JCMS 2005 Volume 43. Number 3. pp.

55182

Mapping EU Studies: The Evolution from Boutique to Boom Field 19602001*

JOHN T.S. KEELER

University of Washington (Seattle)

Abstract
This article employs original data sets to map the development of EU studies since its inception and to assess that development within the broader context of trends in west European studies. Dissertation and article data are used to chart the contours of three eras of EC/EU studies that have unfolded since 1960. The article addresses the extent to which the transformation of EU studies from boutique to boom eld since the 1990s has entailed diversication as well as expansion of the EU scholarly community a geographic diffusion of expertise and training (accelerated on both sides of the Atlantic by substantial increases in funding for EU research), an increase in attention to EU issues by comparative politics specialists drawn to the study of an ever closer union, a proliferation of new topical subelds, an increase in the number of journals publishing signicant articles on the EU, and a reshaping of the relationship between American and European scholars specializing in EU studies.

* For comments on an earlier draft of this article, I would like to thank the participants in seminars organized by the Political Economy Working Group and the Transatlantic Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy (May 2004), the EU Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (April 2004), the Political Science Department at the University of Oregon (November 2004) and the Thomas Foley Institute at Washington State University (January 2005). Thanks also to those who provided feedback when the paper was delivered at the Ninth Biennial International Conference of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA), Austin, Texas, 2 April 2005. Special thanks for comments to David Andrews, Andrew Appleton, James Caporaso, Jeffrey Checkel, Wyn Grant, Simon Hix, Joseph Jupille, Paulette Kurzer, Adam Luedtke, Gary Marks, Amy Mazur, Craig Parsons, William Paterson, Mark Pollack, Glenda Rosenthal, Jo Shaw, Mitchell Smith, Paul Taggart, Amy Verdun, Helen Wallace, Graham Wilson and Jonathan Zeitlin. I am also indebted to Valerie Staats, Administrative Director of EUSA, and Sue Davis, Executive Director of UACES, for providing useful organizational data. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

552 Introduction

JOHN T.S. KEELER

Many papers assessing the development of EU studies in recent years have made the increasingly obvious point that the volume of scholarship on European integration and EU politics has grown substantially and diversied since the late 1980s. Very few, however, have attempted to assess this growth in a quantitative manner employing original data bases (Jupille, 2005), and none has attempted to map the development of EU studies in a comprehensive manner. Christopher Makins lamented this fact some years ago in his widely circulated report on The Study of Europe in the United States co-sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Delegation of the European Commission to the United States. Unfortunately, noted Makins, the data needed to give a good depiction of trends in the study of Europe and the EU are not readily available and could only with considerable difculty, if at all, be assembled in useful fashion. After much reection, Makins decided that he had insufcient time and resources to gather much original data himself, but he challenged others by stressing that scholars, university administrators, funding agencies and ofcials of the EU would all benet from instituting a capacity to track key trends in the eld to the degree that these can be measured quantitatively (Makins, 1998, p. 5). With the help of two research assistants, I have attempted to respond to Makins challenge by assembling and processing a variety of data designed to track the development of EC/EU studies and, to a limited extent, west European studies more broadly from 1960 to 2001.1 Two main data sets were constructed. The rst consists of all of the PhD dissertations in political science with a focus on western Europe completed from 1960 to 2001 at universities in the United States; the research assistants recorded the year of completion, author, title, university, subeld specialization of author (international relations or comparative politics), area focus (country or countries, EC/EU and/or Nato), and topic (coded in one or more of 25 categories).2 These data do not,
My research assistants were Eric Sieberson of the University of Washington, who provided considerable initial support, and Erik Fromm, a 2003 graduate of Yale, who devoted scores of hours to the collection of data over a nine-month period during 200304. I am especially indebted to the latter, and to Professor David Cameron of Yale University who suggested that Erik contact me in search of employment when he moved to Seattle. Thanks also to the staff of the University of Washington European Union Center/Center for West European Studies, especially Associate Director Phil Shekleton, for facilitating the work of Eric 1 and Erik 2 on this project. I gratefully acknowledge that this project was supported directly and indirectly by funding that our EU Center receives from the Commission of the European Union and that our Center for West European Studies receives from the National Resource Center program of the US Department of Education. 2 The sources for these data were the annual lists of completed PhDs published in the American Political Science Review (196167), then in the American Political Science Associations PS (196897), then on line at http://www.apsanet.org. Thanks to Stephen Yoder, Assistant Editor of PS, for providing some missing data. Some dissertations were listed twice in APSAs publications, but they were counted only once in our data set. Western Europe was dened to mean the EU-15 countries plus Norway and Switzerland. Given
1

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

553

of course, enable us to track the entire range of the eld of EU studies, but they do capture the heart of it. According to a survey of members of the European Union Studies Association (EUSA) conducted in 2003, 64 per cent are political scientists and this number reaches 73 per cent if those declaring their discipline to be international relations are included; lawyers ranked second at 11 per cent and economists third at 6 per cent (Staats, 2003). The UK-based UACES (University Association for Contemporary European Studies) has a similar membership prole. As of 2004, 63 per cent of its members were specialists in politics and international relations, 12.3 per cent in law and 12.3 per cent in economics (UACES, 2004a). The second data set records the number of articles published per year on the EC/EU in 24 leading political science, international relations and public policy journals from 1960 to 2001.3 All of the journals devoted mainly or exclusively to EC/EU studies (Journal of Common Market Studies: JCMS; Journal of European Integration: JEI; Journal of European Public Policy: JEPP; and European Union Politics: EUP) were, of course, included. Also included were the national political science journals of the United States (American Political Science Review: APSR), the UK (Political Studies: PS and British Journal of Political Science: BJPS), France (Revue franaise de science politique: RFSP), Germany (Politische Vierteljahresschrift: PV) and Italy (Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica: RISP), as well as 14 other journals known to have published numerous articles on the EC/EU and/or at least some very widely cited articles on the topic.4 For 18 of these journals5 the data set also includes the topic(s) of the articles (coded in one of 25 categories) and the number of times the articles had been cited as of 200304 in the online version of the Social Sciences Citation Index.6 Of the 24 journals in this data set, only 33.3 per cent (8)
our limited resources, one of our decision rules was that inclusion in the data set could be made only on the basis of the dissertation title; this meant that some dissertations focusing largely or even exclusively on western Europe were excluded. Dissertations were coded as EU if the title mentioned the EC, EEC, EU or in any other way based on the title alone clearly merited inclusion (e.g. theses on European monetary union or the Maastricht Treaty debate were included). It is important to note here that the subeld specializations of the authors were not inferred from the titles they were declared by the authors themselves when reporting the completion of their dissertations to APSA. 3 Law journals were not included, but the 24 journals employed show (see Table 1, p. 571) that articles on the European Court of Justice and EU public law have proliferated since 1990. On the development of European legal studies, see Shaw (2003) and Hunt and Shaw (2000). 4 Comparative Political Studies (CPS), Comparative Politics (CP), European Journal of Political Research (EJPR), Government and Opposition (Gov.&Opp.), Governance (Gov.), International Affairs (IA), International Organization (IO), Policy and Politics (P&P), Politics and Society (P&S), Public Administration (PA), Publius (Pub.), Survival (Sur.), West European Politics (WEP) and World Politics (WP). 5 All but JCMS and JEI, the quantity of whose output excessively challenged my research assistants, EUP, which commenced publication just before the nal year of the data set, and the non-English language journals. 6 The citation data were extracted from the Social Sciences Index Database of the Institute for Scientic Information, Inc., ISI, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Copyright 1990. This online citation index (available at http://www.isi17.isiknowledge.com) was used through licence agreement with the University of
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

