Abstract

As scholars of the process of European integration, we are aware of the limitations and deficiencies of the state of theory in international relations and comparative politics. Susan Strange’s dissatisfaction with the state of theorizing should warn us of the dangers and pitfalls of employing too deterministic a mode of theoretical analysis. The diversity of theories and analytical approaches at our disposal makes the task even more problematic. Europeanist Gary Marks has noted that studying the European Union asks ‘us to think anew about political science as a discipline and how its subfields fit together’ (Marks 1997: 1). Scholars have been debating the validity of different theoretical approaches since the late 1950s (for a review of the international relations and comparative politics/political economy approaches see Bulmer and Scott (1995) and Rosamond (2000)). Notable works on European Monetary Union (for example, Overturf 1997; Kenan 1995; McNamara 1998; Frieden, Gros and Jones 2000; Eichengreen and Frieden 2001) provide a comprehensive review of various theoretical approaches to the study of monetary integration.KeywordsMonetary PolicyCentral BankEuropean Monetary SystemEpistemic CommunityCentral Bank IndependenceThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.