Review section Edited by Thomas Christiansen

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

A point that was also emphasized by Gourevitch (1978) in his original article with reference to the relationship between the international system and domestic politics; note that in that article Gourevitch was explicitly concentrating on the ‘sensibilities’ of the comparativist (1978: 882).

See also the discussion of ‘mechanisms of Europeanization’ by Radaelli (in PE pp. 40–4), as well as that by Knill and Lehmkuhl (2002)

See also Falkner (2000) on policy networks.

See, for example, O’Leary’s (1987) use of the term in an analysis of changing patterns in Irish electoral politics.

For a recent rediscovery and application of the concept of nationalization and electoral politics, see the valuable discussion in Caramani (2004, esp. ch. 1).

The work of Stefano Bartolini (1998 , 1999) on boundary building, political structures and representation is exemplary in showing the value of these insights.

It can also be recalled that in their original application of the Parsonian schema, Lipset and Rokkan also specified a second or functional axis that cut across the territorial dimension. At one end of this dimension are grouped interest-specific conflicts over the allocation of resources, which tend to be pragmatic in nature and which are capable of being solved ‘through rational bargaining and the establishment of universalistic rules of allocation’. At the other end are grouped the more ideological oppositions, in which the conflict is not about particular gains or losses but instead about ‘conceptions of moral right and … the interpretation of history and human destiny’ (1967: 11). Such a second dimension is also perfectly compatible with the translation of this scheme to the European arena. In this case, as in the case of the Lipset–Rokkan nation-building model, the second axis is not about Europeanization as such, whether specified in terms of institutionalization or penetration, but rather takes Europe as given and divides instead along strictly functional conflicts, be these interest-specific or ideological. Conflicts here need take no position on the question of Europeanization as such, being concerned instead with the allocation of resources within whatever version of Europe happens to exist at the time.