The European Union: Amid Globalization and Integration

  • Sebastian Văduva
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Economics book series (BRIEFSECONOMICS)


Globalization, with its technological, economic, and structural forces, is the international phenomenon that seems to affect all aspects of life—globally, individually, and institutionally. Public administration and governance studies are equally affected the world over, as theoreticians and practitioners search for the best practices to survive and thrive in this environment. The current research wishes to join this global debate, especially as it plays itself out in the admirable efforts of public administration reforms in Romania. This is a bold statement and I am bound to fall short of my aim, as the communist legacies of the past alongside the current economic and financial crises work to obstruct reform initiatives from progressing. Particularly in the case of Romania, the 2007–2009 interval was challenging for two reasons. First, the budgetary abundance of the period prior to the financial crises and European integration allowed reformers to concentrate mainly on spending money for institutional reforms; in the period after, they are faced with significant budgetary reduction and even a challenge to stimulate the economy. Second, the phenomenon of emigration, present even before the European Union integration, has been accentuated, in some ways draining human talent away from useful in-country employment.


European Integration National Identity Multinational Corporation Policy Area National Sovereignty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alecu, A-R., & Păunescu, M. (2008). Există un model de administrație europeană dominant în România? O analiză a reformei administrației publice în România pe baza proiectelor de twinning realizate prin intermediul fondurilor PHARE [Is there a dominant European Administration model in Romania? An analysis of the public administration reform in Romania on the basis of twinning projects accomplished through PHARE funding]. Management public în România, Iași, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  2. Andenas, M., & Tuerk, A. (Eds.). (2000). Delegated legislation and the role of committees in the EC. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. J., & Reichert, M. S. (1996). Economic benefits and support for membership in the E.U.: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Public Policy, 15, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azoulay, L. (2002). The judge and administrative governance. In C. Joerges & R. Dehousse (Eds.), Good governance in Europe’s integrated market (pp. 109–137). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multilevel governance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bărbulescu, I. G. (2001). Uniunea Europeană—Aprofundare și Extindere: De la Comunitățile Europene la Uniunea Europeană [The European Union—Integration and expansion: From European Communities to the European Union]. Bucureşti, Romania: Editura Trei.Google Scholar
  7. Bărbulescu, I. G. (2005). UE de la economic la politic [EU from economics to politics]. Bucureşti, Romania: Tritonic.Google Scholar
  8. Bărbulescu, I. G. (2006). UE Politicile extinderii [EU the politics of extension]. București, Romania: Tritonic.Google Scholar
  9. Bărbulescu, I. G. (2008). Procesul decizional în Uniunea Europeană [The decision making process in the EU]. Iași, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  10. Bartolini, S. (2005). Restructuring Europe: Centre formation, system building, and political restructuring between the nation-state and the European Union. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergström, C. F. (2005). Delegation of powers in the European Union and the committee system. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birzea, C. (1998). Education for global citizenship, intercultural education and conflict resolution. Romanian Journal of International Affairs, 4(1), 205–209.Google Scholar
  13. Birzea, C. (2001). Politicile şi instituţiile Uniunii Europene [The politics and institutions of the EU] (p. 245). Bucureşti, Romania: Corint.Google Scholar
  14. Birzea, C. (2005). Cetăţenia europeană [European citizenship] (p. 262). Bucureşti, Romania: Politeia.Google Scholar
  15. Birzea, C. (2005b). Learning democracy (p. 118). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Press.Google Scholar
  16. Börzel, T. (2005a). Europeanization: How the European Union interacts with its member states. In S. Bulmer & C. Lequesne (Eds.), The member states of the European Union. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Börzel, T. (2005b). Mind the gap! European integration between level and scope. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bradley, K. S. (1997). The European parliament and comitology: On the road to nowhere. European Law Journal, 3, 230–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brewer, M. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cananea, M. P. (2004). Forms of European administrative action. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 37–60.Google Scholar
  21. Caporaso, J. (1972). Functionalism and regional integration: A logical and empirical assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Caporaso, J. (1996). The European Union and forms of state: Westphalian, regulatory or post-modern? Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Caporaso, J. (2006, November 17–18). Polanyi in Luxembourg: Market participation, embeddedness, and rights in the European Union. Paper prepared for a Conference of International Political Economy Society (IPES), Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Caporaso, J., & Keeler, J. (1995). The European Union and regional integration theory. In C. Rhodes & S. Mazey (Eds.), The state of the European Union: Building a European polity. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  25. Carey, S. (2002). Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration? European Union Politics, 3(4), 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cassese, S. (2004). European administrative proceedings. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 21–36.Google Scholar
