European Union’s integration issues after the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty. A Neo-Gramscian anaylsis (I)

Anca Madalina BONCILA

Abstract. Through this paper we have tried to question the reality of EU’s integration and to identify the factors that shaped it. The complexity of this process led to multiple perspectives of analyzing it. We believe that Neo-Gramscian theory of European integration, although not so well-known, can be considered the most appropriate methodological support in explaining the events that have redefined the European integration: the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty, the financial crisis and the emergence of the Lisbon Treaty. We started from the assumption that the EU has obvious neo-liberal connotations, which led to the emergence of functional obstacles difficult to overcome, especially when it comes to the social dimension of the EU. Therefore, we divided the work into two basic parts, the first explains the methodology used, the main concepts, what neo-liberalism is and which are the EU’ s neo-liberal expressions and in the second part we focused on the social dimension of the EU, talking about the lack of substance that we found in the rhetoric of Fundamental Rights. Using the trade unions we have exemplified the inability of the EU to cope with social challenges, especially since there are forms of skepticism focused strictly on social discontent. The conclusions confirm that the Neo-Gramscian theory is the most suitable methodological support in an attempt to capture the nuances of EU’ s neo-liberal expressions.

Keywords: European integration, neo-liberalism, Neo-Gramscianism, hegemony.

Introduction

The historical evolution of the European Union (EU) is, undoubt­edly, hard to explain, but it can be expressed and understood through the main theories of integration¹. Unlike the historical and political emergence and development of na­tion-states,   which   engage   many more structural factors, the EU is mainly the result of its institutional transformation and of constant modifi­cations indecision and policy-making.

The whole range of economic interactions-limited at first – came to assume the need to develop a political authority – only existing de jure and in an incipient form. If a political purpose has been pursued

ever since Jean Monnet planned a sector al integration, that eventually would lead to the federalization of this sui generis organization², the force the nation-state made its pres­ence when was raised the issue of assignment of powers in fields other than the economic one.

The Treaty on European Union (TEU), signed in 1992, was the historical event that, more than ever before, has launched and propelled new reconsidered goals and objec­tives of an EU that was to become also a political one.

These promising developments seemed to reflect a healthy and solid organism, despite the complexity of its constituents. The successes have made thepolitical leaders³ to draft the Constitutional Treaty (ECT), by taking into account the radical trans­formation the biggest enlargement from 2004 involved. The fact that France and the Netherlands rejected it in a referendum in 2005, an­nounced the strongest shock felt by the EU in its development⁴. Beyond the symbolism and implications that the „constitutionalisation” of the European Union would have had on the socio-political imaginary, the great failure of ET Chas some im­portant consequences which we will address indirectly in this paper.

The rejection of the draft high­lights the fragility of some structural issues that the political leaders have not been able to rethink and reinvent later, as we will demonstrate.

Secondly, the rejection of ECT, partially transformed into LT, will redefine the path of the EU. The rejection of ECT’s political goals equals abandoning the targets, at least in practical and informal as­pects⁵.

The hypothesis that we will demonstrate in this paper is that the EU turned out to be, after the failure of ECT and during the financial crisis, a project with prevailing eco­nomic meanings, part of a global neo-liberal framework, both through its institutional structure and poli­cies and decisions taken in its insti­tutions, and by the role it has played in a global political economy found in a continuous transformation.

The rejection of the ECT and the financial crisis will cause a change both in orientation and development of the EU, through the decisions taken in the main European institu­tions.

Moreover, the main theories of integration are in a great measure limited, while trying to explain this new reality. Therefore, we believe that using an analytical method that uses neo-Gramscian theory of European integration’s concepts, EU dynamics – restructured after the fall of ECT – will reveal their own complexity and novelty. Neo-Gramscian conceptual framework, found particularly in the present post-Marxist⁶ current field, such as the concept of hegemony for exam­ple, supports and emphasizes the inevitability of the neo-liberal proc­ess and also explains its impact. To understand the subject addressed in this paper, as exhaustive as possible, we will use the meanings of the concept of symbolic power, defined and developed by Pierre Bourdieu⁷.

The first part of this research provides a theoretical support and clarifies the conceptual elements. Also, the first chapter will provide an overview of the methodology applied, explaining both Neo-Gramscian theory, as well as other concepts used. On the other hand, we will be analyzing the EU’s neo­liberal institutionalized expressions. We will address these issues on two levels. First, we will present the main historical roots of today’s neo­liberal actors in the EU. Secondly, we will contextualize the reality of the EU, outlined above, shape by the financial crisis.

In the second part, we seek to analyze the social dimension of the EU in relation to neo-liberalism. We will argue, first of all, that the social dimension of fundamental rights is just a political myth. Secondly, we will research for the euroscepti-cism’s conceptual framework to identify the relevant type of opposi­tion emerged among citizens and their motivations. Thirdly, we will focus on analyzing how the EU has integrated into its social dimension the trade unions.