554

JOHN T.S. KEELER

are published in the United States while 50 per cent (12) are published in the United Kingdom, 12.5 per cent (3) in continental Europe and 4.2 per cent (1) in Canada. Unlike the dissertation data set, the article data set thus allows for the tracking of trends in EC/EU studies on both sides of the Atlantic. The citation data, supplemented by a broader search, were used to compile a list of the ten most-cited articles on the EC/EU for each of the ve decades from 1960 to 2001 (for the 2000s, only articles from 2000 and 2001 were ranked).7 For reasons to be discussed below, these 50 articles were coded for authors university afliation and academic discipline. Taken together, these data allow us to map the development of EU studies since its inception and to assess that development within the broader context of trends in west European studies. Section I will use the dissertation and article data to chart the contours of three eras of EC/EU studies that have unfolded since 1960. Section II will address the extent to which the transformation of EU studies from boutique to boom eld has entailed diversication of the EU scholarly community a geographic diffusion of expertise and training, an increase in attention to EU issues by comparative politics specialists drawn to the study of an ever closer union, a proliferation of new topical subelds, a diversication of journals publishing signicant articles on the EU, and a reshaping of the relationship between American and European scholars. I. Charting the Development of EU Studies Writing in the early 1990s, James Caporaso and I used some very limited data to help identify stages in the development of research on the EC/EU and regional integration (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995). The much more substantial data available for this study, viewed from the new temporal perspective of 2005, basically support the logic of that earlier classication effort, but also demonstrate that the upturn in the literature visible a decade ago was just the initial rumbling of a veritable eruption that would reshape the eld. One can now clearly identify three eras in the development of EC/EU studies: the launch era, driven empirically by the implementation of the Treaty of Rome and shaped theoretically mainly by debates between neofunctionalists
Washington. Citations were recorded over a span of 14 months, mostly from JanuaryJuly 2003 with some additions made to March 2004. It should be noted that for those articles listed in slightly different ways on multiple lines of the citation record (e.g. for J Common Mark Stud, 1996, vol. 34, one nds Caporaso JA p. 29, Caporaso JA p. 46, Caporaso J), citations to all lines were counted. 7 The list of most cited articles was not restricted to those published in the 24 journals of the data set. Articles from other journals mentioned prominently in state of the discipline essays were also checked for number of citations and included if appropriate. Ultimately, 45 of the top 50 articles were derived from the journals in the data set; the other ve were from Daedalus, European Economic Review (EER), American Journal of International Law, Common Market Law Review (CMLR) and Yale Law Journal.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

555

led by Ernst Haas and intergovernmentalists such as Stanley Hoffmann; the doldrums era or dark ages, driven empirically by the post-empty chair crisis stagnation of the integration process and the turn away from grand theorizing; and the renaissance/boom era, driven empirically by the rapid succession of integration achievements from the mid-1980s onwards (the Single European Act and the 1992 programme, the Maastricht Treaty, the creation of the single currency and the movement towards eastern enlargement, to name but the principal highlights) and shaped theoretically by a new wave of grand theory debates followed by an unprecedented proliferation and diversication of the EU studies literature. The Launch Era As Figure 1 shows, EEC studies as measured by completed doctoral dissertations on the topic in political science grew dramatically throughout the 1960s. In the span of a decade, from 196062 to 196971, the number of dissertations on the topic increased from one per three years to 17 per three years (13 per cent of all dissertations on western Europe). Doctoral scholarship on the EEC reached its single-year peak during this period in 1969, when for the rst time fully 20 per cent of all dissertations on western Europe dealt with a dimension of the integration process (see Figure 2). In the mid-1960s it seemed that this upward trajectory would continue for some time unabated, as the EEC achieved the goals of its rst transition phase and announced that the second phase could be shortened, and as Haas projected that the spillover may make a political community of Europe in fact even before the end of the transition period (Cram, 1996, pp. 5960). However, of course, this seemingly inexorable integration process was derailed in the mid-1960s by French President Charles de Gaulles confrontation with
40 35
No./% on EC/EU

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 61 64

No. EU % EU

67 70

73

76

79

82

85

88

91

94

97

00

Three-year intervals 196062 to 19992001

Figure 1: Political Science Dissertations on EC/EU 19602001

Source: Authors own data.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

556
50

JOHN T.S. KEELER

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00

% dissertations on EC/EU

Year

Figure 2: % of Political Science Dissertations in West European Area with Focus on the EC/EU, 19602001
Source: Authors own data.

EEC Commission President Walter Hallstein. Assuming a three to ve-year lag between beginning and completion of dissertations, the peaking of thesis production in 1969 makes perfect sense. Most of those 1969 dissertations were doubtless begun just before the 196566 empty chair crisis that brought the era of heroic integration to a halt and led Haas a few years later to declare the obsolescence of integration theory (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995, pp. 367; Cram, 1996, p. 61). The article data of Figure 3 also manifest a burst of scholarly output on the EEC during the launch era, as expected. Article production peaks somewhat earlier than dissertation production during this era, which one would assume reects at least in part the shorter time lag between beginning and completion of articles. It should be acknowledged here that the low level of article publication of this era, compared to the later periods, doubtless reects in part the fact
500 450 400 350

446

343 246

No. of articles

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

128 68 19 61 64 67 70 73 95 65 63 62

104

112

119

145

76 79 82 85 Three-year intervals

88

91

94

97

00

Figure 3: EC/EU Articles in 24 Journals, 19602001

Source: Authors own data.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

557

that not all of the 24 journals in the data set existed in the 1960s. Only seven of the journals8 in the set were in existence before 1960; ve more came on line in the 1960s, including JCMS (1962); nine more in the 1970s, one in the 1980s, one in the 1990s and the last (EUP) in 2000.9 The Doldrums Era The ensuing doldrums or dark ages period in EC studies can be tracked neatly with the data of Figures 12. The number of dissertations on the topic per three-year period declined from 17 in 196971 to a mere 4 in 198789, and the record 17 gure would not be matched for nearly two and a half decades. As Peter Hall has noted, the rst Conference of Europeanists in 1979 featured only one panel on the EC rather plaintively entitled Potential for the European Economic Community (Hall, 1996, p. 1). Despite its institutional development and notable achievements such as enlargement and ECJ-induced legal integration, the EC continued to attract fewer and fewer young scholars. The annual data of Figure 2 underscore this fact in a fashion that public relations ofcials of the Commission who enjoy celebrating anniversaries would nd especially depressing. In 1968, on the tenth anniversary of the implementation of the Treaty of Rome, 17 per cent of dissertations in the west European eld focused on the EC; by the twentieth anniversary in 1978 that percentage had fallen to 5 per cent, and by the thirtieth anniversary in 1988 the percentage shockingly reached 0 per cent! Remembering again the lag between beginning and completion of dissertations, what these data show is that the decline in EC studies continued until the debate over the Single European Act and the proposed 1992 programme began to make headlines in the mid-1980s. It should be noted here that the modest spike upwards in the statistics for the early 1980s is attributable almost exclusively to the Lom conventions, the rst two of which were held in 1975 and 1979; 67 per cent of the EC dissertations completed in 198283 dealt with Lom, and 83 per cent with the third world. One would not expect the number of articles produced on the EC to decline as steeply as dissertation production during the doldrums era, for several reasons. First, the article data set includes two journals JCMS and, from 1977, JEI dedicated exclusively or largely to coverage of the EC. Second, the number of journals in the data set expanded by 75 per cent during the doldrums era, from 12 in 1969 to 21 by 1978. Third, many more of the authors in the article data set are Europeans who unlike young Americans writing dissertations
APSR, IA, IO, PS, RFSP, Sur. and WP. The other four launched in the 1960s are PV (1960), Gov.&Opp. (1966), CP (1968) and CPS (1968). The eight started in the 1970s are P&S (1970), BJPS (1971), Pub. (1971), RISP(1971), P&P (1972), EJPR(1973), PA (1974) and WEP (1978). Gov. (1988) was launched in the 1980s and JEPP (1994) in the 1990s.
8 9

