Liberal intergovernmentalism and the euro area crisis

330 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

European integration (theory) in times of crisis. A comparison of the euro and Schengen crises (2018, background): “In the euro crisis, governments held conflicting views on the means of saving and consolidating EMU that were essentially in line with their fundamentally different fiscal and economic positions (Schimmelfennig 2015: 182–3).”
European integration and the crisis: practice and theory (2015, background): “LI accounts for further crisis-related integration by underlining the substantial interdependence within the EA, which led to strong national preferences for the preservation of the euro (Schimmelfennig 2015).”
Crisis, learning and policy change in the European Union (2017, background): “In particular, if it is true that exit costs were broadly felt like untenable by all the players (Schimmelfennig 2015: 181–2, 186–8), it is hindsight that informs us about the distributive nature of the integrative steps decided, not contextual and contingent insight present in 2010.”
Understanding the political economy of the eurozone crisis (2017, background): “Indeed, from the moment the crisis began, debtor and creditor states have jockeyed for position in this difficult bargaining interaction (Schimmelfennig 2015), leveraging both bargaining power and (mostly self-serving) ideas in the process (Bulmer 2014, Dyson 2010).”