What’s the News in ‘New Intergovernmentalism’? A Critique of Bickerton, Hodson and Puetter

Abstract: This is an appropriate time for theorizing ‘European integration in the post-Maastricht era’ and reflecting on a ‘new intergovernmentalism’: economic and monetary union, the flagship integration project agreed at Maastricht, has just gone through a major crisis and redesign, and the last ‘new intergovernmentalism’, Andrew Moravcsik's liberal intergovernmentalism, essentially covered the era ‘from Messina to Maastricht’ (1998).
Christopher Bickerton, Dermot Hodson and Uwe Puetter have provided an appropriately broad and general take on European integration. They theorize the essence of institution-building and decision-making in the EU, taking into account changes in the political economy and the domestic politics of Europe over the past 20 years. In going beyond the study of specific institutions and policies and engaging ‘in a fundamental debate about methods of integration’, Bickerton et al. provide an important service to the research community (2014, p. 15). Yet, whereas I agree with many of their individual observations about core features and developments of the EU, I don't think they add up to a ‘new intergovernmentalism’.