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

558
140
JCMS

JOHN T.S. KEELER

120 100

JEI IA Gov.&Opp. Others

No. of articles on EC

80 60 40 20 0

61

64

67

70

73 76 79 Three-year intervals

82

85

88

Figure 4: The Dominance of JCMS and Other Specialist Journals in the EC Literature of the 1960s1980s
Source: Authors own data.

could be expected to have at least a practical interest in the EC; indeed, some authors in the article data set are ofcials of the EC. What Figure 4 shows is that there was actually a substantial increase in total EC article production during the doldrums era, but that growth occurred only in the most specialized journals. From the three-year period centred on 1967 to that of 1982, the number of EC-related articles in JCMS grew 62 per cent, from 29 to 47. JEI did not exist in 1967 but produced 30 EC articles during the three-year period centred on 1982. Beyond those two journals, however, the trends in the data set are negative for the doldrums era. EC-related articles in IA and Gov.&Opp., whose editorial boards placed a relative priority on EC coverage, declined 24 per cent (17 to 13) from 1967 to 1982. EC article output in all the other journals of the data set declined 26 per cent from 1967 (19) to 1982 (14), despite the fact that the number of those other journals increased 89 per cent (from 9 to 17) during that time. JCMS alone produced more EC articles than all of the other journals (except JEI) in the data set throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The Renaissance/Boom Era A plethora of commentators have discussed the fact that the events of the mid1980s onwards led to a renaissance in EC/EU studies, but to date no one has provided a comprehensive measure of recent growth in the literature. With no hard data on the issue, the Makins report stated quite cautiously that the study of European integration broadly understood may be prospering more than the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

559

[European Studies] eld as a whole (Makins, 1999, p. 2, emphasis added). Mark Pollacks survey of the EU studies eld in the United States asserted more boldly (and more accurately than Makin) that there had been explosive growth of the American literature on European integration in the years between 1989 and 1993 and that the following four years witnessed the continued quantitative growth of the eld, but he offered no concrete measure of this trend (Pollack, 1997, p. 1). By the same token, Helen Wallaces widely read 2000 survey of British scholarship on the EU referred to the explosion over the past decade in more empirical work and more meso-level analysis, but her piece also failed to provide data (Wallace, 2000, p. 102). What the data of Figures 12 demonstrate is that, measured by dissertation production in political science, there has been a truly astounding, sustained explosion of the literature since the late 1980s. Whereas only four EC/EU theses were produced during the three-year period centred on 1988, 26 were completed from 199395 (breaking the three-year record of 17 set in 196971) and 36 from 199698. The number completed declined to 26 during the next three-year period, but this represented less a agging of interest in the EU than a broader decline in the number of students nishing dissertations in political science. As Figure 1 indicates, the percentage of dissertations within the west European eld focusing on the EU increased during all four three-year periods from 199092 to 19992001 and rose from 4 per cent in 198789 to 37 per cent in 19992001. Even more dramatically, as Figure 2s annual data show, the percentage of EU dissertations in the west European eld rose from 0 per cent in 1988 to an annual record of 27 per cent in 1994, cracked the 30 per cent barrier in 1996 and then reached 50 per cent for the rst time in 2001. The pattern of article publication for this era (see Figure 5) once again parallels that of dissertation completion, with the usual caveat that the change in trajectory (upwards this time) appears earlier in the data due apparently to the shorter lag time for nishing article-length projects. From the three-year period centred on 1982 to that centred on 2000, the number of EC/EU articles in the full 24-journal data set increased by 329 per cent; the largest three-year leap during this period was 70 per cent between 1991 and 1994. The increase in EC/EU article publication in general journals (the 19 others) from 1982 to 2000 was even steeper, 468 per cent (from 25 to 142 articles). Moreover, during the pivotal 199092 period, the general journals for the rst time published more EU articles than did the JCMS and they have continued to do so ever since. Figure 5 also illustrates the effect of other recent landmarks in the development of EU studies: the launch of two new high-quality specialist journals, JEPP (1994) and EUP (2000), and the transformation of WEP into a heavily EU-oriented journal.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

560
500 450 EUP JEPP WEP JEI JCMS 19 Others

JOHN T.S. KEELER

No. of articles on EC/EU

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

61

64

67

70

73

76 79 82 85 Three-year intervals

88

91

94

97

00

Figure 5: EC/EU Articles in 24 Journals: JCMS, JEI, JEPP, EUP, WEP and 19 Others
Source: Authors own data.

EU Studies within West European Studies Figure 6 casts some comparative light on the development of EC/EU studies by charting the number of dissertations focusing on eight major European countries, regions or organizations over the past four decades.10 One point made clear by this gure is that, despite the rapid increase in the number of
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 196069 197079 198089 199099 EU UK Germany France Italy Spain Scandinavia Nato

No. of dissertations

Decade

Figure 6: Focus of Political Science Dissertations on Western Europe, 196099

Source: Authors own data.
10

Dissertations (24 per cent of the total) that dealt with the EC/EU and a Member State were counted in both categories. It was also duly noted when the title of a dissertation indicated that it focused on more than one country.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

561

theses completed on the EC as the 1960s progressed, EC studies emerged as no more than a minor subeld eld during this early period. More than ve times as many theses were written on German (71) or British (72) politics as on the EC (28) during the 1960s, and many more (46) were written on French politics as well. The amount of research on the EC in this decade barely surpassed that on Scandinavian (21) or Italian (17) politics, though it did quickly supplant Nato as by far the most popular target of research among European international organizations. As one would expect in the light of our earlier discussion of the doldrums era, the relative status of EC studies declined substantially during the 1970s. The number of dissertations written on the EC actually increased 32 per cent (from 28 to 37), but this development paled next to the large increase in dissertations on western Europe overall (58 per cent, from 294 to 464) and the huge increase in doctoral work on France (124 per cent, from 46 to 103) which proved to be the number one areal topic of the decade in the wake of de Gaulles presidency and May 1968 and in the midst of the rise of the left. More substantial increases were also registered for theses on Germany (43 per cent, from 71 to 101) and Italy (135 per cent, from 17 to 40); the numerical increase in theses on the UK (19) also surpassed that of the EU, even though the percentage increase in work on the UK was somewhat lower (26 per cent). Indeed, the EC fell from the fourth most popular areal topic of the 1960s to the fth, behind Italy, in the 1970s. Reversing the outcomes of the 1970s, the 1980s featured a 32 per cent (from 37 to 25) decline in the number of EC dissertations to a level even below that of the 1960s but a slight relative increase in the status of EC studies. As the total number of political science theses on western Europe dropped by 46 per cent (from 464 to 252), the EC suffered from a less precipitous decline than the three major countries experienced and passed Italy to reclaim its fourth position within west European area studies. However, the statistics for the 1980s gave no indication that EC studies the focus of only about 2.5 dissertations per year would soon emerge as anything more than a boutique subeld. Against that backdrop, the statistics for the 1990s and early 2000s are truly amazing. EU studies did indeed, in Makins words, prosper more than European studies as a whole. In fact, EU studies (81) leaped past the UK (64) and France (59) to become the second most popular areal topic behind Germany (94) within west European studies for the decade of the 1990s. Given all the attention justly bestowed on the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and subsequent German unication, it is striking to note how much the trajectory of increase in German studies for the decade (52 per cent, from 62 to 94) was surpassed by that of EU studies (224 per cent, from 25 to 81). Moreover, as Figures 7 and 8 demonstrate, in the late 1990s the EU supplanted Germany to become, for the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

562
40 35 30 Germany UK France EU

JOHN T.S. KEELER

No. of dissertations

25 20 15 10 5 0 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000

Three-year intervals

Figure 7: No. of Political Science Dissertations on the EC/EU, Germany, France and the UK
Source: Authors own data.

