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

Book reviews – Comptes rendus – Buchbesprechungen 145
ing up the usual suspects' (p.XXX), criticising the British for their arrogance and underestimation
of the Six and not offering a thorough-going comparative perspective leaves him to a
degree hoist by his own petard. Neither does Using Europe distinguish itself by engaging
significantly with the research of the noteworthy historians of the field, primarily Alan Milward
and John Young. The 1999 preface might have been employed by Kaiser to comment
on the literature since 1996 and to place his book amongst it but instead he focuses on party
politics and Britain's relationship with the EU from 1996 to 1998. Perhaps his decision to do
so reflects his own belief that it is here that his work is of greater effect?
Despite being for the most part a diplomatic history, Using Europe also develops arguments
about the domestic political context, particularly party political, of British foreign
policy. This is the strength of the epilogue and of the 1999 preface where Kaiser comments
on how Britain's European policy has consistently been driven by, and undermined by, party
politics, especially of the Conservative kind. In this Kaiser returns briefly to the points
raised in his introduction and states that 'Unintentionally, the Sonderweg thesis of British
postwar history adopts the myth, created by the British political elite, of British exceptionalism'
(p.211). Dismissing the premise that Britain's choices can be explained by its difference
from other Western European countries, a view restated recently by John Young, Kaiser
argues that British diplomacy set it apart from the early EEC. Moreover, he believes that this
had, and has, party political motivation: 'What is arguably even more relevant to understanding
Britain's relationship with its European partners was – and is more than ever in the 1990s
– the enormous influence of party political controversies and tactics' (p.218). Whilst this
draws Kaiser's thesis together, and explains why he chose the title he did for his book, perhaps
it does not offer the revision of the awkward partner school that he suggests as he is
forced to admit that 'Seen over the entire postwar period, [party political controversies and
tactics] have been far more divisive [in Britain] than in any other member state' (p.218).
Thus, Kaiser's main contribution to the historiographical debate, apart from his arguments
about 1955-63, is that he adds domestic politics to the list of factors which explain why Britain
has found it so difficult to integrate with Europe.
James Ellison
Queen Mary, University of London
George PETRAKOS, Stoyan TOTEV (ed.) – The Development of the Balkan Region,
Ashgate, Aldershot, 2001, 520 p. – ISBN 0-7546-1225-2 – 65,00 £.
Ce livre n’a rien d’un recueil d’articles. Les douze auteurs se sont livrés sous la direction de
George Petrakos et Stoyan Totev à une réflexion approfondie sur les limites et l’avenir du
développement économique dans la région des Balkans. La période de transition depuis dix
ans en Europe a soulevé beaucoup de questions, restées sans une réponse claire et convaincante.
Par exemple, pourquoi les pays balkaniques sont-ils tellement différents en termes
d’efficacité économique par rapport aux pays de l’Europe Centrale? Pourquoi ces pays là
semblent-ils échouer dans leurs efforts de transition vers l’économie du marché? Est-ce que
l’échec des politiques intérieures ou les conditions initiales désavantageuses et l’environnement
géographique défavorable sont-ils responsables de cette médiocre efficacité? En plus,
quelle réponse politique a été donnée par l’Union européenne aux questions susmentionnées
et qu’est-ce qu’on peut faire actuellement? Voilà quelques questions cruciales qui se posent
dans ce livre pour l’ensemble des pays balkaniques.
Dans ce volume, les auteurs essayent de faire une analyse comparative des problèmes d’efficacité
économique et d’adaptation structurelle dans les pays des Balkans. Ce livre, composé de
seize articles au total, est divisé en deux parties. La première partie est constituée d’un travail de
recherche comparative sur des questions politiques et analytiques. Dans cette partie du volume