Keller 2005

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

1/33

JCMS 2005 Volume 43. Number 3. pp. 55182

Mapping EU Studies: The Evolution fromBoutique to Boom Field 19602001*

JOHN T.S. KEELERUniversity of Washington (Seattle)

Abstract

This article employs original data sets to map the development of EU studies sinceits inception and to assess that development within the broader context of trends in

west European studies. Dissertation and article data are used to chart the contours ofthree eras of EC/EU studies that have unfolded since 1960. The article addresses theextent to which the transformation of EU studies from boutique to boom field since the1990s has entailed diversification as well as expansion of the EU scholarly community a geographic diffusion of expertise and training (accelerated on both sides of theAtlantic by substantial increases in funding for EU research), an increase in attentionto EU issues by comparative politics specialists drawn to the study of an ever closerunion, a proliferation of new topical subfields, an increase in the number of journalspublishing significant articles on the EU, and a reshaping of the relationship betweenAmerican and European scholars specializing in EU studies.

* For comments on an earlier draft of this article, I would like to thank the participants in seminars organizedby the Political Economy Working Group and the Transatlantic Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre forAdvanced Studies, European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy (May 2004), the EU Center at the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison (April 2004), the Political Science Department at the University of Oregon (November2004) and the Thomas Foley Institute at Washington State University (January 2005). Thanks also to thosewho provided feedback when the paper was delivered at the Ninth Biennial International Conference of theEuropean Union Studies Association (EUSA), Austin, Texas, 2 April 2005. Special thanks for commentsto David Andrews, Andrew Appleton, James Caporaso, Jeffrey Checkel, Wyn Grant, Simon Hix, JosephJupille, Paulette Kurzer, Adam Luedtke, Gary Marks, Amy Mazur, Craig Parsons, William Paterson, Mark

Pollack, Glenda Rosenthal, Jo Shaw, Mitchell Smith, Paul Taggart, Amy Verdun, Helen Wallace, GrahamWilson and Jonathan Zeitlin. I am also indebted to Valerie Staats, Administrative Director of EUSA, andSue Davis Executive Director of UACES for providing useful organizational data

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

2/33

552 JOHN T.S. KEELER

Introduction

Many papers assessing the development of EU studies in recent years have

made the increasingly obvious point that the volume of scholarship on Euro-pean integration and EU politics has grown substantially and diversified sincethe late 1980s. Very few, however, have attempted to assess this growth in aquantitative manner employing original data bases (Jupille, 2005), and none hasattempted to map the development of EU studies in a comprehensive manner.Christopher Makins lamented this fact some years ago in his widely circulatedreport on The Study of Europe in the United States co-sponsored by the Ger-man Marshall Fund of the United States and the Delegation of the EuropeanCommission to the United States. Unfortunately, noted Makins, the data

needed to give a good depiction of trends in the study of Europe and the EUare not readily available and could only with considerable difficulty, if at all,be assembled in useful fashion. After much reflection, Makins decided thathe had insufficient time and resources to gather much original data himself,but he challenged others by stressing that scholars, university administrators,funding agencies and officials of the EU would all benefit from instituting a capacity to track key trends in the field to the degree that these can bemeasured quantitatively (Makins, 1998, p. 5).

With the help of two research assistants, I have attempted to respond to

Makins challenge by assembling and processing a variety of data designedto track the development of EC/EU studies and, to a limited extent, westEuropean studies more broadly from 1960 to 2001.1 Two main data sets wereconstructed. The first consists of all of the PhD dissertations in political sciencewith a focus on western Europe completed from 1960 to 2001 at universitiesin the United States; the research assistants recorded the year of completion,author, title, university, subfield specialization of author (international rela-tions or comparative politics), area focus (country or countries, EC/EU and/orNato), and topic (coded in one or more of 25 categories).2These data do not,1 My research assistants were Eric Sieberson of the University of Washington, who provided considerableinitial support, and Erik Fromm, a 2003 graduate of Yale, who devoted scores of hours to the collectionof data over a nine-month period during 200304. I am especially indebted to the latter, and to ProfessorDavid Cameron of Yale University who suggested that Erik contact me in search of employment when hemoved to Seattle. Thanks also to the staff of the University of Washington European Union Center/Centerfor West European Studies, especially Associate Director Phil Shekleton, for facilitating the work of Eric 1and Erik 2 on this project. I gratefully acknowledge that this project was supported directly and indirectlyby funding that our EU Center receives from the Commission of the European Union and that our Centerfor West European Studies receives from the National Resource Center program of the US Department ofEducation.2 The sources for these data were the annual lists of completed PhDs published in the American PoliticalScience Review (196167), then in the American Political Science Associations PS (196897), then on line

at http://www.apsanet.org. Thanks to Stephen Yoder, Assistant Editor ofPS, for providing some missingdata. Some dissertations were listed twice in APSAs publications, but they were counted only once in ourdata set Western Europe was defined to mean the EU-15 countries plus Norway and Switzerland Given

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

3/33

553MAPPING EU STUDIES

of course, enable us to track the entire range of the field of EU studies, but theydo capture the heart of it. According to a survey of members of the EuropeanUnion Studies Association (EUSA) conducted in 2003, 64 per cent are politi-

cal scientists and this number reaches 73 per cent if those declaring theirdiscipline to be international relations are included; lawyers ranked second at11 per cent and economists third at 6 per cent (Staats, 2003). The UK-basedUACES (University Association for Contemporary European Studies) hasa similar membership profile. As of 2004, 63 per cent of its members werespecialists in politics and international relations, 12.3 per cent in law and 12.3per cent in economics (UACES, 2004a).

The second data set records the number of articles published per year on theEC/EU in 24 leading political science, international relations and public policy

journals from 1960 to 2001.3 All of the journals devoted mainly or exclusivelyto EC/EU studies ( Journal of Common Market Studies: JCMS; Journal of

European Integration: JEI; Journal of European Public Policy: JEPP; andEuropean Union Politics: EUP) were, of course, included. Also included werethe national political science journals of the United States (American PoliticalScience Review: APSR), the UK (Political Studies: PS andBritish Journal ofPolitical Science: BJPS), France (Revue franaise de science politique: RFSP),Germany (Politische Vierteljahresschrift: PV) and Italy (Rivista Italiana diScienza Politica: RISP), as well as 14 other journals known to have published

numerous articles on the EC/EU and/or at least some very widely cited articleson the topic.4 For 18 of these journals5 the data set also includes the topic(s)of the articles (coded in one of 25 categories) and the number of times thearticles had been cited as of 200304 in the online version of the Social Sci-ences Citation Index.6 Of the 24 journals in this data set, only 33.3 per cent (8)

our limited resources, one of our decision rules was that inclusion in the data set could be made only onthe basis of the dissertation title; this meant that some dissertations focusing largely or even exclusively onwestern Europe were excluded. Dissertations were coded as EU if the title mentioned the EC, EEC, EUor in any other way based on the title alone clearly merited inclusion (e.g. theses on European monetary

union or the Maastricht Treaty debate were included). It is important to note here that the subfield specializa-tions of the authors were not inferred from the titles they were declared by the authors themselves whenreporting the completion of their dissertations to APSA.3 Law journals were not included, but the 24 journals employed show (see Table 1, p. 571) that articleson the European Court of Justice and EU public law have proliferated since 1990. On the development ofEuropean legal studies, see Shaw (2003) and Hunt and Shaw (2000).4 Comparative Political Studies (CPS), Comparative Politics (CP), European Journal of Political Research(EJPR), Government and Opposition (Gov.&Opp.), Governance (Gov.), International Affairs (IA), Inter-national Organization (IO), Policy and Politics (P&P), Politics and Society (P&S), Public Administration(PA), Publius (Pub.), Survival (Sur.), West European Politics (WEP) and World Politics (WP).5 All butJCMS andJEI, the quantity of whose output excessively challenged my research assistants, EUP,which commenced publication just before the final year of the data set, and the non-English languagejournals.6 The citation data were extracted from the Social Sciences Index Database of the Institute for ScientificInformation, Inc., ISI, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Copyright 1990. This online citation index (avail-bl t htt // i i17 i ik l d ) d th h li t ith th U i it f

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

4/33


are published in the United States while 50 per cent (12) are published in theUnited Kingdom, 12.5 per cent (3) in continental Europe and 4.2 per cent (1)in Canada. Unlike the dissertation data set, the article data set thus allows for

the tracking of trends in EC/EU studies on both sides of the Atlantic.The citation data, supplemented by a broader search, were used to compile

a list of the ten most-cited articles on the EC/EU for each of the five decadesfrom 1960 to 2001 (for the 2000s, only articles from 2000 and 2001 wereranked).7 For reasons to be discussed below, these 50 articles were coded forauthors university affiliation and academic discipline.

