How are we to understand European integration? There are a number of theories that attempt to shed-light on the integration process each considering that a particular political explanation provides the best means of interpretation. Intergovernmentalism proposes that the only way to understand European integration is through the actions of nation-states. Neo functionalism emphasises the extent to which sub-national interests and a supranational authority provides economic benefit and political acceptance of the process. Through a study of life insurance this paper investigates the extent of sector involvement in EU policy making and analyses the utilisation of sub-national actors, supranationality and spillover in the process of European integration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CecchiniP. (1988). The European Challenge. The Benefits of a Single Market. Wildwood House. The European Commission.
2.
CharmazK. (1983). ‘The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation’, inR.M.Emerson (ed.), Contemporary Field Research. A Collection of Readings. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
3.
CoenD. (1997). ‘The Evolution of the Large Firm as a Political Actor in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4(1), March, 91–108.
4.
CoenD. (1998). ‘European Business Interest and the Nation State: Large Firm Lobbying in the European Union and Member State’, Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 75–100.
5.
CoenD. (2000). Regulation Large Firm Behaviour and Market Building: Impacts ofAssociationalism. The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations Conference. 18–20Sept.Brussels. Aberdeen: Ernst Young Association Management and The Robert Gordon University.
6.
Commission of the European Community (1985). White Paper on Completing the Internal Market. Brussels.
7.
FosterN. (1999). EC Legislation. UK: Blackstones.
8.
European Documentation (1989). The European Financial Common Market Periodical, 4.
9.
GarrettG.TsebelisG. (1996). ‘An Institutional Critique of Intergovernmentalism’, International Organisation, 50(2), 269–99.
10.
GeorgeS. (1994). Supranational Actors and Domestic Politics: Integration Theory Reconsideredin the Light of the Single European Act and Maastricht. Sheffield Papers in International Studies No 22. University of Sheffield.
11.
GeorgeS. (1995). Politics and Policy of the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
GlaserB. (1978). Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Theoretical Sensitivity. San Francisco: University of California.
13.
GlaserB. (1992). Emergence vs Forcing. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
14.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
15.
GrantW.MarshD. (1977). The Confederation of British Industry. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
16.
HaasE.B. (1958). The Uniting of Europe. Stanford University Press.
17.
HaasE.B. (1964). ‘Technocracy, Pluralism and the New Europe’, in GrubardS. R. (ed.), ANew Europe. Boston.
18.
HixS. (1994). ‘The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics’, West European Politics, 17(1), 1–30.
19.
HMSO (1988). Treaties Establishing the European Communities. London.
20.
HoogheL.MarksG. (1997). ‘Contending Models of Governance in the European Union in the European Union’, in CalfrunyA. W.LankowskiC. (eds), Europe’sAmbiguous Unity. Conflict and Consensus in the Post Maastricht Era. London: Lynne Reiner.
21.
HowellK.E. (2000). Discovering the Limits of European Integration: Applying GroundedTheory. New York: Nova Science.
22.
KeohaneR.HofnanS. (1990). ‘Community Politics and Institutional Change’, in WallaceW. (ed.), The Dynamics of European Integration. London and New York: The Royal Institute of International Affairs/Pinter.
23.
KeohaneR.HofnanS. (1991). ‘Institutional Change in Europe in the 1980s’, in TheNew European Community: Decision Making and Institutional Change. Westview.
24.
KirchnerE.J. (1976). An Empirical Examination of the Functionalist Concept of Spillover. PhD Case Western Reserve University.
25.
Lindberg.L.N. (1963). The Political Dynamics of European Integration. Stanford University.
26.
LindbergL.ScheingoldS.A. (1970). Europe’s Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in theEuropean Community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
MarksG.ScharpfF.W.SchmitterP.C.StreeckW. (eds) (1996). Governance in theEuropean Union. London: Sage.
28.
MarshD. (1978). ‘More on Joining Interest Groups’, British Journal of Political Science, 8, 380–384.
29.
MoeT.M. (1980). The Organisation of Interests. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
30.
MoravcsikA. (1991). ‘Negotiating the Single European Act’, in KeohaneR.HoffmanS. (eds), The New European Community: Decision Making and InstitutionalChange. Westview.
31.
MoravcsikA. (1993). ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.
32.
MutimerD. (1989). 1992 and the Political Integration of Europe: Neofunctionalism Reconsidered. Journal of European Integration, XIII(1), Canada.
33.
NyeJ.S. (1971). Comparing Common Markets: A Revised Neo-Functionalist Model in RegionalIntegration: Theory and Research, LindbergL.ScheingoldS.A. (eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
OlsonM. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action. USA: Harvard University Press.
35.
PiersonP. (1996). ‘The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), April, 123–163. Sage.
36.
SandholtzW. (1994). ‘Choosing Union: Monetary Politics and Maastricht’, in NeilsenB. F.StubbA.C-G. (eds), The European Union. Readings on the Theory and Practice ofEuropean Integration. London: Lynne Rienner.
37.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Proceduresand Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1994). ‘Grounded Theory Methodology An Overview’, in DenzinN.LincolnY. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 273–285. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
StreeckW. (2000). Europeanising Business Associations: Aiming at a Moving Target. The Effectiveness of EU Business Associations Conference. 18–20SeptBrussels. Ernst Young Association Management and The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.
40.
Tranholme-MikkelsonJ. (1991). ‘Neo-functionalism Obstinate v Obsolete’, Millenium, 20, 1–22.