  27. Chiti, E. (2004). Decentralization and integration into the community administrations: A new perspective on European agencies. European Law Journal, 10, 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Citrin, J., & Sides, J. (2004). Can there be Europe without Europeans? Problems of identity in a multinational community. In R. Herrmann, M. Brewer, & T. Risse (Eds.), Transnational identities: Becoming European in the EU (pp. 161–185). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  29. Conant, L. (2006). Individuals, courts, and the development of European social rights. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 76–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cuglesan, N. (2006). Multi-level governance in the EU: What model for Romania? Retrieved July 24, 2012, from
  31. Dahrendorf, R. (1978). Europe and America: A reassessment. West European Politics, 1(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Deutsch, K. W. (1966). Integration and arms control in the European political environment: A summary report. American Political Science Review, 60(2), 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Deutsch, K. W., Burrell, S. A., Kann, R. A., Lee, M., Lichterman, M., Jr., Lindgren, R. E., et al. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area: International organization in the light of historical experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Druckman, D. (2004). Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: A social psychological perspective. Mershon International Studies Review, 38, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Edwards, E., & de Vries, C. (2006). Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public Euroskepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.Google Scholar
  36. Eichenberg, R., & Dalton, R. (1993). Europeans and the European community: The dynamics of public support for European integration. International Organization, 47(4), 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eichenberg, R., & Dalton, R. (2007). Postmaastricht blues: The transformation of citizen support for European integration, 1973–2004. Acta Politica, 42, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Franchini, C. (2004). European principles governing national administrative proceedings. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68, 183–196.Google Scholar
  39. Gabel, M. J. (1998). Interests and integration: Market liberalization, public opinion, and European Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  40. Geradin, D., & Petit, N. (2004). The development of agencies at EU and national levels: Conceptual analysis and proposals for reform (Jean Monnet Working Paper). New York: New York University School of Law.Google Scholar
  41. Haas, E. B. (1958). The uniting of Europe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Haas, E. B. (1961). International integration: The European and the universal process. International Organization, 15(4), 366–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: Functionalism and international organization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Haas, E. B. (1975). The obsolescence of regional integration theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Haesly, R. (2001). Euroskeptics, europhiles and instrumental Europeans: European attachment in Scotland and Wales. European Union Politics, 2(1), 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harlow, C. (2002). Accountability in the European Union (pp. 79–107). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Heritier, A. (1996). The accommodation of diversity in European policy-making and its outcomes. Journal of European Public Policy, 3(2), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hix, S. (1994). The study of the European Community: The challenge to comparative politics. West European Politics, 17(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hix, S. (1996). Comparative politics, international relations and the EU. A rejoinder to Hurrell and Menon. West European Politics, 19(4), 802–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hodson, D., & Maher, I. (2001). The open method as a new mode of governance: The case of soft economic policy co-ordination. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, 719–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoffmann, S. (1966). Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of western Europe. Daedalus, 95, 862–914.Google Scholar
  52. Hofmann, H. C. H., & Türk, A. (2007). The development of integrated administration in the EU and its consequences. European Law Journal, 13, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Boulder, Co: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  54. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community, and cues: Public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 6(4), 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Horga, I. (2006). Europe and its borders: Historical perspective (Ioan Horga, Sorin Șipoș, Istvan Suli-Zakar) (p. 192). Oradea, Romania: University of Oradea.Google Scholar
  56. Horga, I. (2010). Multilevel governance (MLG) and the respect of the subsidiarity principle in the committee of the regions’ white paper on MLG. Europolity: Journal of European Affairs, 1. p. 182Google Scholar
  57. Hurrell, A., & Menon, A. (1996). Politics like any other? Comparative politics, international relations, and the study of the EU. West European Politics, 19(2), 386–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Inglehart, R. (1967). An end to European integration? American Political Science Review, 61(1), 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Inglehart, R. (1970). The new Europeans: Inward or outward-looking? International Organization, 24(1), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jachtenfuchs, M. (2001). The governance approach to European integration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(2), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Joerges, C. (1999). Good governance through comitology? In C. Joerges & E. Vos (Eds.), EU committees: Social regulation, law and politics (pp. 309–338). Oxford, England: Hart.Google Scholar