Taken together, these data allow us to map the development of EU studiessince its inception and to assess that development within the broader context oftrends in west European studies. Section I will use the dissertation and article

data to chart the contours of three eras of EC/EU studies that have unfoldedsince 1960. Section II will address the extent to which the transformation ofEU studies from boutique to boom field has entailed diversification of the EUscholarly community a geographic diffusion of expertise and training, anincrease in attention to EU issues by comparative politics specialists drawnto the study of an ever closer union, a proliferation of new topical subfields,a diversification of journals publishing significant articles on the EU, and areshaping of the relationship between American and European scholars.

I. Charting the Development of EU Studies

Writing in the early 1990s, James Caporaso and I used some very limiteddata to help identify stages in the development of research on the EC/EU andregional integration (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995). The much more substantialdata available for this study, viewed from the new temporal perspective of2005, basically support the logic of that earlier classification effort, but alsodemonstrate that the upturn in the literature visible a decade ago was justthe initial rumbling of a veritable eruption that would reshape the field. Onecan now clearly identify three eras in the development of EC/EU studies:the launch era, driven empirically by the implementation of the Treaty ofRome and shaped theoretically mainly by debates between neofunctionalists

Washington. Citations were recorded over a span of 14 months, mostly from JanuaryJuly 2003 with someadditions made to March 2004. It should be noted that for those articles listed in slightly different ways onmultiple lines of the citation record (e.g. for J Common Mark Stud, 1996, vol. 34, one finds Caporaso JAp. 29, Caporaso JA p. 46, Caporaso J), citations to all lines were counted.7 The list of most cited articles was not restricted to those published in the 24 journals of the data set. Articlesfrom other journals mentioned prominently in state of the discipline essays were also checked for number

of citations and included if appropriate. Ultimately, 45 of the top 50 articles were derived from the journalsin the data set; the other five were from Daedalus, European Economic Review (EER), American Journalof International Law Common Market Law Review (CMLR) and Yale Law Journal

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

5/33


led by Ernst Haas and intergovernmentalists such as Stanley Hoffmann; thedoldrumsera or dark ages, driven empirically by the post-empty chair crisisstagnation of the integration process and the turn away from grand theorizing;

and the renaissance/boom era, driven empirically by the rapid succession ofintegration achievements from the mid-1980s onwards (the Single EuropeanAct and the 1992 programme, the Maastricht Treaty, the creation of the singlecurrency and the movement towards eastern enlargement, to name but theprincipal highlights) and shaped theoretically by a new wave of grand theorydebates followed by an unprecedented proliferation and diversification of theEU studies literature.

The Launch Era

As Figure 1 shows, EEC studies as measured by completed doctoral dis-sertations on the topic in political science grew dramatically throughout the1960s. In the span of a decade, from 196062 to 196971, the number of dis-sertations on the topic increased from one per three years to 17 per three years(13 per cent of all dissertations on western Europe). Doctoral scholarship onthe EEC reached its single-year peak during this period in 1969, when for thefirst time fully 20 per cent of all dissertations on western Europe dealt with adimension of the integration process (see Figure 2).

In the mid-1960s it seemed that this upward trajectory would continuefor some time unabated, as the EEC achieved the goals of its first transitionphase and announced that the second phase could be shortened, and as Haasprojected that the spillover may make a political community of Europe infact even before the end of the transition period (Cram, 1996, pp. 5960).However, of course, this seemingly inexorable integration process was derailedin the mid-1960s by French President Charles de Gaulles confrontation with

Figure 1: Political Science Dissertations on EC/EU 19602001Source: Authors own data

No. EU

% EU

No./

%o

nEC/EU

Three-year intervals 196062 to 19992001

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

6/33


EEC Commission President Walter Hallstein. Assuming a three to five-yearlag between beginning and completion of dissertations, the peaking of thesisproduction in 1969 makes perfect sense. Most of those 1969 dissertations weredoubtless begun just before the 196566 empty chair crisis that brought theera of heroic integration to a halt and led Haas a few years later to declare theobsolescence of integration theory (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995, pp. 367;Cram, 1996, p. 61).

The article data of Figure 3 also manifest a burst of scholarly output on theEEC during the launch era, as expected. Article production peaks somewhatearlier than dissertation production during this era, which one would assumereflects at least in part the shorter time lag between beginning and completionof articles. It should be acknowledged here that the low level of article publica-tion of this era, compared to the later periods, doubtless reflects in part the fact

Figure 2: % of Political Science Dissertations in West European Area with Focus onthe EC/EU, 19602001

Source: Authors own data.

50

45

40

35

3025

20

15

10

5

060 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

Year

%d

issertationso

nEC/EU

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00

Three-year intervals

19

68 65 63 62

95

128104 112

119145

246

343

446

Figure 3: EC/EU Articles in 24 Journals, 19602001Source: Authors own data

No.ofarticles

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

7/33


that not all of the 24 journals in the data set existed in the 1960s. Only sevenof the journals8 in the set were in existence before 1960; five more came online in the 1960s, includingJCMS (1962); nine more in the 1970s, one in the

1980s, one in the 1990s and the last (EUP) in 2000.9

The Doldrums Era

The ensuing doldrums or dark ages period in EC studies can be trackedneatly with the data of Figures 12. The number of dissertations on the topicper three-year period declined from 17 in 196971 to a mere 4 in 198789, andthe record 17 figure would not be matched for nearly two and a half decades.As Peter Hall has noted, the first Conference of Europeanists in 1979 featured

only one panel on the EC rather plaintively entitled Potential for the EuropeanEconomic Community (Hall, 1996, p. 1). Despite its institutional develop-ment and notable achievements such as enlargement and ECJ-induced legalintegration, the EC continued to attract fewer and fewer young scholars. Theannual data of Figure 2 underscore this fact in a fashion that public relationsofficials of the Commission who enjoy celebrating anniversaries would findespecially depressing. In 1968, on the tenth anniversary of the implementationof the Treaty of Rome, 17 per cent of dissertations in the west European fieldfocused on the EC; by the twentieth anniversary in 1978 that percentage had

fallen to 5 per cent, and by the thirtieth anniversary in 1988 the percentageshockingly reached 0 per cent! Remembering again the lag between beginningand completion of dissertations, what these data show is that the decline in ECstudies continued until the debate over the Single European Act and the pro-posed 1992 programme began to make headlines in the mid-1980s. It shouldbe noted here that the modest spike upwards in the statistics for the early 1980sis attributable almost exclusively to the Lom conventions, the first two of whichwere held in 1975 and 1979; 67 per cent of the EC dissertations completed in198283 dealt with Lom, and 83 per cent with the third world.

One would not expect the number of articles produced on the EC to declineas steeply as dissertation production during the doldrums era, for several rea-sons. First, the article data set includes two journals JCMS and, from 1977,JEI dedicated exclusively or largely to coverage of the EC. Second, the numberof journals in the data set expanded by 75 per cent duringthe doldrums era,from 12 in 1969 to 21 by 1978. Third, many more of the authors in the articledata set are Europeans who unlike young Americans writing dissertations

8APSR, IA, IO, PS, RFSP, Sur. and WP.9 The other four launched in the 1960s are PV(1960), Gov.&Opp. (1966), CP (1968) and CPS (1968). Theeight started in the 1970s are P&S (1970),BJPS (1971),Pub. (1971),RISP(1971), P&P (1972),EJPR(1973),PA (1974) and WEP (1978) Gov (1988) was launched in the 1980s and JEPP (1994) in the 1990s

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

8/33


could be expected to have at least a practical interest in the EC; indeed, someauthors in the article data set are officials of the EC.

