Abstract
The author replies to Thomas Diez's three major criticisms of The Choice for Europe. Does the book exclude ideas and identity from its account of European integration and, to the extent it does, do so unjustly? Would greater attention to feedback over time undermine its core argument? Is the analysis 'politically problematic' because it implies the existence of structural limits on future EU reforms? Each of these criticisms misstates the concrete empirical content, broader theoretical argument, and critical implications of the book. The reply concludes by noting that the major purpose of the book is to provide a historically accurate account of major EU decisions, while Diez's critique steers scholarly debate away from confrontation with the observable world toward more abstract concerns.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 371-391 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | Millennium: Journal of International Studies |
Volume | 28 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1999 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Sociology and Political Science
- Political Science and International Relations