Introduction – From Modell Deutschland to Model Europa: Europe in Germany and Germany in Europe

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. The author is grateful to the contributors to this special issue for comments on this essay. Richard Deeg, Michael Huelshoff, and Michael Baun provided particularly important insights.

2. Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich, The German Predicament: Memory and Power in the New Europe (Ithaca: Cornell, 1997), p.2.

3. Ibid., p.181.

4. Simon Bulmer and William E. Paterson, ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’ International Affairs 72/1 (January 1996), p.31.

5. Simon J. Bulmer, ‘Shaping the Rules? The Constitutive Politics of the European Union and German Power’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell, 1997), p.50.

6. Jeffrey Anderson, German Unification and the Union of Europe: The Domestic Politics of Integration Policy (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

7. Charlie Jeffery and William E. Paterson, ‘Germany and European Integration: A Shifting of Tectonic Plates’, West European Politics 26/3 (October 2003), p.66.

8. Ibid., p.63.

9. Herbert Kitschelt and Wolfgang Streeck, ‘From Stability to Stagnation: Germany at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century’, West European Politics 26/3 (October 2003), p.28.

10. Ibid., pp.11–12.

11. Ibid., p.1.

12. However, Kitschelt and Streeck are by no means deterministic. They cite the possibility (ibid., p.29) that a political crisis born of a sharply sinking governing SPD may prompt a desperate move toward liberalizing reforms, in which a ‘decoupling’ of institutional spheres and decentralization of policy coordination (p.31) could lift the German system out of its vicious circle and into a virtuous circle of gradual change. As of summer 2005, with the looming prospect of dissolution of the Bundestag and early elections that could well bring a CDU/CSU–FDP government to power, such an outcome cannot be ruled out.

13. Peter J. Katzenstein, Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semisovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), p.7.

14. Jeffery and Paterson point out two additional instances in which German actors and institutions provided the models for the European level: ‘in standard setting in the European Single Market programme’, and the role of the Länder ‘in securing recognition for the regional level in EU decision-making’. See Jeffery and Paterson, ‘Germany and European Integration’, p.61.

15. In addition to Kaltenthaler and Deeg, Kitschelt and Streeck, ‘From Stability to Stagnation’, p.23, share this assessment, as do Jeffery and Paterson, ‘Germany and European Integration’, p.64.

16. For a perspective that suggests that attempts to ‘rework’ German national identity to make it compatible with the project of European integration met greater resistance in the 1950s, when the SPD opposed ratification of the proposed ECSC, than in the era of the Maastricht Treaty, when both government and opposition supported ratification, see Thomas Banchoff, ‘National Identity and EU Legitimacy in France and Germany’, in Thomas Banchoff and Mitchell P. Smith (eds.), Legitimacy and the European Union (London: Routledge, 1999), pp.180–98.

17. Jeffery and Paterson, ‘Germany and European Integration’, p.70.

18. Ibid., p.62.

19. While the findings of Huelshoff, Hess, and Sperling may be surprising from a constructivist perspective, they are consistent with the notion of a decentralized polity in which top-down control of policy implementation is imperfect at best. See Bulmer and Paterson, ‘Germany in the European Union’, p.13.

20. Kitschelt and Streeck, ‘From Stability to Stagnation’.

21. In their comparison of adjustments in the German and Japanese industrial relations systems, Thelan and Kume agree with this conclusion, although they emphasize the role of employers in sustaining a substantial degree of continuity in the German case. These authors refer to ‘a sustained attempt to achieve greater flexibility in plant outcomes while staying within industrywide bargaining structures’. See Kathleen Thelan and Ikuo Kume, ‘The Future of Nationally Embedded Capitalism: Industrial Relations in Germany and Japan’, in Kozo Yamamura and Wolfgang Streeck (eds.), The End of Diversity? (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003), p.191.

22. This accords with research findings of Mitchell Smith concerning the German government's response to EU efforts to liberalize postal services. Having committed to more far-reaching sectoral liberalization than other governments (notably France) were prepared to accept at the EU level in 2000, the German government feared the domestic economic consequences of opening German markets without reciprocal liberalization. See Mitchell P. Smith, States of Liberalization: Redefining the Public Sector in Integrated Europe (Albany: SUNY Press, 2005), Chapter 6.

23. Pepper D. Culpepper, ‘Powering, Puzzling, and ‘Pacting’: The Informational Logic of Negotiated Reforms’, Journal of European Public Policy 9/5 (October 2002), pp.774–90.

24. Ibid.