What Figure 4 shows is that there was actually a substantial increase in total

EC article production during the doldrums era, but that growth occurred onlyin the most specialized journals. From the three-year period centred on 1967to that of 1982, the number of EC-related articles inJCMS grew 62 per cent,from 29 to 47.JEIdid not exist in 1967 but produced 30 EC articles duringthe three-year period centred on 1982. Beyond those two journals, however,the trends in the data set are negative for the doldrums era. EC-related articlesinIA and Gov.&Opp., whose editorial boards placed a relative priority on ECcoverage, declined 24 per cent (17 to 13) from 1967 to 1982. EC article outputin all the other journals of the data set declined 26 per cent from 1967 (19) to

1982 (14), despite the fact that the number of those other journals increased89 per cent (from 9 to 17) during that time.JCMS alone produced more ECarticles than all of the other journals (except JEI) in the data set throughoutthe 1970s and 1980s.

The Renaissance/Boom Era

A plethora of commentators have discussed the fact that the events of the mid-1980s onwards led to a renaissance in EC/EU studies, but to date no one hasprovided a comprehensive measure of recent growth in the literature. With nohard data on the issue, the Makins report stated quite cautiously that the studyof European integration broadly understood may be prospering more than the

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88


Figure 4: The Dominance ofJCMS and Other Specialist Journals in the EC Literatureof the 1960s1980sSource: Authors own data.

No.ofarticlesonEC

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

JCMS

JEI

IA

Gov.&Opp.Others

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

9/33


[European Studies] field as a whole (Makins, 1999, p. 2, emphasis added).Mark Pollacks survey of the EU studies field in the United States assertedmore boldly (and more accurately than Makin) that there had been explosive

growth of the American literature on European integration in the years between1989 and 1993 and that the following four years witnessed the continuedquantitative growth of the field, but he offered no concrete measure of thistrend (Pollack, 1997, p. 1). By the same token, Helen Wallaces widely read2000 survey of British scholarship on the EU referred to the explosion overthe past decade in more empirical work and more meso-level analysis, buther piece also failed to provide data (Wallace, 2000, p. 102).

What the data of Figures 12 demonstrate is that, measured by dissertationproduction in political science, there has been a truly astounding, sustained

explosion of the literature since the late 1980s. Whereas only four EC/EUtheses were produced during the three-year period centred on 1988, 26 werecompleted from 199395 (breaking the three-year record of 17 set in 196971)and 36 from 199698. The number completed declined to 26 during the nextthree-year period, but this represented less a flagging of interest in the EU thana broader decline in the number of students finishing dissertations in politicalscience. As Figure 1 indicates, thepercentage of dissertations within the westEuropean field focusing on the EU increased during all four three-year periodsfrom 199092 to 19992001 and rose from 4 per cent in 198789 to 37 per

cent in 19992001. Even more dramatically, as Figure 2s annual data show,the percentage of EU dissertations in the west European field rose from 0 percent in 1988 to an annual record of 27 per cent in 1994, cracked the 30 per centbarrier in 1996 and then reached 50 per cent for the first time in 2001.

The pattern of article publication for this era (see Figure 5) once againparallels that of dissertation completion, with the usual caveat that the changein trajectory (upwards this time) appears earlier in the data due apparently tothe shorter lag time for finishing article-length projects. From the three-yearperiod centred on 1982 to that centred on 2000, the number of EC/EU articles

in the full 24-journal data set increased by 329 per cent; the largest three-yearleap during this period was 70 per cent between 1991 and 1994. The increasein EC/EU article publication in general journals (the 19 others) from 1982to 2000 was even steeper, 468 per cent (from 25 to 142 articles). Moreover,during the pivotal 199092 period, the general journals for the first time pub-lished more EU articles than did theJCMS and they have continued to doso ever since. Figure 5 also illustrates the effect of other recent landmarks inthe development of EU studies: the launch of two new high-quality specialist

journals,JEPP (1994) andEUP (2000), and the transformation ofWEP intoa heavily EU-oriented journal.

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

10/33


10 Dissertations (24 per cent of the total) that dealt with the EC/EU anda Member State were counted inboth categories. It was also duly noted when the title of a dissertation indicated that it focused on morethan one country

Figure 5: EC/EU Articles in 24 Journals:JCMS, JEI, JEPP, EUP, WEP and 19 Others


EUP

JEPP

WEP

JEI

JCMS

19 Others

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

061 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00


No.ofarticlesonEC/EU

EU Studies within West European Studies

Figure 6 casts some comparative light on the development of EC/EU studiesby charting the number of dissertations focusing on eight major European

countries, regions or organizations over the past four decades.10 One pointmade clear by this figure is that, despite the rapid increase in the number of

EU

UK

Germany

France

ItalySpain

Scandinavia

Nato

Figure 6: Focus of Political Science Dissertations on Western Europe, 196099Source: Authors own data.

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

No.ofdis

sertations

196069 197079 198089 199099

Decade

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

11/33


theses completed on the EC as the 1960s progressed, EC studies emerged asno more than a minor subfield field during this early period. More than fivetimes as many theses were written on German (71) or British (72) politics as

on the EC (28) during the 1960s, and many more (46) were written on Frenchpolitics as well. The amount of research on the EC in this decade barely sur-passed that on Scandinavian (21) or Italian (17) politics, though it did quicklysupplant Nato as by far the most popular target of research among Europeaninternational organizations.

As one would expect in the light of our earlier discussion of the doldrumsera, the relative status of EC studies declined substantially during the 1970s.The number of dissertations written on the EC actually increased 32 percent (from 28 to 37), but this development paled next to the large increase in

dissertations on western Europe overall (58 per cent, from 294 to 464) andthe huge increase in doctoral work on France (124 per cent, from 46 to 103) which proved to be the number one areal topic of the decade in the wake ofde Gaulles presidency and May 1968 and in the midst of the rise of the left.More substantial increases were also registered for theses on Germany (43 percent, from 71 to 101) and Italy (135 per cent, from 17 to 40); the numericalincrease in theses on the UK (19) also surpassed that of the EU, even thoughthe percentage increase in work on the UK was somewhat lower (26 per cent).Indeed, the EC fell from the fourth most popular areal topic of the 1960s to

the fifth, behind Italy, in the 1970s.Reversing the outcomes of the 1970s, the 1980s featured a 32 per cent (from

37 to 25) decline in the number of EC dissertations to a level even below thatof the 1960s but a slight relative increase in the status of EC studies. As thetotal number of political science theses on western Europe dropped by 46 percent (from 464 to 252), the EC suffered from a less precipitous decline than thethree major countries experienced and passed Italy to reclaim its fourth positionwithin west European area studies. However, the statistics for the 1980s gaveno indication that EC studies the focus of only about 2.5 dissertations per

year would soon emerge as anything more than a boutique subfield.Against that backdrop, the statistics for the 1990s and early 2000s are truly

amazing. EU studies did indeed, in Makins words, prosper more than Euro-pean studies as a whole. In fact, EU studies (81) leaped past the UK (64) andFrance (59) to become the second most popular areal topic behind Germany(94) within west European studies for the decade of the 1990s. Given all theattention justly bestowed on the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and subsequentGerman unification, it is striking to note how much the trajectory of increase inGerman studies for the decade (52 per cent, from 62 to 94) was surpassed bythat of EU studies (224 per cent, from 25 to 81). Moreover, as Figures 7 and 8demonstrate, in the late 1990s the EU supplanted Germany to become, for the

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

12/33


first time, the leading topic of theses within west European studies. Measuredby the percentage of total west European theses devoted to each areal topic(see Figure 8), the EU tied with Germany and the UKfor first place at 22per cent in 199395, moved to a slight edge over Germany in 199698, then

Figure 7: No. of Political Science Dissertations on the EC/EU, Germany, France and

the UK


1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000


Germany

UKFrance

EU

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No.ofdissertations

Figure 8: % of Political Science Dissertations on Wester Europe that Focused on theEC/EU, Germany, France and the UK

Source: Authors own data

1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000


Germany

UK

France

EU

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

%t

otal

westEuropeantheses

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

13/33


established a commanding lead (37 per cent to 23 per cent) over Germany in19992001 with the other two of the former big three lagging far behind atunder 15 per cent. As noted above, the annual data show that by 2001 the EU

was accounting for 50 per cent of all west European dissertations. Remark-ably, within the space of little more than a decade, EU studies had skyrocketedfrom a boutique subfield in decline to a boom subfield and increasingly thehegemonic subfield -- within west European studies.

