Non-state actors and false dichotomies: reviewing IR/IPE approaches to European integration

Many IR and IPE theories marginalize non-state actors in a manner inconsistent with their role in EU integration, governance, and policy-making. Yet multinational firms, NGOs, and advocacy networks are increasingly important players in today's global economy. This review article examines four t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of European public policy 2003, Vol.10 (1), p.102-120
Main Author: Cowles, Maria
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advocacy
Advocacy Networks
Constructivism
Critical School
Dichotomies
European integration
European Union
Firms
Governance
Institutionalism
Institutions
Intergovernmentalism
International political economy
International Relations
Liberal Intergovernmentalism
Liberalism
Non-state actors
Political Economy
Political Integration
Political Science Theories
Realism
Social Constructionism
World Economy
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Many IR and IPE theories marginalize non-state actors in a manner inconsistent with their role in EU integration, governance, and policy-making. Yet multinational firms, NGOs, and advocacy networks are increasingly important players in today's global economy. This review article examines four theories/approaches that tend to ignore this development: neorealism, institutionalism, constructivism, and the critical school. To shed light on the literature's marginalization of non-state actors, I identify three false dichotomies: (1) the international versus domestic, (2) the public versus private, and (3) the "good' versus "bad'. The article provides empirical evidence to demonstrate why these dichotomies must be transcended and discusses theoretical developments that better account for non-state actors. Finally, I recognize a fourth false dichotomy between the American IR/IPE theories and the European comparative, political economy, and governance approaches. Rather than adopting one approach over another, this paper suggests that both schools of thought can benefit from one another.
ISSN:1350-1763
1466-4429
DOI:10.1080/1350176032000046967