  62. Joerges, C. (2006). The legitimacy of supranational decision-making. Journal Common Market Studies, 44, 779–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Joerges, C., & Everson, M. (2006). Re-conceptualizing Europeanization as a public law of collisions: Comitology, agencies and an interactive public adjudication. In H. C. H. Hofmann & A. H. Türk (Eds.), EU Administrative Governance (pp. 512–540). London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  64. Joerges, C., & Neyer, J. (1997a). From intergovernmental bargaining to deliberative political processes: The constitutionalization of comitology. European Law Journal, 3, 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Joerges, C., & Neyer, J. (1997b). Transforming strategic interaction into deliberative problem-solving: European comitology in the foodstuffs sector. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(4), 609–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Joerges, C., & Vos, E. (1999). EU committees: Social regulation, law and politics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, M. (2008). Consolidarea proiectului de buget cu ajutorul proceselor, alegerea politicilor şi alegerea resurselor [The consolidation of budgeting project with the aid of processes, politics and resources choice]. In Transformarea guvernării în România. Provocări pentru managementul politicilor, Claudiu Crăciun in Managementul politicilor publice: transformări și perspective, Claudiu Crăciun, Paul E. Collins (coord.). Iași, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  68. Kassim, H. (2003). The European administration: Between Europeanization and domestication. In J. Hayward & A. Menon (Eds.), Governing Europe (p. 151). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Katzenstein, P. J. (2005). A world of regions: Asia and Europe in the American imperium. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Keeler, J. T. S. (2005). Mapping EU studies: The evolution from boutique to boom field 1960–2001. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(3), 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Keohane, R. O., & Hoffmann, S. (Eds.). (1991). The new European community: Decision making and institutional change (pp. 1–39). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  72. Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. (1960). Industrialism and industrial man: The problems of labor and management in economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Kohler-Koch, B., & Eising, R. (Eds.). (1999). The transformation of governance in the European Union. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 921–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Larsson, T. (2003). Pre-cooking—The world of expert groups. Stockholm, Sweden: ESO Report.Google Scholar
  76. Larsson, T., & Trondal, J. (2006). Agenda setting in the European commission. In H. C. H. Hofmann & A. Türk (Eds.), EU administrative governance (pp. 11–43). London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  77. Lastra, R. (2004). The governance structure for financial regulation and supervision in Europe. Columbia Journal of European Law, 10, 49.Google Scholar
  78. Lenaerts, K., & Verhoeven, A. (2000). Towards a legal framework for executive rule-making in the EU? The contribution of the new comitology decision. Common Market Law Review, 37, 645–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lenaerts, K., & Verhoeven, A. (2002). Institutional balance and democracy. In C. Joerges & R. Dehousse (Eds.), Good governance in Europe’s integrated market (p. 76). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Linsenmann, I., Meyer, C., & Dritter, W. (2002). Übergang oder teststrecke? Integration, 24, 285–296.Google Scholar
  81. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Majone, G. (2005). Dilemmas of European integration: The ambiguities and pitfalls of integration. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Marcussen, M., Engelmann-Martin, D., Knopf, H. J., Roscher, K., & Risse, T. (1999). Constructing Europe? The evolution of French, British, and German nation-state identities. Journal of European Public Policy, 6, 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mărgineanu, I. (Ed.). (2001). Analiza comparativă a finanțării politicilor sociale: România—țări în tranziție—țările U.E. [The comparative analysis of the social policies fundings: Romania—Transitional countries—The EU Countries] Comisia Antisărăcie și Promovarea Incluziunii Sociale, București.Google Scholar
  86. Marks, G. (1999). Territorial identities in the European Union. In J. J. Anderson (Ed.), Regional integration and democracy: Expanding on the European experience (pp. 69–91). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  87. Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Blank, K. (1996). European integration since the 1980’s: State-centric versus multi-level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Schakel, A. (2007, May 17–19). Patterns of regional authority, European Union studies association. Biennial Conference, 2007 (10th) (p. 44), Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  89. Marks, G., & McAdam, D. (1996). Social movements and the changing structure of political opportunity in the European Community. West European Politics, 19(2), 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. McLaren, L. (2002). Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? Journal of Politics, 64, 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Medrano, D. J. (2003). Framing Europe: Attitudes to European integration in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Medrano, D. J., & Guttiérez, P. (2001). Nested identities: National and European identity in Spain. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24, 753–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Mitrany, D. (1948). The functional approach to world organization. International Affairs, 24(3), 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Mitrany, D. (1976). The functional theory of politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  95. Moloney, N. (2003). The Lamfalussy legislative model: A new era for the EC securities and investment services regime. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(2), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: A liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 473–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Moravcsik, A. (1998). The choice for Europe: Social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Neuhold, C., & Radulova, E. (2006). The involvement of administrative players in the EU decision making process. In H. C. H. Hofmann & A. Türk (Eds.), EU administrative governance (pp. 44–73). London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  99. Niedermayer, O., & Sinnott, R. (Eds.). (1995). Public opinion and internationalized governance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Obradovic, D., & Vizcaino, A. J. M. (2006). Good governance requirements concerning the participation of interest groups in EU consultations. Common Market Law Review, 43, 1049–1085.Google Scholar
  102. OECD/PUMA. (1998). Preparing public administration for the European administrative space, SIGMA Papers, No 23, Paris.Google Scholar