II. The Expansion and Diversification of the EU Scholarly Community

In this section we will address the extent to which the transformation of EUstudies from boutique to boom field has entailed diversification of the EU

scholarly community a geographic diffusion of expertise and training (withinboth the United States and Europe), an increase in attention to EU issues bycomparative politics specialists drawn to the study of an ever closer unionas well as international relations specialists, the development of new topicalsubfields within EU studies, and a proliferation of the number of journals pub-lishing significant articles on the EU. We will also address the extent to whichthe increasing salience of the EU and the expansion of the scholarly communityhave affected the relationship between American and European scholars.

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Decade

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

At least 1

At least 2

At least 3

No.ofunive

rsities

20

3 2

26

6

2

18

6

1

18

12

47

Figure 9: No. of US Universities Awarding 13+ PhDs in Political Science withFocus on EC/EU

Source: Authors own data

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

14/33


Diffusing EU Expertise and Training

As Figure 9 shows, in the 1960s only three political science departments in the

United States produced as many as two PhDs on the EC and only two producedat least three. The number of departments producing at least two PhDs rose toonly six in the 1970s and remained at that level in the 1980s; the number ofdepartments producing at least three PhDs held at two in the 1970s and actuallydeclined to one in the 1980s. Against this backdrop, the 1990s brought abouta veritable revolution: 18 departments now produced at least two PhDs and 12trained at least three. The diffusion of interest in the EU nationwide is evidentfrom the fact that 47 departments 29 more than in the 1980s produced atleast one doctorate in the field.

As Figure 10 shows, part of this process was the development of substantialexpertise on the EU beyond the East coast. From 1960 to 1989 the EU-orienteddepartments (those producing at least two PhDs per decade) on the East coasttrained a total of 30 EU specialists, compared to only 18 for the West andMidwest. From 1990 to 2001, however, the geographic gap closed substantially:27 EU specialists trained in the East v. 26 receiving their doctorate in the Westor Midwest.

This diffusion process has occurred in large part simply because of the en-hanced salience of the EU, or the excitement of events on the ground in Brussels,

which has led many established Europeanists (including this author) to shifttheir research emphasis to the EU and compelled scores of graduate studentsto consider EU-related dissertation topics. However, the diffusion process inthe United States has clearly been reinforced by the dramatic, multifacetedincrease in funding for European studies since the late 1980s. Figure 11 charts

196089 19902001

Years

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No.ofPhDs

East

Midwest

West

30

15

3

8

18

27

Figure 10: Geographic Distribution of PhDs on EC/EU Produced by DepartmentsAwarding at least TwoSource: Authors own data

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

15/33


the growth in the number of relevant US centres (of west European, European,

German and European, Russian and European, and EU studies) funded by thethree most important sponsors: the federal government (through the nationalresource centres (NRCs) or Title VI program of the Department of Educa-tion), the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) and the EuropeanUnion.11 Whereas only one such centre was funded in 1976, 30 were beingfunded by 200001.

The growth in federal funding is attributable mainly to the fact that appli-cations for Euro-NRCs have increased greatly since the end of the doldrumsperiod; only 45 applications were submitted each three-year cycle from 1976

to 1988, but the number grew to 7 in 1991, 11 in 1994, 13 in 1997, 15 in 2000and 17 in 2003.12 Each NRC now receives more than $1 million per three-yearcycle for the funding of courses, conferences, graduate fellowships, outreachevents and a wide range of other activities.

In 1990 the DAAD funded three centres of excellence for German andEuropean studies: Harvard, UC-Berkeley and Georgetown University were11 Centres for Russian and eastEuropean studies, which have tended until recently not to deal much withEU issues, were not included.12 Data regarding the growth of Euro-NRCs was provided by Ed McDermott, the Program Officer forEuropean centres at the U.S. Department of Education. Note that some centres are consortia involving two

or more universities (e.g. the New York Consortium NRC includes NYU, Columbia and the New SchoolUniversity; the EU Center of Miami involves collaboration between the University of Miami and FloridaInternational University)

Figure 11: The Proliferation of Externally Funded Centres for European Studies inthe US, 19762003Sources: Unpublished data from the US Department of Education; IES, 2005; University of Wisconsin, 2005;Brandeis University, 2005; Network of European Union Centers, 2003.

EU funded centres

DAAD funded centresFederally funded centres

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

076 79 81 83 85 88 9091 9394 9798 0001 0304

Year

No.ofcentres

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

16/33


each given ten-year multi-million-dollar grants with the contractual agreementthat, when the grant period ended in the year 2000, the centres would continueto operate through institutional funding (IES, 2005). Two more centres for

German and European studies were funded by the DAAD in 1998, one at theUniversity of Wisconsin and University of Minnesota a Midwest consortium and the other at Brandeis University (University of Wisconsin, 2005; BrandeisUniversity, 2005). In the late 1990s, the DAAD also funded a Canadian Centrefor German and European studies at the Universities of Montreal and York, a

joint initiative in German and European studies at the University of Toronto,and a professorship at the University of British Columbia (DAAD, 2005).

In 1998 the European Union funded ten European Union centres (EUCs)in the United States with three-year grants (averaging about $500,000), then

followed up in 2001 by refunding on another three-year cycle eight of theoriginal ten along with seven new centres. Ten of those 15 centres were re-funded on a one-year basis in 2004, and in May of 2005 eight to ten EUCs areto be funded again on a new three-year cycle. EU centre grants have bolstereduniversity budgets for many activities also supported by NRC grants (e.g.conferences, curriculum development and outreach), but have been especiallyvalued for their funding of graduate research, faculty research and the hosting ofvisiting scholars from Europe (Network of European Union Centers, 2003).

As of academic year 200304, 27 US universities in 17 different states and

the District of Columbia were receiving more than $6 million per year fromthe three main funding programmes for European/EU studies. Two universi-ties (UC-Berkeley and Wisconsin) held all three types of grants listed above,seven held two such grants (Georgetown, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina,Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Washington), and 19 had one.13

On the other side of the Atlantic, external funding has also played a ma-jor role in generating a diffusion of EU expertise and scholarship since thebeginning of the renaissance era. Since 1989, the Jean Monnet project of theEuropean Commission (DG INFSO) has co-funded with host universities 47

Jean Monnet centres of excellence throughout the EU: nine in the UK, eightin France, six in Italy and Spain, four in Germany, two in Belgium, Denmark,Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden, and one in four other countries (Commis-sion, 1999). The Jean Monnet project has also funded 491 Jean Monnet chairs,800 permanent courses and 641 European modules (ESRC, 2004b). OtherEU funding programmes have also had an effect. For example, the EuropeanCommissions sixth framework programme provided funding opportunities

13 It is noteworthy that the two universities with all three grants ranked first (U. of Wisconsin-Madison withsix) and second (U.C.-Berkeley with five) in production of EU-related political science dissertations from

19902001. Three of the universities with two grants also ranked in the top seven: U. of Pittsburgh and U.of Washington-Seattle (tied for third place with four each) and U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (tied forseventh place with three)

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

17/33


for social scientists, especially in its component on Citizens and Governancein a Knowledge-based Society (ESRC, 2004a).

The DAAD has played a substantial role in promoting research on the EU

not only in the United States, but also in Europe. In 1994, in the wake of thelaunch of its first American centres, the DAAD awarded a long-term centrefor German and European studies grant to the Institute for German Studies ofthe University of Birmingham in the UK. One of the three priority themes forresearch established by the institute at its founding was the relationship betweenGerman unification and European integration. A Volkswagen Foundation grantfor doctoral fellowships bolstered the institutes programme in 1996 (Institutefor German Studies, 2004, pp. 7, 1415).

Member State governments have also enhanced their funding of EU re-

search since the late 1980s. In the UK, for example, a substantial amount ofimportant work has been supported by Economic and Social Research Councilprogrammes on topics such as the Single European Market and One Europeor Several? (Wallace, 2000, pp. 99, 102 and 108). In addition, a joint infra-structure fund competition in 1999 resulted in the University of Birminghamreceiving a grant of more than $8 million to establish a European ResearchInstitute (Institute for German Studies, 2004, p. 8).

Engaging Comparative Politics Specialists

Another dimension in the diversification of EU studies involves the relativecapacity of the field to engage the research interest of specialists in comparativepolitics (CP) as well as international relations (IR). As Caporaso and I arguedin the early 1990s, it was logical for IR specialists to dominate the field dur-ing the era when Europe represented a unique experiment in internationalrelations and what seemed to justify theoretical attention was the question ofhow its would-be polity might develop [through integration] at the expenseof the nation-state. However, the very success of that venture that is, the

movement toward an ever closer union with ever more state-like propertiesand an ever more complex system of governance led many scholars of therenaissance era to assert that the EU could and should be viewed as an everricher research focus for comparativists (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995; Hix, 1994;Hurrrell and Menon, 1996; Risse-Kappen, 1996; Jupille and Caporaso, 1999;Hooghe, 2001; Hunt and Shaw, 2000). To what extent have that expectationand admonition been realized?

A recent paper by Jupille contends, based on analysis of articles in a smallsample of US-based journals (two IR, two comparative) from 1968 to 2003, that

CP and IR did apparently become more or less equal partners in the US-basedEU Studies enterprise around the mid-1990s (Jupille, 2005, pp. 1920). Our

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

18/33


dissertation data and more extensive article data essentially support Jupillescontention while also allowing for a more nuanced perspective. As Figure 12shows, it is true that most EC dissertations were written by IR specialists fromthe 1960s to the 1980s. However, the predominance of IR over comparative (53to 37, or 59 per cent) was somewhat less than expected during the early period.

It is also true that the IR/comparative gap has closed since the 1990s, even ifIR still holds a slim margin (51 per cent). But international relations special-ists in the west European studies field remain more likely than comparativestudents to write their dissertations on an EU topic: 19 per cent of IR studentsv. 5 per cent of comparativists did so in the 1980s, 29 per cent vs. 18 per centin the 1990s and 53 per cent v. 29 per cent in 200001. It should also be notedthat the small IR/comparative gap in Figure 12 would be larger if it were notfor the fact that comparativists have always outnumbered IR specialists withinthe west European area studies field by as much as 3 to 1 in the early 1970s

and by 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 during most years of the 1990s.Figure 13 indicates that, as expected, there has been a parallel increase in

the number of articles on the EU written in specialized journals within thecomparative politics and comparative public policy fields. Indeed, the trajectoryof increase has been even sharper a rise of almost 1000 per cent from 1985to 1997 than that for all journals or general journals. As will be discussedbelow, the huge outpouring of recent literature from a comparative perspectiveaddresses a very wide range of topics. And as Jupille notes, these articles reflectmyriad methodological perspectives featuring a continued dominance of quali-

tative approaches but also some increase especially in the US-based journals in articles written with statistical and formal approaches. One would assume

Figure 12: US Political Science Dissertations on the EC/EU Comparative v. IRSource: Authors own data.

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 200001

Decade

No.ofdissertations

IR

Comparative

16

12

21

16 16

9

41 40

10 9

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

19/33


that this trend toward methodological diversification reflects in large part therecent proliferation in both North America and Europe of university centres fortraining in EU studies. Doctoral research on the EU is now commonly super-vised by interdisciplinary committees led by an EU specialist of one flavouror another but seconded by experts (including American politics specialists)in such areas as political economy, public law, federalism, agenda-setting,legislative behaviour, interest group behaviour and electoral analysis.

Extending the Range of Research Topics

From the 1960s to the 1980s, only three topics integration (1960s and 1970s),ECMember State relations (1960s and 1970s) and EC foreign policy were

Figure 13: Increasing Emphasis on the EC/EU in Comparative Politics JournalsSource: Authors own data.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00Three-year interval

No.ofarticles

P&PP&SPub.Gov.CPCPS

Figure 14: Topics of EC/EU Dissertations 19602001S A th d t

1960s 1970s 1980s 199001

Decade

No.ofdissertations

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Integration

Single market/LiberalizationMulti-level governanceEuropean Parliament

EUMS Relations/Europeanization

Foreign policy /CFSPIdentities/Pub. opinionEnvironmental policy

Euro/EMU/EMS

InstitutionsEuro-interest groupsECJ/Law

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

20/33


the focus of at least ten US political science dissertations in any decade. Since1990, as Figure 14 shows, the big three traditional topics have naturally at-tracted many more students, but four new topics have also reached the tenlevel: the euro/EMU, EC institutions (other than the Parliament and ECJ), thesingle market and multi-level governance. Predictably, the article data manifest

an even greater proliferation of topics, especially those in the comparativepolitics/policy domain. As Figure 15 and Table 1 illustrate, only the big threetopics were ever the focus of at least 20 articles throughout the 1980s. Butthe 19902001 period generated 20 or more articles in 17categories the bigthree, to be sure, followed by the four major new dissertation topics mentionedabove and an array of other comparative-style topics such as identity formation,regulation/privatization, social policy, euro-interest groups, the European Par-liament, the ECJ/law, environmental policy and the democratic deficit debate.Other new subjects such as immigration policy and gender politics were also

featured in a number of articles that would have ranked them among the topfive research topics in any previous decade.

Enriching and Diversifying Scholarly Exchange

As one would infer from much of the data above, the number of scholarsworking on the EU has increased dramatically since the late 1980s. The US-based European Community Studies Association ECSA, now EU(Union)SA increased its membership by 138 per cent (369 to 880) from 1989 to 2002(Staats, 2003). Membership of the UK-based University Association forContemporary European Studies has also grown substantially during thistime; UACES now has 580 individual members, 270 associate members and

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1960s 1970s 1980s 19902001Decade

Figure 15: Top Six Topics of EC/EU Articles 19602001Source: Authors own data.

No.ofarticles

EUMS relations/Europeanization

Integration

Foreign policy/CFSP

Multi-level governanceEuro/EMU/EMS

Single market liberalization

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

21/33


Table 1: Topics of EC/EU Articles 19602001a

Topic 1960s 1970s 1980s 19902001

EUMember State relations/Europeanization 11 33 25 164

Integration 16 52 36 162

Foreign Policy/CFSP 6 23 21 105

Multi-level governance 0 5 9 78

Euro/EMU/EMS/Single currency 9 11 13 69

Single market/Liberalization 5 6 6 52

Identity/Public opinion 1 8 2 50

Regulation/Privatization 0 1 1 49

Social policy 0 0 4 47Interest groups/Lobbying 3 8 5 43

European Parliament 0 16 13 42

ECJ/Law 0 2 0 34

Commission 1 1 2 32

Other institutions 1 8 5 31

Enlargement 3 8 0 28

Environmental policy 0 0 3 27

Democracy/Accountability 0 1 3 21

Immigration/Borders 0 0 1 17

Agriculture 0 3 5 16

EU scholarship 2 3 0 16

Gender politics/policy 0 0 2 11

Telecommunications 0 0 1 10

Source: Authors own data.Note:a Listed in order of ranking for 19902001.

14

Citations in the online Social Science Citation Index as available on the Web of Science website. Thetotal citations listed in Figure 16 are for 21 journals all of those in the data set of Figure 3 except the threenon-English language journals (which, as the next section will discuss, produced very few citations).