rst time, the leading topic of theses within west European studies. Measured by the percentage of total west European theses devoted to each areal topic (see Figure 8), the EU tied with Germany and the UK for rst place at 22 per cent in 199395, moved to a slight edge over Germany in 199698, then

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Germany UK France EU

% total west European theses

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

Three-year intervals

Figure 8: % of Political Science Dissertations on Wester Europe that Focused on the EC/EU, Germany, France and the UK
Source: Authors own data.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

563

established a commanding lead (37 per cent to 23 per cent) over Germany in 19992001 with the other two of the former big three lagging far behind at under 15 per cent. As noted above, the annual data show that by 2001 the EU was accounting for 50 per cent of all west European dissertations. Remarkably, within the space of little more than a decade, EU studies had skyrocketed from a boutique subeld in decline to a boom subeld and increasingly the hegemonic subeld -- within west European studies. II. The Expansion and Diversication of the EU Scholarly Community In this section we will address the extent to which the transformation of EU studies from boutique to boom eld has entailed diversication of the EU scholarly community a geographic diffusion of expertise and training (within both the United States and Europe), an increase in attention to EU issues by comparative politics specialists drawn to the study of an ever closer union as well as international relations specialists, the development of new topical subelds within EU studies, and a proliferation of the number of journals publishing signicant articles on the EU. We will also address the extent to which the increasing salience of the EU and the expansion of the scholarly community have affected the relationship between American and European scholars.

50 45 40 At least 1 At least 2 At least 3

47

No. of universities

35 30 25 20 15 10

26 20 18

18 12

6
5 0

6 2 1
1980s 1990s

3
1960s

2
1970s

Decade

Figure 9: No. of US Universities Awarding 13+ PhDs in Political Science with Focus on EC/EU
Source: Authors own data.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

564 Diffusing EU Expertise and Training

JOHN T.S. KEELER

As Figure 9 shows, in the 1960s only three political science departments in the United States produced as many as two PhDs on the EC and only two produced at least three. The number of departments producing at least two PhDs rose to only six in the 1970s and remained at that level in the 1980s; the number of departments producing at least three PhDs held at two in the 1970s and actually declined to one in the 1980s. Against this backdrop, the 1990s brought about a veritable revolution: 18 departments now produced at least two PhDs and 12 trained at least three. The diffusion of interest in the EU nationwide is evident from the fact that 47 departments 29 more than in the 1980s produced at least one doctorate in the eld. As Figure 10 shows, part of this process was the development of substantial expertise on the EU beyond the East coast. From 1960 to 1989 the EU-oriented departments (those producing at least two PhDs per decade) on the East coast trained a total of 30 EU specialists, compared to only 18 for the West and Midwest. From 1990 to 2001, however, the geographic gap closed substantially: 27 EU specialists trained in the East v. 26 receiving their doctorate in the West or Midwest. This diffusion process has occurred in large part simply because of the enhanced salience of the EU, or the excitement of events on the ground in Brussels, which has led many established Europeanists (including this author) to shift their research emphasis to the EU and compelled scores of graduate students to consider EU-related dissertation topics. However, the diffusion process in the United States has clearly been reinforced by the dramatic, multifaceted increase in funding for European studies since the late 1980s. Figure 11 charts
35 30 25

30

East Midwest West

27

No. of PhDs

20 15 10 5 0 196089 19902001

18 15 8 3

Years

Figure 10: Geographic Distribution of PhDs on EC/EU Produced by Departments Awarding at least Two
Source: Authors own data.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES
35

565

30

EU funded centres DAAD funded centres Federally funded centres

25

No. of centres

20

15

10

76

79

81

83

85

88

9091

9394

9798

0001

0304

Year

Figure 11: The Proliferation of Externally Funded Centres for European Studies in the US, 19762003

Sources: Unpublished data from the US Department of Education; IES, 2005; University of Wisconsin, 2005; Brandeis University, 2005; Network of European Union Centers, 2003.

the growth in the number of relevant US centres (of west European, European, German and European, Russian and European, and EU studies) funded by the three most important sponsors: the federal government (through the national resource centres (NRCs) or Title VI program of the Department of Education), the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) and the European Union.11 Whereas only one such centre was funded in 1976, 30 were being funded by 200001. The growth in federal funding is attributable mainly to the fact that applications for Euro-NRCs have increased greatly since the end of the doldrums period; only 45 applications were submitted each three-year cycle from 1976 to 1988, but the number grew to 7 in 1991, 11 in 1994, 13 in 1997, 15 in 2000 and 17 in 2003.12 Each NRC now receives more than $1 million per three-year cycle for the funding of courses, conferences, graduate fellowships, outreach events and a wide range of other activities. In 1990 the DAAD funded three centres of excellence for German and European studies: Harvard, UC-Berkeley and Georgetown University were
Centres for Russian and east European studies, which have tended until recently not to deal much with EU issues, were not included. 12 Data regarding the growth of Euro-NRCs was provided by Ed McDermott, the Program Ofcer for European centres at the U.S. Department of Education. Note that some centres are consortia involving two or more universities (e.g. the New York Consortium NRC includes NYU, Columbia and the New School University; the EU Center of Miami involves collaboration between the University of Miami and Florida International University).
11

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

566

JOHN T.S. KEELER

each given ten-year multi-million-dollar grants with the contractual agreement that, when the grant period ended in the year 2000, the centres would continue to operate through institutional funding (IES, 2005). Two more centres for German and European studies were funded by the DAAD in 1998, one at the University of Wisconsin and University of Minnesota a Midwest consortium and the other at Brandeis University (University of Wisconsin, 2005; Brandeis University, 2005). In the late 1990s, the DAAD also funded a Canadian Centre for German and European studies at the Universities of Montreal and York, a joint initiative in German and European studies at the University of Toronto, and a professorship at the University of British Columbia (DAAD, 2005). In 1998 the European Union funded ten European Union centres (EUCs) in the United States with three-year grants (averaging about $500,000), then followed up in 2001 by refunding on another three-year cycle eight of the original ten along with seven new centres. Ten of those 15 centres were refunded on a one-year basis in 2004, and in May of 2005 eight to ten EUCs are to be funded again on a new three-year cycle. EU centre grants have bolstered university budgets for many activities also supported by NRC grants (e.g. conferences, curriculum development and outreach), but have been especially valued for their funding of graduate research, faculty research and the hosting of visiting scholars from Europe (Network of European Union Centers, 2003). As of academic year 200304, 27 US universities in 17 different states and the District of Columbia were receiving more than $6 million per year from the three main funding programmes for European/EU studies. Two universities (UC-Berkeley and Wisconsin) held all three types of grants listed above, seven held two such grants (Georgetown, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Washington), and 19 had one.13 On the other side of the Atlantic, external funding has also played a major role in generating a diffusion of EU expertise and scholarship since the beginning of the renaissance era. Since 1989, the Jean Monnet project of the European Commission (DG INFSO) has co-funded with host universities 47 Jean Monnet centres of excellence throughout the EU: nine in the UK, eight in France, six in Italy and Spain, four in Germany, two in Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden, and one in four other countries (Commission, 1999). The Jean Monnet project has also funded 491 Jean Monnet chairs, 800 permanent courses and 641 European modules (ESRC, 2004b). Other EU funding programmes have also had an effect. For example, the European Commissions sixth framework programme provided funding opportunities
13

It is noteworthy that the two universities with all three grants ranked rst (U. of Wisconsin-Madison with six) and second (U.C.-Berkeley with ve) in production of EU-related political science dissertations from 19902001. Three of the universities with two grants also ranked in the top seven: U. of Pittsburgh and U. of Washington-Seattle (tied for third place with four each) and U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (tied for seventh place with three).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