  103. Papadimitriou, D., & Phinnemore, D. (2004). Europeanization, conditionality and domestic change: Twinning exercise and administrative reform in Romania. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(3), 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  105. Pedler, R., & Schaefer, G. (Eds.). (1996). Shaping European law and policy: The role of committees and comitology in the political process. Maastricht, The Netherlands: EIPA.Google Scholar
  106. Peterson, J. (1995). Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a framework for analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Petersone, B. (2008a). The process of public policy: An external perspective. In C. Crăciun & P. Collins (Eds.), Public policy management. Iași, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  108. Petersone, B. (2008). Consolidarea capacităţii Guvernului României de a gestiona şi a coordona politicile publice şi de a aplica procesul decizional [The Consolidation of Romanian Government Capacity to Administer and Coordinate the Public Policies and to Apply the Decisional Process]. In Transformarea guvernării în România, Provocări pentru managementul politicilor, Claudiu Crăciun in Managementul politicilor publice: transformări și perspective, Claudiu Crăciun, Paul E. Collins (coord.), (pp. 247–269). Iași, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  109. Pierson, P. (1996). The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pollack, M. (1995). Creeping competence: The expanding agenda of the European community. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 97–143.Google Scholar
  111. Prisecaru, P. (2004). Politici comune ale Uniunii Europene [Common policies of the EU]. Bucureşti, Romania: Editura Economică.Google Scholar
  112. Prisecaru, P. (2009). Multi-level governance—A theoretical approach. The Romanian Review of European Governance Studies, 1, 66–78. Retrieved from Scholar
  113. Prisecaru, P., & Idu, N. (2003). Reforma constituțională și instituțională a Uniunii Europene [The Constitutional and Institutional Reform of the EU]. Bucureşti, Romania: Editura Economică.Google Scholar
  114. Profiroiu, M., & Popescu, I. (2003). Politici europene [European politics]. Bucureşti, Romania: Editura Economică.Google Scholar
  115. Ray, L. (2004). Don’t rock the boat: Expectations, fears, and opposition to EU level policy making. In G. Marks & M. Steenbergen (Eds.), European integration and political conflict (pp. 51–61). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Regent, S. (2003). The open method of coordination: A new supranational form of governance? International Institute for Labor Studies. European Law Journal, 9(2), 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Risse, T. (1996). Exploring the nature of the beast: International relations theory and comparative policy analysis meet the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Risse, T. (2005). Neofunctionalism, European identity, and the puzzles of European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sandholtz, W. (1996). Membership matters: Limits of the functional approach to European institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 403–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sandholtz, W. S., & Sweet, A. (Eds.). (1998). European integration and supranational governance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Sandholtz, W., & Zysman, J. (1989). 1992: Recasting the European bargain. World Politics, 42, 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sbragia, A. M. (Ed.). (1992). Euro-politics: Institutions and policy-making in the ‘New’ European community. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  123. Sbragia, A. M. (1993). The European community: A balancing act. Publius, 23(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  124. Scharpf, F. W. (1988). The joint decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66, 239–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). The problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(4), 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Schmidt, V. (2007). Trapped by their ideas: French Élites’ discourses of European integration and globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(7), 992–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Schmitter, P. (2005). Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Schwarze, J. (2004). Judicial review of European administrative procedure. Public Law, 146, 159–161.Google Scholar
  129. Spinelli, A. (1978). Reflections on the institutional crisis in the EC. West European Politics, 1(1), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Streeck, W. (2006). The study of interest groups: Before the century and after. In W. Streeck & C. Crouch (Eds.), The diversity of democracy: Corporatism. Social order and political conflict (pp. 3–45). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  131. Sweet, A. S., & Brunell, T. (1998). Constructing a supranational constitution: Dispute resolution and governance in the European Community. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sydow, G. (2004). Verwaltungskooperation in der Europäischen Union. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  133. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Tarrow, S. (1995). The Europeanisation of conflict: Reflections from a social movement perspective. West European Politics, 18(2), 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Trondal, J. (2004). Re-socializing civil servants: The transformative powers of EU institutions. Acta Politica, 39, 4–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Tsebelis, G. (1994). The power of the European parliament as a conditional agenda setter. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Türk, A. (2003). Transparency and comitology. In C. Demmke & C. Engels (Eds.), Continuity and change in the European integration process (pp. 175–198). Maastricht, The Netherlands: EIPA.Google Scholar
  138. Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100(8), 2403–2483. Symposium: International Law.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wind, M. (2001). Sovereignty and European integration. Towards a post-hobbesian order. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Wind, M. (2003). The European Union as a polycentric polity. In J. H. H. Weiler & M. Wind (Eds.), European constitutionalism beyond the state (pp. 103–131). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Văduva
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffiths School of ManagementEmanuel University of OradeaOradeaRomania

Personalised recommendations