Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of the Gap Discourse for the Study of (European) Foreign Policy and European Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gaps in EU Foreign Policy

  • 402 Accesses

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is on the broader implications of the gap discourse within which the analytical use of the capability-expectations gap (CEG) and other gaps and deficits are embedded. It reflects on the implications for the study of European foreign policy, national foreign policy and European studies more broadly. One concrete implication of the gap discourse, it is argued, may be the limited number of text books which analyse the making of EU foreign policy. Moreover, it is proposed that the gap discourse reinforces an ahistorical ideal type of the state in foreign policy analysis. Finally, it is argued that other references to “deficits” in European studies carry with them many of the same connotations as in the gap discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ashley, R.K. 1988. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique.” Millennium 17(2): 227–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börtzel, T. 2005. “Mind the Gap: European Integration Between Level and Scope.” Journal of European Public Policy 12(2): 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton, C., and J. Vogler. 1999. The European Union as a Global Actor. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton, C., and J. Vogler. 2006. The European Union as a Global Actor. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H. 1982. “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies 21(2): 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaban, N., and M. Holland. 2008. “Introduction.” In The European Union and the Asia-Pacific – Media, Public and Elite Perceptions of the EU, ed. Chaban and Holland, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cini, M., and N. Borragán (eds.). 2016. European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. 2014. “The EU Does not have a Democratic Deficit but a Democratic Surplus.” EUROPP. http://blogs.lse/ac/uk/Europeblog. Accessed 2 January 2017.

  • Føllesdal, A., and S. Hix. 2006. “Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik.” Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3): 533–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, R. 1999. “Conceptualising the European Union as an International Actor: Narrowing the Theoretical Capability-Expectations Gap.” Journal of Common Market Studies 37(3): 429–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, L. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harste, G. 2015. “The Democratic Surplus that Constitutionalized the European Union.” In The Evolution of Intermediary Institutions in Europe: From Corporatism to Governance, eds. P. Kjaer and E. Hartman, 199–215. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. 1993. “The Capability-Expectations Gap, or Conceptualising’s Europe’s International Role.” Journal of Common Market Studies 31(3): 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. 1998. “Closing the Capability-Expectations Gap?” In A Common Foreign Policy For Europe?, eds. J. Peterson and H. Sjursen, 18–38. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., and M. Smith eds. 2011a. International Relations and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., and M. Smith. 2005. International Relations and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., and B. Høyland. 2011. The Political System of the European Union. Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S., and J. Macnaughton. 2008. The Foreign Policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keukeleire, S., and T. Delreux. 2014. The Foreign Policy of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, H. 1997. Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis: France, Britain and Europe. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, H. 2005. Analysing the Foreign Policy of Small States in the EU: The Case of Denmark. Palgrave Macmillan: Houndmills.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, H. 2009. “A Distinct FPA for Europe? Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Analysing the Foreign Policy of EU Member States.” European Journal of International Relations 15(3): 537–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. 2004. “E Pluribus Unum? Creative Disagreement af Legitimacy in the EU.” Journal of Common Market Studies 42(1): 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, D. 2002. “Delegation of Regulatory Powers In a Mixed Polity.” European Law Journal 8(3): 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquand, D. 1979. Parliament for Europe. London: Jonathan Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, J. 2015. European Union Politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. 2002. “In Defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing the Legitimacy of the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 603–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Z. 2012. Conceptual Gaps in China-EU Relations: Global Governance, Human Rights and Strategic Partnerships. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J., and M. Shackleton. 2012. The Institutions of the European Union. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. 2002. “Identity, Communities and Foreign Policy: Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy Theory”. In European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States, eds. L. Hansen and O. Wæver, 22–49. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.B.J. 2000. “Europe is not Where it is Supposed to be.” In International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration, eds. M. Kelstrup and M. Williams, 14–32. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, H., K. Pollack and A. Young (eds.). 2014. Policy-Making in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Brian. 2001. Understanding European Foreign Policy. Houndsmills: Palgave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Henrik Larsen

Authors
  1. Henrik Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Larsen, H. (2017). Implications of the Gap Discourse for the Study of (European) Foreign Policy and European Studies. In: Gaps in EU Foreign Policy . Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95166-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation