Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2009.00820.x Byline: THEOFANIS EXADAKTYLOS (1), CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1) Abstract: Abstract In this article, we contribute to the debate on research design and causal analysis in European integration studies by considering the sub-field of Europeanization. First, we examine the awareness of research design issues in the literature on Europeanization through a review of the debate on causality, concept formation and methods. Second, we analyse how much of the discussion of the trade-offs in causal analysis in mainstream political science has percolated into Europeanization studies. We therefore construct a sample of the Europeanization literature, comparing it to a control group of highly cited articles on European integration. This enables us to control if some patterns are specific to the Europeanization literature or reflect a more general trend in European integration. We then look at trade-offs in the Europeanization sample and in the control group. Our findings indicate that awareness of research design is still low. Europeanization articles differ from the control group in the focus on mechanisms (rather than variables) and the qualitative aspects of time in politics. Complex notions of causality prevail in Europeanization but not in the control group and the cause-of-effects approach is preferred to effects-of-causes in the control group but not in Europeanization - in both cases, however, the difference is slight. We conclude by explaining differences and similarities and make proposals for future research. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Exeter Article note: Theofanis Exadaktylos and Claudio M. Radaelli, Department of Politics, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, University of Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK, Tel + 44 (0) 1392 263176, Fax + 44 (0) 1392 263305, email te214@exeter.ac.uk; c.radaelli@exeter.ac.uk

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00778.x Byline: CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI (1), ULRIKE S. KRAEMER (1) Abstract: Abstract Conventional scholarship on international taxation tends to address competition. It focuses on governments and does not integrate purposeful political strategy with the ideational dimension of policy change. In this article we examine co-operation, use a multi-actor perspective to explain the selection of modes of governance and bridge the gap between the strategic and ideational components of policy change. We show how a political strategy pursued by the Commission has led to the emergence of two functionally differentiated governance arenas, dealing with different definitions of tax problems and operating with modes of governance that suit the internal logic of individual arenas. We then examine the limitations of political strategy, by showing how a third governance arena dominated by the European Court of Justice has become increasingly important, with little control exercised by the Commission and the Member States. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Exeter Article note: Claudio Radaelli, Department of Politics, Centre for Regulatory Governance, University of Exeter, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK, email c.radaelli@ex.ac.uk

This article investigates the dynamics of the European Union (EU) direct tax policy process by drawing attention to the political power of policy narratives in the context of the advocacy coalition framework. The narrative of harmful tax competition has been a political instrument for rekindling interest in a neglected policy area. Narratives do not operate in a political vacuum, however. Forum politics and the evolution of the policy environment have facilitated the emergence of harmful tax competition as main paradigm in EU direct tax policy. By representing itself not as a component of an advocacy coalition, but as a forum for intergovernmental deliberation, the Commission has curbed adversarial politics and created the preconditions for the adoption of tax proposals. The conclusions discuss the theoretical implications for the advocacy coalition framework.

What is the causal relationship between crisis, learning and change? How did causality unfold in the key years of 2009–2010 when the European Union had to face the most formidable attacks to the single currency and responded with substantial reforms of the euro area? We question the conventional identification of the cause-and-effect relationship provided by theories of crisis management, integration and policy learning. Drawing on models of contingent learning developed within psychology and behavioural economics, we theorize that surprise produces behavioural change via a fast-paced associative mechanism and that policy learning follows change. We then run our exercise in causal identification through a plausibility probe. We show that our argument passes the plausibility probe. Our conclusions on cognition and situational effects on learning during crises suggest a new research agenda, more sensitive to how individuals behave in the real world and more robust in its micro-foundations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we present some major lessons drawn from a recently completed research project. Our research dealt with ex ante evaluation, mainly impact assessment (IA).We shed new light on research questions about the control of bureaucracy, the role of IA in decision-making, economics and policy learning, and the narrative dimension of appraisal.We identify how our findings stand in relation to conventional arguments about these issues, and reflect on their normative implications. We finally reason on the possible extensions of our arguments to the wider field of policy evaluation, connecting IA and ex post evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]