104 corporate members (UACES, 2004b). This ever-larger community of EU

scholars has not only produced an unprecedented number of articles since therenaissance/boom era began but, as Figure 16 shows, it has also generatedan even more unprecedented number of scholarly citations an average of9.6 per article in 1994, up from just 1.9 per article as recently as 1985.14 It isimportant to note here that the total and average citation figures in Figure 16decline after 1994 only because the articles published since that time have notbeen in print long enough to accumulate the number of citations one wouldexpect them to merit. An updating of this article written ten years from now

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

22/33


2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00


No.ofarticle/citations

CitationsArticles

Figure 16: No. of EC/EU Articles and Citations of Articles, 19602001Source: Authors own data.

Figure 17: No. of Journals Publishing at least 1, 5, 10 and 20 Articles on the EC/EUSource: Authors own data.

1+

5+

10+

20+

61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00


25

20

15

10

5

0

No.ofjournals

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

23/33


would doubtless show total and average citation figures for EU articles risingthroughout the 1990s.

Two EC/EU articles published since 1988 had been cited at least 175 times

and nine more at least 100 times by July 2003, whereas only one article pro-duced in all the years before had even approached 100.15 What this reflects isthat the renaissance/boom era EU literature, compared to that of the launchor doldrums era, has been read by a far larger number of EU specialists, hasprovoked rich debates on far more topics, and has connected in theoreticaland/or empirical terms with a far wider range of non-EU specialists.

Those connections were made possible in part by the fact that, as Figure17 shows, EU articles appeared in more than 20 disparate journals by 1994 more than twice as many as in 1979. Moreover, from the three-year period

centred on 1988 to that of 2000, the number of journals publishing more than5 EU articles increased 183 per cent (6 to 17) and the number publishing morethan 10 articles grew 200 per cent (4 to 12). Such a clustering of articles oftenreflects the development of intra-journal debates (at times actively encouragedby the editors, as withEUP) and stimulates the development of journal-basedscholarly sub-communities whose communication is facilitated by a moreand more common base of erudition and, within limits, common conceptualvocabulary.

Enhancing Transatlantic Scholarly Exchange

The renaissance/boom era has also engendered substantial enhancement ofthe degree of scholarly exchange between North American and Europeanscholars of the EU. Intellectual interaction between European and Americanscholars has been profoundly increased by the scores of conferences and visit-ing scholar programmes hosted by universities on both sides of the Atlanticwith the support of the many new funding programmes described earlier. Since1992, when the Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies was created at

the European University Institute outside Florence, many of the best youngerAmerican specialists on the EU have been able to develop collegial relation-ships with their counterparts from all over Europe while holding Jean Monnetfellowships at the EUI (European University Institute, 2005). Since 1998, theEU centres programme intended specifically to build bridges across theAtlantic in line with the new transatlantic agenda has especially facilitatedbringing European EU specialists to the United States, many for extended

15 Citations for the top ten articles by decade were all taken (some for a second time) during the same month,July 2003, to assure equitable comparison. Weiler (1991) and Moravcsik (1993) were first and second inthe post-1988 rankings with 215 and 176 citations, respectively; the highest ranking article for the pre-1988

St l H ff (1966) ith 98

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

24/33


stays that facilitate the development of networking relationships with facultyand graduate students.

It should be noted here that new technologies, the use of which has been

encouraged by most contemporary funding programmes, have also played anincreasingly substantial role in removing barriers of space and time betweenthe EU scholarly communities in North America and Europe. Transatlanticvideoconferences are common now on many campuses, and the internet hasmade universally available (for free, instantly, any time day or night, regardlessof time zone) research papers that used to cross the Atlantic slowly, if at all.The European Research Papers Archive alone holds 850 downloadable papers from institutes in Italy, Germany, Austria, Norway, the UK, the US and Canada as of March 2005 (ERPA, 2005). The recently developed Archive of European

Integration (AEI) at the University of Pittsburgh currently offers 880 privatelyproduced materials and 700 EC/EU government documents; moreover, the AEIis set to launch a search engine (AEIplus) that will enable researchers to searchsimultaneously the holdings of ERPA as well as AEI (AEI, 2005).

While there are many distinguished venues for the presentation of EUresearch, one has emerged as uniquely transatlantic in its character: the bien-nial conference organized by the US-based ECSA/EUSA. In recent years theEUSA conferences have achieved a remarkable degree of parity in participa-tion by scholars on the two sides of the Atlantic. By 1995 44 per cent of the

programme participants were Europe-based, and this figure reached a majority(52 per cent) by 2001, held close to that (49 per cent) in 2003 and climbed to56 per cent in 2005.16 It should be noted here that the EUSA Executive Com-mittee elected in 2003 included Europe-based scholars for the first time, andthat the EUSA Executive Committee held its annual meeting in Europe (Paris)for the first time in 2003.

To what extent have the heightened transatlantic interactions of the renais-sance/boom era altered the traditionally unbalanced relationship in whichEuropean scholars have looked to the U.S. for leadership, ideas and conceptual

tools in this field of study (Rosenthal, 1999, p. 6) or, alternatively, been lefthanging on to the coat-tails of debates generated by Americans, unable topunch [their] weight at the theoretical level of analysis (Wallace, 2000, pp.100 and 110; see also Wver, 1998, pp. 7234)? By some accounts, not much.For example, Amy Verdun (2003) has argued that an American/European di-vide persists in the literature on European integration, with American scholarsprone to theorization and generalization and the Europeans inclined to producemore descriptive case studies. And Jupille (2005, p. 15) has documented thatUS-based journals account for 98 per cent of the references to regional inte-gration theory (compared to only 2 per cent for Europe-based journals) in an16 Calculated from ECSA/EUSA conference programmes provided by Valerie Staats

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

25/33


article data set covering 19492000, despite the fact that the US-based journalsproduced only 59 per cent of the articles with substantive EU focus.

A probe into two of the European journals researched for this article un-

derlines Jupilles point, while adding some twists not evident from his data.An irony of the launch and doldrums eras is that the political scientists of thetwo countries that served as the lynchpin of European integration, France andthe Federal Republic of Germany, displayed a very limited interest in integra-tion theory.RFSP published a substantial number of articles (12) on the ECduring the 1960s, but all except two of these were descriptive assessmentsof national perspectives on The Candidacy of Great Britain to the EuropeanCommunities contained in a special issue of October 1968. Of the other twoarticles, one stands out as an exception to Jupilles finding: a 1961 survey of

recent literature by Pierre Gerbet entitled European Integration Problemsand Institutions. Gerbet gave a glowing review of Ernst Haas The Unitingof Europe, arguing that it was important and indispensable (Gerbet, 1961).But the review failed to resonate with readers in France. Haas classic book,the most heavily cited work of the era on European integration,17 was not citedagain inRFSP until 1971 (De Bussy et al., 1971).RFSP published16 otherEC-related articles in the 1970s, but not one cited Haas or dealt with integra-tion theory. The next time Haas book was cited inRFSP was in a renaissanceera piece by Jean-Louis Quermonne (1992). In another article written the next

year, Quermonne (1993, p. 136) acknowledged that French political sciencehas long been parsimonious in European matters. Except for rare exceptions,the construction of the community has principally attracted authors of theEnglish language.

As for Germany, PVuntil recently published many fewer EC articles thanRFSP (three in the 1960s, three in the 1970s and four in the 1980s) and, withthe exception of one piece by Karl Deutsch (1966) and a critique of Deutsch(Schulze, 1973), contributed no articles on integration theory from 1961 to1984. The only time Haas book was cited in PVfrom 1961 to 1990 was in an

article by Fritz Scharpf a version of his classic joint decision trap argument(Scharpf, 1985).

While a review ofRFSP and PVthus confirms that the EC scholarly com-munities on the two sides of the Atlantic were largely disconnected duringthe launch and doldrums eras, it also shows as one would predict based onthe facts cited earlier in this section that those communities have convergedsubstantially since the beginning of the renaissance era. Over the last decadebothRFSP and PVhave published a good number of EU-related articles that

17 As of July 2003, Haas (1958) had been cited 471 times in the online SSCI. The second ranking bookpublished before the 1990s was Lindberg and Scheingold (1970) with 212 citations. The most cited bookpublished since 1990 is Moravcsik (1998) with 175

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

26/33


cite leading American authors; indeed, from 1998 to 2000 RFSP publishedtranslations of four articles by leading American EU scholars (Stone Sweetand Caporaso, 1998; Schmidt, 1999; Moravcsik, 1999, 2000).