567

for social scientists, especially in its component on Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-based Society (ESRC, 2004a). The DAAD has played a substantial role in promoting research on the EU not only in the United States, but also in Europe. In 1994, in the wake of the launch of its rst American centres, the DAAD awarded a long-term centre for German and European studies grant to the Institute for German Studies of the University of Birmingham in the UK. One of the three priority themes for research established by the institute at its founding was the relationship between German unication and European integration. A Volkswagen Foundation grant for doctoral fellowships bolstered the institutes programme in 1996 (Institute for German Studies, 2004, pp. 7, 1415). Member State governments have also enhanced their funding of EU research since the late 1980s. In the UK, for example, a substantial amount of important work has been supported by Economic and Social Research Council programmes on topics such as the Single European Market and One Europe or Several? (Wallace, 2000, pp. 99, 102 and 108). In addition, a joint infrastructure fund competition in 1999 resulted in the University of Birmingham receiving a grant of more than $8 million to establish a European Research Institute (Institute for German Studies, 2004, p. 8). Engaging Comparative Politics Specialists Another dimension in the diversication of EU studies involves the relative capacity of the eld to engage the research interest of specialists in comparative politics (CP) as well as international relations (IR). As Caporaso and I argued in the early 1990s, it was logical for IR specialists to dominate the eld during the era when Europe represented a unique experiment in international relations and what seemed to justify theoretical attention was the question of how its would-be polity might develop [through integration] at the expense of the nation-state. However, the very success of that venture that is, the movement toward an ever closer union with ever more state-like properties and an ever more complex system of governance led many scholars of the renaissance era to assert that the EU could and should be viewed as an ever richer research focus for comparativists (Caporaso and Keeler, 1995; Hix, 1994; Hurrrell and Menon, 1996; Risse-Kappen, 1996; Jupille and Caporaso, 1999; Hooghe, 2001; Hunt and Shaw, 2000). To what extent have that expectation and admonition been realized? A recent paper by Jupille contends, based on analysis of articles in a small sample of US-based journals (two IR, two comparative) from 1968 to 2003, that CP and IR did apparently become more or less equal partners in the US-based EU Studies enterprise around the mid-1990s (Jupille, 2005, pp. 1920). Our
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

568
45 40 35

JOHN T.S. KEELER

41
IR Comparative

40

No. of dissertations

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 200001

21 16 12 9 16 16 10 9

Decade

Figure 12: US Political Science Dissertations on the EC/EU Comparative v. IR

Source: Authors own data.

dissertation data and more extensive article data essentially support Jupilles contention while also allowing for a more nuanced perspective. As Figure 12 shows, it is true that most EC dissertations were written by IR specialists from the 1960s to the 1980s. However, the predominance of IR over comparative (53 to 37, or 59 per cent) was somewhat less than expected during the early period. It is also true that the IR/comparative gap has closed since the 1990s, even if IR still holds a slim margin (51 per cent). But international relations specialists in the west European studies eld remain more likely than comparative students to write their dissertations on an EU topic: 19 per cent of IR students v. 5 per cent of comparativists did so in the 1980s, 29 per cent vs. 18 per cent in the 1990s and 53 per cent v. 29 per cent in 200001. It should also be noted that the small IR/comparative gap in Figure 12 would be larger if it were not for the fact that comparativists have always outnumbered IR specialists within the west European area studies eld by as much as 3 to 1 in the early 1970s and by 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 during most years of the 1990s. Figure 13 indicates that, as expected, there has been a parallel increase in the number of articles on the EU written in specialized journals within the comparative politics and comparative public policy elds. Indeed, the trajectory of increase has been even sharper a rise of almost 1000 per cent from 1985 to 1997 than that for all journals or general journals. As will be discussed below, the huge outpouring of recent literature from a comparative perspective addresses a very wide range of topics. And as Jupille notes, these articles reect myriad methodological perspectives featuring a continued dominance of qualitative approaches but also some increase especially in the US-based journals in articles written with statistical and formal approaches. One would assume
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES
35 30 25 P&P P&S Pub. Gov. CP CPS

569

No. of articles

20 15 10 5 0 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 00

Three-year interval

Figure 13: Increasing Emphasis on the EC/EU in Comparative Politics Journals

Source: Authors own data.

that this trend toward methodological diversication reects in large part the recent proliferation in both North America and Europe of university centres for training in EU studies. Doctoral research on the EU is now commonly supervised by interdisciplinary committees led by an EU specialist of one avour or another but seconded by experts (including American politics specialists) in such areas as political economy, public law, federalism, agenda-setting, legislative behaviour, interest group behaviour and electoral analysis. Extending the Range of Research Topics From the 1960s to the 1980s, only three topics integration (1960s and 1970s), ECMember State relations (1960s and 1970s) and EC foreign policy were
45 40 Integration Single market/Liberalization Multi-level governance European Parliament EUMS Relations/Europeanization Foreign policy /CFSP Identities/Pub. opinion Environmental policy Euro/EMU/EMS Institutions Euro-interest groups ECJ/Law

No. of dissertations

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1960s

1970s

1980s

199001

Decade

Figure 14: Topics of EC/EU Dissertations 19602001

Source: Authors own data.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

570
180 160 140 EUMS relations/Europeanization Integration Foreign policy/CFSP Multi-level governance Euro/EMU/EMS Single market liberalization

JOHN T.S. KEELER

No. of articles

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

1960s

1970s Decade

1980s

19902001

Figure 15: Top Six Topics of EC/EU Articles 19602001

Source: Authors own data.

the focus of at least ten US political science dissertations in any decade. Since 1990, as Figure 14 shows, the big three traditional topics have naturally attracted many more students, but four new topics have also reached the ten level: the euro/EMU, EC institutions (other than the Parliament and ECJ), the single market and multi-level governance. Predictably, the article data manifest an even greater proliferation of topics, especially those in the comparative politics/policy domain. As Figure 15 and Table 1 illustrate, only the big three topics were ever the focus of at least 20 articles throughout the 1980s. But the 19902001 period generated 20 or more articles in 17 categories the big three, to be sure, followed by the four major new dissertation topics mentioned above and an array of other comparative-style topics such as identity formation, regulation/privatization, social policy, euro-interest groups, the European Parliament, the ECJ/law, environmental policy and the democratic decit debate. Other new subjects such as immigration policy and gender politics were also featured in a number of articles that would have ranked them among the top ve research topics in any previous decade. Enriching and Diversifying Scholarly Exchange As one would infer from much of the data above, the number of scholars working on the EU has increased dramatically since the late 1980s. The USbased European Community Studies Association ECSA, now EU(Union)SA increased its membership by 138 per cent (369 to 880) from 1989 to 2002 (Staats, 2003). Membership of the UK-based University Association for Contemporary European Studies has also grown substantially during this time; UACES now has 580 individual members, 270 associate members and
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

571

Table 1: Topics of EC/EU Articles 19602001a

Topic 1960s 1970s 33 52 23 5 11 6 8 1 0 8 16 2 1 8 8 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 1980s 25 36 21 9 13 6 2 1 4 5 13 0 2 5 0 3 3 1 5 0 2 1 19902001 164 162 105 78 69 52 50 49 47 43 42 34 32 31 28 27 21 17 16 16 11 10

EUMember State relations/ Europeanization 11 Integration 16 Foreign Policy/CFSP 6 Multi-level governance 0 Euro/EMU/EMS/Single currency 9 Single market/Liberalization 5 Identity/Public opinion 1 Regulation/Privatization 0 Social policy 0 Interest groups/Lobbying 3 European Parliament 0 ECJ/Law 0 Commission 1 Other institutions 1 Enlargement 3 Environmental policy 0 Democracy/Accountability 0 Immigration/Borders 0 Agriculture 0 EU scholarship 2 Gender politics/policy 0 Telecommunications 0
Source: Authors own data. Note: a Listed in order of ranking for 19902001.

