Power and Changing Modes of Governance in the Euro Crisis

Martin B. Carstensen, Vivien Schmidt

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

66 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Which European Union actors are most powerful in the governance of the euro crisis? The euro crisis has reignited the classic debate between intergovernmentalists, who tend to stress the coercive power of dominant member states in the European Council, and supranationalists, who maintain that through the use of institutional power, the Commission, and the European Central Bank turned out the “winners” of the crisis. This article argues that euro crisis governance is best understood not just in terms of one form of power but
instead as evolving through different constellations of coercive, institutional, and ideational power that favored different EU actors over the course of the crisis, from the initial fast-burning phase (2010–2012), where the coercive
and ideational power of Northern European member states in the European Council was strongest, to the slow-burning phase (2012–2016), when greater influence was afforded supranational actors through the use of ideational and institutional power.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftGovernance: An international journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions
Vol/bind31
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)609-624
Antal sider16
ISSN0952-1895
DOI
StatusUdgivet - okt. 2018

Bibliografisk note

Epub ahead of print. Published online: 20 October 2017

The research presented in the contribution was funded by the H2020 grant ‘European Legitimacy in Governing through Hard Times (#649456 – ENLIGHTEN).

Citer dette

@article{020f4c40604a46629021dd330d5ea556,
title = "Power and Changing Modes of Governance in the Euro Crisis",
abstract = "Which European Union actors are most powerful in the governance of the euro crisis? The euro crisis has reignited the classic debate between intergovernmentalists, who tend to stress the coercive power of dominant member states in the European Council, and supranationalists, who maintain that through the use of institutional power, the Commission, and the European Central Bank turned out the “winners” of the crisis. This article argues that euro crisis governance is best understood not just in terms of one form of power butinstead as evolving through different constellations of coercive, institutional, and ideational power that favored different EU actors over the course of the crisis, from the initial fast-burning phase (2010–2012), where the coerciveand ideational power of Northern European member states in the European Council was strongest, to the slow-burning phase (2012–2016), when greater influence was afforded supranational actors through the use of ideational and institutional power.",
author = "Carstensen, {Martin B.} and Vivien Schmidt",
note = "Epub ahead of print. Published online: 20 October 2017 The research presented in the contribution was funded by the H2020 grant ‘European Legitimacy in Governing through Hard Times (#649456 – ENLIGHTEN).",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/gove.12318",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "609--624",
journal = "Governance: An international journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions",
issn = "0952-1895",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

Power and Changing Modes of Governance in the Euro Crisis. / Carstensen, Martin B.; Schmidt, Vivien.

I: Governance: An international journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Bind 31, Nr. 4, 10.2018, s. 609-624.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Power and Changing Modes of Governance in the Euro Crisis

AU - Carstensen, Martin B.

AU - Schmidt, Vivien

N1 - Epub ahead of print. Published online: 20 October 2017 The research presented in the contribution was funded by the H2020 grant ‘European Legitimacy in Governing through Hard Times (#649456 – ENLIGHTEN).

PY - 2018/10

Y1 - 2018/10

N2 - Which European Union actors are most powerful in the governance of the euro crisis? The euro crisis has reignited the classic debate between intergovernmentalists, who tend to stress the coercive power of dominant member states in the European Council, and supranationalists, who maintain that through the use of institutional power, the Commission, and the European Central Bank turned out the “winners” of the crisis. This article argues that euro crisis governance is best understood not just in terms of one form of power butinstead as evolving through different constellations of coercive, institutional, and ideational power that favored different EU actors over the course of the crisis, from the initial fast-burning phase (2010–2012), where the coerciveand ideational power of Northern European member states in the European Council was strongest, to the slow-burning phase (2012–2016), when greater influence was afforded supranational actors through the use of ideational and institutional power.

AB - Which European Union actors are most powerful in the governance of the euro crisis? The euro crisis has reignited the classic debate between intergovernmentalists, who tend to stress the coercive power of dominant member states in the European Council, and supranationalists, who maintain that through the use of institutional power, the Commission, and the European Central Bank turned out the “winners” of the crisis. This article argues that euro crisis governance is best understood not just in terms of one form of power butinstead as evolving through different constellations of coercive, institutional, and ideational power that favored different EU actors over the course of the crisis, from the initial fast-burning phase (2010–2012), where the coerciveand ideational power of Northern European member states in the European Council was strongest, to the slow-burning phase (2012–2016), when greater influence was afforded supranational actors through the use of ideational and institutional power.

UR - https://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=954925574971&rft.object_portfolio_id=&svc.holdings=yes&svc.fulltext=yes

U2 - 10.1111/gove.12318

DO - 10.1111/gove.12318

M3 - Journal article

VL - 31

SP - 609

EP - 624

JO - Governance: An international journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions

JF - Governance: An international journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions

SN - 0952-1895

IS - 4

ER -