By some measures derived from our data, moreover, the transatlantic schol-arly relationship has gradually become more balanced in terms of the sort ofleadership to which Rosenthal referred. Our data set of the top ten EC/EUarticles by decade provides a perspective rather different, and less skewed infavour of the US, than that of Jupille or Verdun. Of the 50 influential articlesin this set, 30 per cent were published by Europe-based scholars, and this doesnot of course include those written by scholars now based in North Americabut holding European doctorates (e.g., Stanley Hoffmann) and/or originallyfrom Europe (e.g. Gary Marks and Liesbet Hooghe). Thirty-eight per cent

(19) of the 50 articles were published in Europe-based journals: 26 per cent(13) inJCMS, 4 per cent (2) inBJPS (the only journal in this list included inJupilles data set), and 2 per cent (1) in EJPR, EER, PA and CMLR. OnlyIO(34 per cent: 17) published a larger number of top-50 articles thanJCMS. WP(8 per cent: 4) ranked third, APSR and CPS (6 per cent: 3 each) tied for fourth,andBJPS (4 per cent: 2) sixth. Articles in theJEPP narrowly missed the top50 cutoff, but articles from that Europe-based journal and from another, theeven newerEUP seem destined to make the list in future years.

As Figure 18 demonstrates,18 European scholars have clearly become

more theoretically influential in the EC/EU literature over time. It is true that

18 The data in this figure are based on a classification of all of the 60 authors (including co-authors) of the

top 50 articles by decade as either US-based, UK-based or continental Europe-based. The one Canada-basedscholar (Liesbet Hooghe of the University of Toronto now at the University of North Carolina, ChapelHill) was not included in the calculation of percentages

Figure 18: Top Ten Authors by Decade US, UK and Continental EuropeanSource: Authors own data.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Decade

%

toptenauthors

US

UK

European

100

80

54

92

47

27 27

0

8

38

20

0 0

8

0

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

27/33


the European authors scored best during the decade of the doldrums-ridden1980s, when most Americans withdrew from the field, but some of their articlesfrom that decade have had an indisputably important impact on the field (e.g.

Scharpf, 1988).19 Moreover, it is noteworthy that both UK-based (e.g. SimonHix, Dermot Hodson and Imelda Maher) and continental European scholars(e.g. Frank Schimmelfennig and Giandomenico Majone) also scored quitewell in the early returns for the 2000s. Beyond the article data, it should benoted that the US-based EUSA recently awarded its first-ever book prize to acontinental European scholar (Frank Schimmelfennig) and also named another(Berthold Rittberger, a German national with a DPhil from Nuffield College,Oxford) as one of two co-winners of its 2005 dissertation award.20

The Hegemony of English

One important caveat should be noted in discussing the trend toward betterscholarly communication across the Atlantic and the rising prominence of Euro-pean scholars within the field: the communication flow, especially in terms oftheory, takes place almost exclusively in English. One measure of this fact isthe variance across national political science journals in frequency of citationfor articles related to the EC/EU. As of July 2003, the EC/EU articles publishedbetween 1960 and 2001 in the APSR had been cited an average of 24 times

and those in theBJPS 9.9 times; in contrast, the average was 3.1 for PV, 1.8forRFSP and 0.3 forRISP. Another indicator derived from our articles dataset is that the top ten articles of the 1990s averaged only 3.9 per cent citationsto non-English sources and four had none at all. In contrast, examination ofcitations in a small (non-scientific) sample of articles by continental Europe-based authors from the German and French national journals showed that 45per cent of the former and 37 per cent of the latter were to English sources.21

As symbolized best perhaps byEUP (edited in English by a largely Germaneditorial board), German scholars almost all of whom are now very proficient

in English tend to be much better integrated into the transatlantic EU scholarlycommunity than those of France and Italy. The SSCI citation rate for EU articlesin the major German-language political science journal may be quite low, butthe most prominent German scholars in the field publish largely in Englishand many (from Scharpf to Schimmelfennig) are heavily cited. In general,

19 Scharpf (1988) had been cited 130 times as of July 2003.20 See Schimmelfennig, F. (2003); Rittbergers thesis is soon to be published (Ritttberger, 2005).21 The articles sampled were the six in a June 1996 special issue ofRFSP on the European Commissionand the six most frequently cited articles of the 1990s on the EU in PV. Two of theRFSP articles were byUK-based authors, and these articles had an average of 96.5 per cent citations to English-language sources.

The four articles by France-based authors cited on average 37 per cent English-language sources. Thepercentage of citations from English-language sources in those articles ranged from 11 to 57 per cent; incomparison the range of English citations in the PV articles was 22 59 per cent

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

28/33


the sort of Europeanized scholars who have studied in several countriesand held fellowships at the largely anglophone European University Institutetend to publish in English and present papers at English-language academic

conferences (Shaw, 2003, pp. 3335).In contrast, the low visibility of French political science in international

publications and debates about the EU can, of course, be partially explained asa problem of language. There is no getting away from the fact that, until veryrecently, most French lecturers and researchers have been remarkably slow topublish and present their work in English (Smith, 2000, p. 663). However, thislow visibility also reflects the continued predominance of public law withinFrench political science (all but one of the Jean Monnet chairs in France areheld by lawyers) and the relative disinclination of French scholars to engage

in empirical research (Smith, 2000; see also Wver, 1998, p. 708).The Italian situation has been portrayed in similar terms. There too only

one Jean Monnet chair is held by a political scientist, jurists (and economists)dominate the EU field, and the research output in the field overall has beenrelatively meagre (Giuliana and Radaelli, 1999). It should be noted, however,that in one important respect the Italian segment of the EU field has matchedthat of Germany and achieved more prominence than that of France: four Ital-ian authors (most prominently Giavazzi, Majone and Mancini), all economistsor jurists, are included in the elite list of 60 who wrote the top 50 articles by

decade. Four Germany-based authors also made the list, but none from France with the partial exception of Stanley Hoffmann.

Conclusion

The EC/EU field has been transformed in many respects over the past fewdecades. The evolution from a boutique field in decline to a boom field hasentailed not simply a vast increase in scholarly output, but also a dramaticdiffusion of EU expertise in both North America and Europe, an increase inresearch on EU issues by comparative politics as well as international relationsexperts, a rapid proliferation of subfields within EU studies, a convergence ofthe EU scholarly communities on the two sides of the Atlantic and a substantialchange in the balance of transatlantic influence within the profession.

Given the number of variables in play, it is difficult to gauge precisely howmuch the boom in EU studies should be attributed to the massive increase inexternal funding from which EU specialists have benefited since the early1990s. One thing is clear: the renaissance in EU studies and the subsequentboom era were triggered by events on the ground in Brussels and beyond,not by subsidies. That having been acknowledged, it is also obvious that theproliferation of national resource centres for (west) European studies, DAAD-

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

29/33


funded centres for German and European studies, European Union centres andJean Monnet centres to name only the most prominent new features on thescholarly landscape has provided an enormous boost to teaching, research

and publication in the field. The data of Figure 11, charting the growth in cen-tres, correlate strongly (0.91) with the EU articles data of Figure 3 and withthe EU dissertation data of Figure 1 (0.93 for percentage of west Europeandissertations dealing with the EU and 0.80 for number of dissertations dealingwith the EU).22

The effect of the newly-launched EU centres programme in particular willbecome clearer once data comparable to those in this study can be collectedfor the years after 2001. It should be stressed here, however, that some of themost important intellectual effects of the EU centres programme are related

not to the quantity, but to the quality of research on the EU. As a recent reporton the programme noted, the centres have generated a tremendous increase intransatlantic collaboration among university professors as well as a dramaticrise in the number of European practitioners who visit the US and providereal-world insight into research networks (Network of European UnionCenters, 2003).