104 corporate members (UACES, 2004b). This ever-larger community of EU scholars has not only produced an unprecedented number of articles since the renaissance/boom era began but, as Figure 16 shows, it has also generated an even more unprecedented number of scholarly citations an average of 9.6 per article in 1994, up from just 1.9 per article as recently as 1985.14 It is important to note here that the total and average citation gures in Figure 16 decline after 1994 only because the articles published since that time have not been in print long enough to accumulate the number of citations one would expect them to merit. An updating of this article written ten years from now
14

Citations in the online Social Science Citation Index as available on the Web of Science website. The total citations listed in Figure 16 are for 21 journals all of those in the data set of Figure 3 except the three non-English language journals (which, as the next section will discuss, produced very few citations).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

572
2500

JOHN T.S. KEELER

2000

Citations Articles

No. of article/citations

1500

1000

500

61

64

67

70

73

76 79 82 85 Three-year intervals

88

91

94

97

00

Figure 16: No. of EC/EU Articles and Citations of Articles, 19602001

Source: Authors own data.

25 1+ 5+ 10+ 20+

20

15

No. of journals

10

61

64

67

70

73

76

79 82 85 Three-year intervals

88

91

94

97

00

Figure 17: No. of Journals Publishing at least 1, 5, 10 and 20 Articles on the EC/EU
Source: Authors own data.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

573

would doubtless show total and average citation gures for EU articles rising throughout the 1990s. Two EC/EU articles published since 1988 had been cited at least 175 times and nine more at least 100 times by July 2003, whereas only one article produced in all the years before had even approached 100.15 What this reects is that the renaissance/boom era EU literature, compared to that of the launch or doldrums era, has been read by a far larger number of EU specialists, has provoked rich debates on far more topics, and has connected in theoretical and/or empirical terms with a far wider range of non-EU specialists. Those connections were made possible in part by the fact that, as Figure 17 shows, EU articles appeared in more than 20 disparate journals by 1994 more than twice as many as in 1979. Moreover, from the three-year period centred on 1988 to that of 2000, the number of journals publishing more than 5 EU articles increased 183 per cent (6 to 17) and the number publishing more than 10 articles grew 200 per cent (4 to 12). Such a clustering of articles often reects the development of intra-journal debates (at times actively encouraged by the editors, as with EUP) and stimulates the development of journal-based scholarly sub-communities whose communication is facilitated by a more and more common base of erudition and, within limits, common conceptual vocabulary. Enhancing Transatlantic Scholarly Exchange The renaissance/boom era has also engendered substantial enhancement of the degree of scholarly exchange between North American and European scholars of the EU. Intellectual interaction between European and American scholars has been profoundly increased by the scores of conferences and visiting scholar programmes hosted by universities on both sides of the Atlantic with the support of the many new funding programmes described earlier. Since 1992, when the Robert Schumann Centre for Advanced Studies was created at the European University Institute outside Florence, many of the best younger American specialists on the EU have been able to develop collegial relationships with their counterparts from all over Europe while holding Jean Monnet fellowships at the EUI (European University Institute, 2005). Since 1998, the EU centres programme intended specically to build bridges across the Atlantic in line with the new transatlantic agenda has especially facilitated bringing European EU specialists to the United States, many for extended
15

Citations for the top ten articles by decade were all taken (some for a second time) during the same month, July 2003, to assure equitable comparison. Weiler (1991) and Moravcsik (1993) were rst and second in the post-1988 rankings with 215 and 176 citations, respectively; the highest ranking article for the pre-1988 era was Stanley Hoffmann (1966) with 98.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

574

JOHN T.S. KEELER

stays that facilitate the development of networking relationships with faculty and graduate students. It should be noted here that new technologies, the use of which has been encouraged by most contemporary funding programmes, have also played an increasingly substantial role in removing barriers of space and time between the EU scholarly communities in North America and Europe. Transatlantic videoconferences are common now on many campuses, and the internet has made universally available (for free, instantly, any time day or night, regardless of time zone) research papers that used to cross the Atlantic slowly, if at all. The European Research Papers Archive alone holds 850 downloadable papers from institutes in Italy, Germany, Austria, Norway, the UK, the US and Canada as of March 2005 (ERPA, 2005). The recently developed Archive of European Integration (AEI) at the University of Pittsburgh currently offers 880 privately produced materials and 700 EC/EU government documents; moreover, the AEI is set to launch a search engine (AEIplus) that will enable researchers to search simultaneously the holdings of ERPA as well as AEI (AEI, 2005). While there are many distinguished venues for the presentation of EU research, one has emerged as uniquely transatlantic in its character: the biennial conference organized by the US-based ECSA/EUSA. In recent years the EUSA conferences have achieved a remarkable degree of parity in participation by scholars on the two sides of the Atlantic. By 1995 44 per cent of the programme participants were Europe-based, and this gure reached a majority (52 per cent) by 2001, held close to that (49 per cent) in 2003 and climbed to 56 per cent in 2005.16 It should be noted here that the EUSA Executive Committee elected in 2003 included Europe-based scholars for the rst time, and that the EUSA Executive Committee held its annual meeting in Europe (Paris) for the rst time in 2003. To what extent have the heightened transatlantic interactions of the renaissance/boom era altered the traditionally unbalanced relationship in which European scholars have looked to the U.S. for leadership, ideas and conceptual tools in this eld of study (Rosenthal, 1999, p. 6) or, alternatively, been left hanging on to the coat-tails of debates generated by Americans, unable to punch [their] weight at the theoretical level of analysis (Wallace, 2000, pp. 100 and 110; see also Wver, 1998, pp. 7234)? By some accounts, not much. For example, Amy Verdun (2003) has argued that an American/European divide persists in the literature on European integration, with American scholars prone to theorization and generalization and the Europeans inclined to produce more descriptive case studies. And Jupille (2005, p. 15) has documented that US-based journals account for 98 per cent of the references to regional integration theory (compared to only 2 per cent for Europe-based journals) in an
16

Calculated from ECSA/EUSA conference programmes provided by Valerie Staats.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

575

article data set covering 19492000, despite the fact that the US-based journals produced only 59 per cent of the articles with substantive EU focus. A probe into two of the European journals researched for this article underlines Jupilles point, while adding some twists not evident from his data. An irony of the launch and doldrums eras is that the political scientists of the two countries that served as the lynchpin of European integration, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, displayed a very limited interest in integration theory. RFSP published a substantial number of articles (12) on the EC during the 1960s, but all except two of these were descriptive assessments of national perspectives on The Candidacy of Great Britain to the European Communities contained in a special issue of October 1968. Of the other two articles, one stands out as an exception to Jupilles nding: a 1961 survey of recent literature by Pierre Gerbet entitled European Integration Problems and Institutions. Gerbet gave a glowing review of Ernst Haas The Uniting of Europe, arguing that it was important and indispensable (Gerbet, 1961). But the review failed to resonate with readers in France. Haas classic book, the most heavily cited work of the era on European integration,17 was not cited again in RFSP until 1971 (De Bussy et al., 1971). RFSP published 16 other EC-related articles in the 1970s, but not one cited Haas or dealt with integration theory. The next time Haas book was cited in RFSP was in a renaissance era piece by Jean-Louis Quermonne (1992). In another article written the next year, Quermonne (1993, p. 136) acknowledged that French political science has long been parsimonious in European matters. Except for rare exceptions, the construction of the community has principally attracted authors of the English language. As for Germany, PV until recently published many fewer EC articles than RFSP (three in the 1960s, three in the 1970s and four in the 1980s) and, with the exception of one piece by Karl Deutsch (1966) and a critique of Deutsch (Schulze, 1973), contributed no articles on integration theory from 1961 to 1984. The only time Haas book was cited in PV from 1961 to 1990 was in an article by Fritz Scharpf a version of his classic joint decision trap argument (Scharpf, 1985). While a review of RFSP and PV thus conrms that the EC scholarly communities on the two sides of the Atlantic were largely disconnected during the launch and doldrums eras, it also shows as one would predict based on the facts cited earlier in this section that those communities have converged substantially since the beginning of the renaissance era. Over the last decade both RFSP and PV have published a good number of EU-related articles that
17

