and reactive is important in understanding what it means to say that integration is a movement ‘forward’ and what we mean by ‘success’. Moving forward could mean building out the great ideals of Europe’s political leaders, but it could also mean reacting to events in a way that solves problems, even if only imperfectly. The process of Eastern enlargement shows this distinction at work. We argue that enlargement is ‘successful’ as a reactive process and not as a proactive one. In proactive terms, the Eastern enlargement process has a consistent record of failure inasmuch as agents did not get what they wanted when they wanted it. In reactive terms, enlargement contributed to the creation of a wider and a deeper European Union.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRoutledgeen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of European public policyen
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.titleFailing forward in Eastern enlargement : problem solving through problem makingen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/13501763.2021.1927155
dc.identifier.volume29
dc.identifier.startpage1092
dc.identifier.endpage1111
dc.identifier.issue7


Files associated with this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record