However important the impact of external funding might prove to be, itappears evident that the principal determinant of the status of EU studies willcontinue to be the development of the European Union itself. The data in this

study demonstrate vividly the extent to which the ups and downs of the integra-tion process affect the propensity of young scholars to commit to a career ofresearch on the EU and the inclination of established academics to incorporatethe EU into their projects. In an era featuring EU initiatives ranging from themost ambitious enlargement process ever to the drafting of a ConstitutionalTreaty and the elaboration of a European Security and Defence Policy, it ishard to imagine the stock of the EU studies field not continuing to rise in theshort to medium term. The hope here is that this study has provided a baselineeffective enough so that such future developments may be better measured,

appreciated and understood.23

Correspondence:

John T.S.KeelerDirector of the EU CenterUniversity of Washington (Seattle)email: [email protected]

22 Pearson correlation coefficients based on 19762000 data.23 It is also hoped that the data-gathering effort might be widened, especially to include information regard-ing the com letion of dissertations on the EU at E ro ean (and other) ni ersities

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

30/33


References

AEI (2005) Archive of European Integration. Available at http://aei.pitt.edu.

Brandeis University (2005) Center for German and European Studies. Available athttp://www.brandeis.Edu/departments/cges/en/welcome.html.Caporaso, J.A. and Keeler, J.T.S. (1995) The European Union and Regional Integra-

tion Theory. In Rhodes, C. and Mazey, S. (eds) The State of the European Union:Building a European Polity (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).

Commission of the European Communities (1999) Statistiques sur lAction JeanMonnet.Available at http://www.europa.eu.int/cmm./dg10/university/ajm/directory/statistiques.pdf.

Cram, L. (1996) Integration Theory and the Study of the European Policy Process.In Richardson, J. (ed.) European Union: Power and Policy-making, 2nd edn

(London: Routledge).DAAD (2005), DAAD-sponsored Centers and Initiatives for German and European

Studies. Available at http://www.daad.org/4/centers.De Bussy, M.-E., Delorme, H. and de la Serre, F. (1971) Approches thoriques de

lintgration europenne. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 21, No. 3,pp. 61553.

Deutsch, K. (1966) Rstungskontrolle und Integrationsbestrebungen im Geflecht deseuropischen Politik. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 33063.

ERPA (2005) European Research Papers Archive. Available at http://www.eiop.or.at/erpa.

ESRC (2004a) European Commisions Sixth Framework Programme. Available athttp://www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/researchfunding/fp6.asp.

ESRC (2004b) European Funding for UK Social Science European CommissionFunding, Jean Monnet Project. Available at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/eu/monnet_eurofunding.html.

European University Institute (2005) The Robert Schuman Centre for AdvancedStudies. Available at http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/About.

Gerbet, P. (1961) LIntgration europenne problmes et institutions: tat des tra-vaux.Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 691719.

Giuliana, G. and Radaelli, C.M. (1999) Italian Political Science and the EuropeanUnion.Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 51724.

Haas, E.B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces(Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Hall, P.A. (1996) The State of European Studies (New York: Social Science ResearchCouncil/Council for European Studies). Available at http://www.europanet.org/ces/HallEuro99.doc.

Hix, S. (1994) The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to ComparativePolitics. West European Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 130.

Hoffmann, S. (1966) Obstinate or Obsolete. Daedalus, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 892

908.Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Imagesof Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

31/33


Hunt, J. and Shaw, J. (2000) European Legal Studies: Then and Now. In Hayton, D.(ed.)Law Future(s) (Oxford: Hart).

Hurrell, A. and Menon, A (1996) Politics Like Any Other? Comparative Politics,

International Relations and the Study of the EU. West European Politics, Vol. 19,No. 2, pp. 386402.

Institute for European Studies (2005) Center for German and European Studies.University of California, Berkeley. Available at http://www.ies.berkeley.edu/cgs/index.html.

Institute for German Studies (2004) The First Ten Years: The Institute for GermanStudies, 19942004. University of Birmingham. Available at http://www.igs.bham.ac.uk.

Jupille, J. (2005) Knowing Europe: Metatheory and Methodology in EU Studies.In Cini, M. and Bourne, A. (eds) Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies

(New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave), forthcoming.Jupille, J. and Caporaso, J.A. (1999) Institutionalism and the European Union: Beyond

International Relations and Comparative Politics.Annual Review of Political Sci-ence, Vol. 2, pp. 42944.

Lindberg, L.N. and Scheingold, S.A. (1970) Europes Would-Be Polity: Patterns ofChange in the European Community (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Makins, C.J. (1998) The Study of Europe in the United States (Washington, DC: Euro-pean Commission/German Marshall Fund of the United States).

Makins, C.J. (1999) The Study of Europe in the United States: The Makins Report.ECSA Review, Vol. 12, No. 1. Available at http://www.eustudies.org/makinsforum.html.

Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and Power in the European Community.Journalof Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 473524.

Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power fromMessina to Maastricht(Ithaca: Cornell University Press).

Moravcsik, A. (1999) Le grain et la grandeur : Les origines conomiques de la poli-tique europenne du gnral de Gaulle (1re partie).Revue franaise de sciencepolitique, Vol. 49, Nos 45, pp. 50744.

Moravcsik, A. (2000) Le grain et la grandeur : Les origines conomiques de la poli-

tique europenne du gnral de Gaulle (2me partie).Revue franaise de sciencepolitique, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 73124.Network of European Union Centers (2003) Impact Report of the Network of Euro-

pean Union Centers in the United States. Available at http://www.eurunion.org/infores/CollectiveImpactReport.doc.

Pollack, M.A. (1997) The United States of America. In Azzi, G.C. (ed.) Survey ofCurrent Political Science Research on European Integration Worldwide: 19941997(Brussels: International Political Science Association Research Committee ofEuropean Unification).

Quermonne, J.-L. (1992) Trois lectures du trait de Maastricht.Revue franaise de

science politique Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 80218.Quermonne, J.-L. (1993) Laccession la dimension politique de la Communaut

R f i d i liti V l 43 N 1 136 8

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

32/33


Risse-Kappen, T. (1996) Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International RelationsTheory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union.Journal ofCommon Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 5380.

Rittberger, B. (2005)Building Europes Parliament: Democratic Representation Beyondthe Nation State (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Rosenthal, G.G. (1999) Comments in The Study of Europe in the United States: TheMakins Report.ECSA Review , Vol. 12, No. 1. Available at http://www.eustudies.org/makinsforum.html.

Scharpf, F.W (1985) Die Politikverflechtungs-Falle : Europische Integration unddeutscher Fderalismus im Vergleich. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol.26, No.4, pp. 32356.

Scharpf, F.W. (1988) The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism andEuropean Integration. Public Administration, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 23978.

Schimmelfennig, F. (2003) The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules andRhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Schmidt, V.A. (1999) La France entre lEurope et le monde : Le cas des politiquesconomiques nationales. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 49, No. 1,pp. 5178.

Schulze, P. (1973) Zum Integrationsansatz von K.W. Deutsch Versuch einer Kritik ausmarxistischer Sicht. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 6784.

Shaw, J. (2003) The European Union. In Cane, P. and Tushnet, M. (eds) The OxfordHandbook of Legal Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Smith, A. (2000) French Political Science and European Integration. Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 6638.

Staats, V. (2003) EUSA Fifteenth Anniversary Membership Survey Data. Unpub-lished ms.

Stone Sweet, A. and Caporaso, J.A. (1998) La Cour de justice et lintgration euro-penne.Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 195244.

UACES (2004a)Directory of Expertise on Europe: European Studies Research Interestsof UACES Members 20042005 (London: Chameleon Press).

UACES(2004b) UACES News, SeptemberDecember, p. 2.University of Wisconsin (2005) Center for German and European Studies. Available

at http://Daadcenter.wisc.edu/aboutus/about.html.Verdun, A. (2003) An American/European Divide in European Integration Studies:Bridging the Gap with International Political Economy. Journal of EuropeanPublic Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 84101.

Wver, O. (1998) The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American andEuropean Developments in International Relations.International Organization,Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 687727.

Wallace, H. (2000) Studying Contemporary Europe.British Journal of Politics andInternational Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 95113.

Weiler, J. (1991) The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, No.

2, pp. 240383.

8/4/2019 Keller 2005

33/33

Documents

Keller 2005