As of July 2003, Haas (1958) had been cited 471 times in the online SSCI. The second ranking book published before the 1990s was Lindberg and Scheingold (1970) with 212 citations. The most cited book published since 1990 is Moravcsik (1998) with 175.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

576

JOHN T.S. KEELER

cite leading American authors; indeed, from 1998 to 2000 RFSP published translations of four articles by leading American EU scholars (Stone Sweet and Caporaso, 1998; Schmidt, 1999; Moravcsik, 1999, 2000). By some measures derived from our data, moreover, the transatlantic scholarly relationship has gradually become more balanced in terms of the sort of leadership to which Rosenthal referred. Our data set of the top ten EC/EU articles by decade provides a perspective rather different, and less skewed in favour of the US, than that of Jupille or Verdun. Of the 50 inuential articles in this set, 30 per cent were published by Europe-based scholars, and this does not of course include those written by scholars now based in North America but holding European doctorates (e.g., Stanley Hoffmann) and/or originally from Europe (e.g. Gary Marks and Liesbet Hooghe). Thirty-eight per cent (19) of the 50 articles were published in Europe-based journals: 26 per cent (13) in JCMS, 4 per cent (2) in BJPS (the only journal in this list included in Jupilles data set), and 2 per cent (1) in EJPR, EER, PA and CMLR. Only IO (34 per cent: 17) published a larger number of top-50 articles than JCMS. WP (8 per cent: 4) ranked third, APSR and CPS (6 per cent: 3 each) tied for fourth, and BJPS (4 per cent: 2) sixth. Articles in the JEPP narrowly missed the top 50 cutoff, but articles from that Europe-based journal and from another, the even newer EUP seem destined to make the list in future years. As Figure 18 demonstrates,18 European scholars have clearly become more theoretically inuential in the EC/EU literature over time. It is true that
100 90 80

100 80

92

US UK European

% top ten authors

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

54 47 38 27 27 20 8 0
1960s

8 0
1990s 2000s

0
1970s

0
1980s

Decade

Figure 18: Top Ten Authors by Decade US, UK and Continental European
Source: Authors own data.
18

The data in this gure are based on a classication of all of the 60 authors (including co-authors) of the top 50 articles by decade as either US-based, UK-based or continental Europe-based. The one Canada-based scholar (Liesbet Hooghe of the University of Toronto now at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) was not included in the calculation of percentages.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

577

the European authors scored best during the decade of the doldrums-ridden 1980s, when most Americans withdrew from the eld, but some of their articles from that decade have had an indisputably important impact on the eld (e.g. Scharpf, 1988).19 Moreover, it is noteworthy that both UK-based (e.g. Simon Hix, Dermot Hodson and Imelda Maher) and continental European scholars (e.g. Frank Schimmelfennig and Giandomenico Majone) also scored quite well in the early returns for the 2000s. Beyond the article data, it should be noted that the US-based EUSA recently awarded its rst-ever book prize to a continental European scholar (Frank Schimmelfennig) and also named another (Berthold Rittberger, a German national with a DPhil from Nufeld College, Oxford) as one of two co-winners of its 2005 dissertation award.20 The Hegemony of English One important caveat should be noted in discussing the trend toward better scholarly communication across the Atlantic and the rising prominence of European scholars within the eld: the communication ow, especially in terms of theory, takes place almost exclusively in English. One measure of this fact is the variance across national political science journals in frequency of citation for articles related to the EC/EU. As of July 2003, the EC/EU articles published between 1960 and 2001 in the APSR had been cited an average of 24 times and those in the BJPS 9.9 times; in contrast, the average was 3.1 for PV, 1.8 for RFSP and 0.3 for RISP. Another indicator derived from our articles data set is that the top ten articles of the 1990s averaged only 3.9 per cent citations to non-English sources and four had none at all. In contrast, examination of citations in a small (non-scientic) sample of articles by continental Europebased authors from the German and French national journals showed that 45 per cent of the former and 37 per cent of the latter were to English sources.21 As symbolized best perhaps by EUP (edited in English by a largely German editorial board), German scholars almost all of whom are now very procient in English tend to be much better integrated into the transatlantic EU scholarly community than those of France and Italy. The SSCI citation rate for EU articles in the major German-language political science journal may be quite low, but the most prominent German scholars in the eld publish largely in English and many (from Scharpf to Schimmelfennig) are heavily cited. In general,
Scharpf (1988) had been cited 130 times as of July 2003. See Schimmelfennig, F. (2003); Rittbergers thesis is soon to be published (Ritttberger, 2005). 21 The articles sampled were the six in a June 1996 special issue of RFSP on the European Commission and the six most frequently cited articles of the 1990s on the EU in PV. Two of the RFSP articles were by UK-based authors, and these articles had an average of 96.5 per cent citations to English-language sources. The four articles by France-based authors cited on average 37 per cent English-language sources. The percentage of citations from English-language sources in those articles ranged from 11 to 57 per cent; in comparison, the range of English citations in the PV articles was 2259 per cent.
19 20

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

578

JOHN T.S. KEELER

the sort of Europeanized scholars who have studied in several countries and held fellowships at the largely anglophone European University Institute tend to publish in English and present papers at English-language academic conferences (Shaw, 2003, pp. 3335). In contrast, the low visibility of French political science in international publications and debates about the EU can, of course, be partially explained as a problem of language. There is no getting away from the fact that, until very recently, most French lecturers and researchers have been remarkably slow to publish and present their work in English (Smith, 2000, p. 663). However, this low visibility also reects the continued predominance of public law within French political science (all but one of the Jean Monnet chairs in France are held by lawyers) and the relative disinclination of French scholars to engage in empirical research (Smith, 2000; see also Wver, 1998, p. 708). The Italian situation has been portrayed in similar terms. There too only one Jean Monnet chair is held by a political scientist, jurists (and economists) dominate the EU eld, and the research output in the eld overall has been relatively meagre (Giuliana and Radaelli, 1999). It should be noted, however, that in one important respect the Italian segment of the EU eld has matched that of Germany and achieved more prominence than that of France: four Italian authors (most prominently Giavazzi, Majone and Mancini), all economists or jurists, are included in the elite list of 60 who wrote the top 50 articles by decade. Four Germany-based authors also made the list, but none from France with the partial exception of Stanley Hoffmann. Conclusion The EC/EU eld has been transformed in many respects over the past few decades. The evolution from a boutique eld in decline to a boom eld has entailed not simply a vast increase in scholarly output, but also a dramatic diffusion of EU expertise in both North America and Europe, an increase in research on EU issues by comparative politics as well as international relations experts, a rapid proliferation of subelds within EU studies, a convergence of the EU scholarly communities on the two sides of the Atlantic and a substantial change in the balance of transatlantic inuence within the profession. Given the number of variables in play, it is difcult to gauge precisely how much the boom in EU studies should be attributed to the massive increase in external funding from which EU specialists have beneted since the early 1990s. One thing is clear: the renaissance in EU studies and the subsequent boom era were triggered by events on the ground in Brussels and beyond, not by subsidies. That having been acknowledged, it is also obvious that the proliferation of national resource centres for (west) European studies, DAAD Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

