journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

142
responsible government” resulting in a democratic deficit, the EU’s legitimacy deficit is
exacerbated in the absence of European ‘civic sphere’ or ‘demos’ (p.164).
Chryssochoous’s analysis of the inadequacies of extant integration theories to ask (and
answer) the question about how these pressing legitimacy concerns can be solved, leads him, in a
second step, to issue a plea for more engagement in ‘metatheorizing’. He claims that existing
integration theories are “trapped in the legacy of functionalist-driven, task-oriented and problem-solving
modes of collective action” and are hence inapt to ask and answer the ‘right’ questions
“of polity, democracy, identity and legitimate governance within the evolving ‘EU order’”
(p.172). What Chryssochoou calls for is a ‘normative turn’ in European integration theorizing,
which denotes the elaboration of a “‘system of ideas’ that attaches a priori importance to questions
of bringing the Union closer to its citizens” (p.173). Hence, presently dominant questions in
EU scholarship, such as how to explain outcomes and processes, should cease to be a main concern
for future research. What is important, claims Chryssochoou, is to improve the EU’s
grass-root support, i.e. to find and to construct the EU’s “civic core” and, in order to achieve this
goal, reflect about “in whose name are publicly binding decisions taken in Brussels, or what
really makes for the polity’s ‘constituting authority’?” (p.174)
Although Chryssochoou’s book addresses interesting and pressing problems of EU governance,
i.e. the often alleged lop-sidedness between ‘output-’ and ‘input-legitimacy’ 2 and
the lack of a European transnational civic sphere, his reflections on how these twin-problems
should be tackled and solved are, unfortunately, delegated to no more than a quarter of
his book. Furthermore, his thoughts on these problems are neither convincing nor do they
lead to the advancement of a coherent research agenda. Two main deficiencies that underscore
this seemingly harsh statement spring readily to mind.
First, Chryssochoou’s ‘jump’ from the alleged inadequacy of existing theories of integration
to the conclusion that more ‘metatheorizing’ should be done, lacks the foundation upon which an
enterprise of this type could be justified. At no place in the book does he advance a coherent set
of criteria according to which he intends to compare, contrast and criticize existing theories of
integration. Half of the volume provides a good literature review; however, it is not evident how
this review adds to the general argument of the book. The author explores at the outset the somewhat
trivial point that theories help us order and understand the world in manifold ways, i.e.
through deduction, induction, normative claims etc. But, for various reasons, no social scientist
would probably disagree with the assertion that theories are important. Chryssochoou’s presentation
of integration theories illuminates how historical context and theory formation continue to
fuel one another, although, one may ask, for what purpose? If the fundamental objective of the
presentation of these different ‘theories’ is to demonstrate their inadequacy to ask and answer
questions that relate to the problem of the Community’s democratic credentials, then Chryssochoou
has undoubtedly succeeded in beheading ‘theory strawmen’. Yet, he failed to explicitly
recognize that some of the approaches reviewed are explanatory theories (that can be tested),
some normative and prescriptive, others – by social science standards – rather ideologies than
theories. Hence, it is about as fair to accuse explanatory theory of being blind to providing
answers to allegedly normative questions, as it is to accuse a football team to do badly in basketball.
If we accept that theory has different purposes, as the author made more or less explicit in
the first chapter, why should so much space be dedicated to integration theories which Chryssochoou
belittles for their ‘too narrow focus’? The main criticism here is that Chryssochoou does
not deliver on what he seemingly sets out to do when he tells the reader about the value of theorizing
in general: Theory evaluation has to follow certain rules and standards of comparison –
where are they?
2. Scharpf, W.Fritz, Economic Integration, Democracy and the Welfare State, in: Journal of European
Public Policy, 4,1(1997), pp.18-36.