MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1969183750 · doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.01838_5.x

The Eurogroup: How a Secretive Circle of Finance Ministers Shape European Economic Governance – By U. Puetter

2008· article· en· W1969183750 sur OpenAlexaff
Amy Verdun

Notice bibliographique

RevueJCMS Journal of Common Market Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueGlobal Financial Regulation and Crises
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Victoria
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCorporate governanceCouncil of MinistersTreatyEconomic and monetary unionPolitical scienceEuropean unionEconomic governanceConstitutionInstitutionPublic administrationPolitical economyEconomicsFinanceLawEconomic policy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Eurogroup: How a Secretive Circle of Finance Ministers Shape European Economic Governance , by U. Puetter ( Manchester : Manchester University Press , 2006 , ISBN 9780719074035 ); 208pp. , £55 hb . This book is the first to study the Eurogroup, which was created in 1998 to assist in the informal decision-making of economic and monetary governance of the euro area. The Eurogroup meets before the Council of Ministers of Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin) and consists of the Ministers of Finance of Member States of the euro area. Since 1998 this group has made many informal decisions that are subsequently formally adopted by Ecofin and, as such, has taken part of the workload off the plate of Ecofin. At the same time, its composition (a subset of Ecofin) and effectiveness (its ability to come to decisions – albeit still informal, unendorsed ones) have given rise to questions such as whether and how this form of informal governance is shaping the landscape of economic and monetary union (EMU) in the European Union (EU) when it is not a formal EU institution. In fact, the Eurogroup was only first mentioned in the 2004 Treaty establishing a Constitution and subsequently in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which has yet to be ratified. Despite the Eurogroup's apparent importance, and to date its weak institutional basis, the media has not provided it much coverage. If anything, its deliberations are covered by a veil of secrecy. Likewise academic writing has not kept up either. This book is the first to offer a systematic account of the operation of the Eurogroup and offers a look behind the scenes to see what goes on in this new important body of informal governance. Puetter takes up the challenge of writing about the Eurogroup by putting it in a broader perspective. He investigates how the very nature of the group – informality, voluntary participation and lack of ability to force any of its participants into accepting a particular view – contributes to its effectiveness. He adopts a constructivist analytical framework using it to explain the mechanisms behind how informal politics influences economic policy-making in the EU. He bases his analysis on existing documentation as well as interviews with key informants, many of whom are members of the Eurogroup either at the time or in the past. Based on his case study (of various sets of negotiations within the Eurogroup of a set of economic governance issues such as the Stability and Growth Pact) he offers an assessment of how the Eurogroup's informal working method can be interpreted as ‘deliberative intergovernmentalism’ and what lessons can be learned for the EU at large. One of these lessons is that informal governance can be much more effective than is typically assumed. Another lesson is that the way out of EU deadlock need not necessarily be through supranational solutions. His overall conclusion is that regular informal dialogue among decision-makers is an effective instrument to improve economic governance in the EU (p. 170). Puetter has written a superb pioneering study of the Eurogroup. It is a must read for anyone who has an interest in learning more about economic and monetary governance in Europe. Theoretically informed and empirically rich, it also makes a major contribution to the general literature on European integration.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,336
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,628

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,233
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJCMS Journal of Common Market StudiesMême sujetGlobal Financial Regulation and CrisesTravaux en français237 207