579

funded centres for German and European studies, European Union centres and Jean Monnet centres to name only the most prominent new features on the scholarly landscape has provided an enormous boost to teaching, research and publication in the eld. The data of Figure 11, charting the growth in centres, correlate strongly (0.91) with the EU articles data of Figure 3 and with the EU dissertation data of Figure 1 (0.93 for percentage of west European dissertations dealing with the EU and 0.80 for number of dissertations dealing with the EU).22 The effect of the newly-launched EU centres programme in particular will become clearer once data comparable to those in this study can be collected for the years after 2001. It should be stressed here, however, that some of the most important intellectual effects of the EU centres programme are related not to the quantity, but to the quality of research on the EU. As a recent report on the programme noted, the centres have generated a tremendous increase in transatlantic collaboration among university professors as well as a dramatic rise in the number of European practitioners who visit the US and provide real-world insight into research networks (Network of European Union Centers, 2003). However important the impact of external funding might prove to be, it appears evident that the principal determinant of the status of EU studies will continue to be the development of the European Union itself. The data in this study demonstrate vividly the extent to which the ups and downs of the integration process affect the propensity of young scholars to commit to a career of research on the EU and the inclination of established academics to incorporate the EU into their projects. In an era featuring EU initiatives ranging from the most ambitious enlargement process ever to the drafting of a Constitutional Treaty and the elaboration of a European Security and Defence Policy, it is hard to imagine the stock of the EU studies eld not continuing to rise in the short to medium term. The hope here is that this study has provided a baseline effective enough so that such future developments may be better measured, appreciated and understood.23
Correspondence: John T.S.Keeler Director of the EU Center University of Washington (Seattle) email: keeler@u.washington.edu

22 23

Pearson correlation coefcients based on 19762000 data. It is also hoped that the data-gathering effort might be widened, especially to include information regarding the completion of dissertations on the EU at European (and other) universities.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

580 References

JOHN T.S. KEELER

AEI (2005) Archive of European Integration. Available at http://aei.pitt.edu. Brandeis University (2005) Center for German and European Studies. Available at http://www.brandeis.Edu/departments/cges/en/welcome.html. Caporaso, J.A. and Keeler, J.T.S. (1995) The European Union and Regional Integration Theory. In Rhodes, C. and Mazey, S. (eds) The State of the European Union: Building a European Polity (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner). Commission of the European Communities (1999) Statistiques sur lAction Jean Monnet. Available at http://www.europa.eu.int/cmm./dg10/university/ajm/directory /statistiques.pdf. Cram, L. (1996) Integration Theory and the Study of the European Policy Process. In Richardson, J. (ed.) European Union: Power and Policy-making, 2nd edn (London: Routledge). DAAD (2005), DAAD-sponsored Centers and Initiatives for German and European Studies. Available at http://www.daad.org/4/centers. De Bussy, M.-E., Delorme, H. and de la Serre, F. (1971) Approches thoriques de lintgration europenne. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 61553. Deutsch, K. (1966) Rstungskontrolle und Integrationsbestrebungen im Geecht des europischen Politik. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 33063. ERPA (2005) European Research Papers Archive. Available at http://www.eiop. or.at/erpa. ESRC (2004a) European Commisions Sixth Framework Programme. Available at http://www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/researchfunding/fp6.asp. ESRC (2004b) European Funding for UK Social Science European Commission Funding, Jean Monnet Project. Available at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ eu/monnet_eurofunding.html. European University Institute (2005) The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Available at http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/About. Gerbet, P. (1961) LIntgration europenne problmes et institutions: tat des travaux. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 691719. Giuliana, G. and Radaelli, C.M. (1999) Italian Political Science and the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 51724. Haas, E.B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Hall, P.A. (1996) The State of European Studies (New York: Social Science Research Council/Council for European Studies). Available at http://www.europanet.org/ ces/HallEuro99.doc. Hix, S. (1994) The Study of the European Community: The Challenge to Comparative Politics. West European Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 130. Hoffmann, S. (1966) Obstinate or Obsolete. Daedalus, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 892 908. Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

MAPPING EU STUDIES

581

Hunt, J. and Shaw, J. (2000) European Legal Studies: Then and Now. In Hayton, D. (ed.) Law Future(s) (Oxford: Hart). Hurrell, A. and Menon, A (1996) Politics Like Any Other? Comparative Politics, International Relations and the Study of the EU. West European Politics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 386402. Institute for European Studies (2005) Center for German and European Studies. University of California, Berkeley. Available at http://www.ies.berkeley.edu/cgs/ index.html. Institute for German Studies (2004) The First Ten Years: The Institute for German Studies, 19942004. University of Birmingham. Available at http://www.igs. bham.ac.uk. Jupille, J. (2005) Knowing Europe: Metatheory and Methodology in EU Studies. In Cini, M. and Bourne, A. (eds) Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies (New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave), forthcoming. Jupille, J. and Caporaso, J.A. (1999) Institutionalism and the European Union: Beyond International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 2, pp. 42944. Lindberg, L.N. and Scheingold, S.A. (1970) Europes Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Makins, C.J. (1998) The Study of Europe in the United States (Washington, DC: European Commission/German Marshall Fund of the United States). Makins, C.J. (1999) The Study of Europe in the United States: The Makins Report. ECSA Review, Vol. 12, No. 1. Available at http://www.eustudies.org/makinsforum. html. Moravcsik, A. (1993) Preferences and Power in the European Community. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 473524. Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Moravcsik, A. (1999) Le grain et la grandeur : Les origines conomiques de la politique europenne du gnral de Gaulle (1re partie). Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 49, Nos 45, pp. 50744. Moravcsik, A. (2000) Le grain et la grandeur : Les origines conomiques de la politique europenne du gnral de Gaulle (2me partie). Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 73124. Network of European Union Centers (2003) Impact Report of the Network of European Union Centers in the United States. Available at http://www.eurunion. org/infores/CollectiveImpactReport.doc. Pollack, M.A. (1997) The United States of America. In Azzi, G.C. (ed.) Survey of Current Political Science Research on European Integration Worldwide: 19941997 (Brussels: International Political Science Association Research Committee of European Unication). Quermonne, J.-L. (1992) Trois lectures du trait de Maastricht. Revue franaise de science politique Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 80218. Quermonne, J.-L. (1993) Laccession la dimension politique de la Communaut europenne. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 1368.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005

582

JOHN T.S. KEELER

Risse-Kappen, T. (1996) Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 5380. Rittberger, B. (2005) Building Europes Parliament: Democratic Representation Beyond the Nation State (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Rosenthal, G.G. (1999) Comments in The Study of Europe in the United States: The Makins Report. ECSA Review, Vol. 12, No. 1. Available at http://www.eustudies. org/makinsforum.html. Scharpf, F.W (1985) Die Politikverechtungs-Falle : Europische Integration und deutscher Fderalismus im Vergleich. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 32356. Scharpf, F.W. (1988) The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. Public Administration, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 23978. Schimmelfennig, F. (2003) The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schmidt, V.A. (1999) La France entre lEurope et le monde : Le cas des politiques conomiques nationales. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 5178. Schulze, P. (1973) Zum Integrationsansatz von K.W. Deutsch Versuch einer Kritik aus marxistischer Sicht. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 6784. Shaw, J. (2003) The European Union. In Cane, P. and Tushnet, M. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Smith, A. (2000) French Political Science and European Integration. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 6638. Staats, V. (2003) EUSA Fifteenth Anniversary Membership Survey Data. Unpublished ms. Stone Sweet, A. and Caporaso, J.A. (1998) La Cour de justice et lintgration europenne. Revue franaise de science politique, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 195244. UACES (2004a) Directory of Expertise on Europe: European Studies Research Interests of UACES Members 20042005 (London: Chameleon Press). UACES (2004b) UACES News, SeptemberDecember, p. 2. University of Wisconsin (2005) Center for German and European Studies. Available at http://Daadcenter.wisc.edu/aboutus/about.html. Verdun, A. (2003) An American/European Divide in European Integration Studies: Bridging the Gap with International Political Economy. Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 84101. Wver, O. (1998) The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 687727. Wallace, H. (2000) Studying Contemporary Europe. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 95113. Weiler, J. (1991) The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 240383.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005