The sources that we have con­sulted are formed, in the first place, from the most important reference titles which seek to explain the main concepts from our research field, concepts from theories unfortu­nately underused. We mention here an important title, Gramsci, Histori­cal Materialism and International Relations*, edited by Stephen Gill. We also consulted various specialty items and EU’s institutions various official documents, treaties, state­ments made by European leaders, or documents related to public policy.

Conceptual framework: Neo-Gramscian theory of European integration

Is difficult to define the European integration process, be­cause it’s evolution have been char­acterized by fragmentation and change of direction.

By the early ’90s, the academic debate on EU integration theories was marked by the comprehensive and conceptual oppositions between neo-functionalism and intergovern-mentalism.

Theorized in The Uniting of Europe⁹ by Ernst Haasin 1966, the neo-functionalist approach consid­ers the role of the state to be mini­mal in the integration process, within an international organization, and presupposes and takes into ac­count two aspect’s: 1) the secre­tariat” of the organization; 2) the interested associations and social movements that form around at a regional level¹⁰.

The concept of spill-over con­stitutes the theory’s core, involving the fact that the integration of a sector directed by a supranational authority will determine, as an automatic mechanism, the integra­tion of other sectors: expansive logic¹¹.

Unlike the emphasis on supra-nationalism that characterize neo-functionalism, inter-governmentalist theory developed by Hoffman¹² argues that the development of European integration was deter­mined by the interaction in terms of power of actors that legitimize their decisions and policy choices on the EU scene, calling for national inter­ests priority.

Famous theorist of European in­tegration, Andrew Moravcsik elabo­rates starting from Hoffman, the liberal inter-governmentalism the­ory, which considers the following aspects:

„(i) a liberal theory of how na­tional preferences appear;

(ii)   a EU inter-governmental ne-
gotiation model;

(iii)    an institutional choice per-
spective emphasizing the role of
national institutions in providing
„credible commitments” to the gov-
ernments of member states¹³.”

Even if it was dominant, the de­bate between neo-functionalism and inter-governmentalism became ex­haustive and both approaches proved to be in the last two decades insufficient to explain the interac­tion of different EU’s institutional games.

Inspired and developed from Neo-Gramscian theory of Interna­tional Relations, the Neo-Gramscian theory of European integration is based on a critique of the theories of integration, both those already rec­ognized, and those under develop­ment. Therefore, the mainstream theories, „because of their basic conceptual design and assumptions, are unable to achieve what should be the fundamental objectives of a political sciene of the EU: to understand the nature of power in the EU, including its organization and distribution, and to assess the implications of a given set of power relations for legitimacy”¹⁴.

While there is a post-Marxist tradition with a clear interest on this topic, it was along time one frag­mented and without continuity. In this regard, the first representative theoretical approach is represented by study of Peter Cocks from1980, Towards a Marxist Theory of Euro­pean Integrations¹⁵. It assumes that integration itself is a consequence of the dynamics of capitalist history. More so far the EU from the begin­ning was built on a capitalist eco­nomic logic. So in some areas of the EU integration is conditioned by economic, social, political factors, as they are determined and outlined by the stage capitalism is found in a given period of history.

In this context, Neo-Gramscian theorists¹⁶ began to explain since the ’80s the phenomenon of integration by referring constantly to the inter­national scene, namely the emer­gence of economic trans-national­ism and neo-liberal globalization. These processes appeared immi­nently, restructured the functioning of social relations, as were their seen by Gramsci. Social relations, in terms of Neo-Gramscian theorists approach¹⁷, are those that stimulate the process of EU integration.

Social relations are understood in relation to the production, viewed broadly, both economically and culturally or socially. In capitalism, private property and the free market are those that shape social relations. Based on neo-Marxist dialectical relationship between the economic and ideological super-structure, Neo-Gramscian-ism seeks to under­stand how certain historical situa­tions and specifically production can cause changes in the evolution of the EU¹⁸.

Given these considerations, the neo-liberal project is a fundamental structural factor that influences, especially today, EU’s directions. A central element of the Neo-Gram-scian theory is the use of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, whose com­plexity serves as a source of argu­ment and understanding of certain aspects of the EU. In the following section we will define the concept and will support its relevance.

The Gramscian concept of hegemony

The concept of hegemony, de­veloped from Gramsci’s work, represents an effective theoretical basis to explain and understand the behavior of the ruled, in the context of the EU’s facing democratic defi­cit issues, discussion heavily re­stored in question after LT. More­over, given the hypothesis of this paper, the concept of hegemony is an important tool to perceive the imposing neo-liberal agenda in the EU’s dynamics after LT, but it also serves as a critical support.

Gramsci did not develop a uni­fied theory of hegemony, the meanings that he gave it being dis­tributed piece meal throughout „Notebooks from Prison”¹⁹. How­ever, this concept has been inter­preted and defined in a clear enough form by the literature developed after Antonio Gramsci. To summa­rize, one can understand through hegemony the imposition by the ruling class of a certain economic and political program before a sub­ordinate classes by coercion on the one hand, and on the other hand by consensus. The coercion is legiti­mated by institutions and elite ex­isting at a specific time, and the ruling class consensus is achieved through cultural hegemony, a form of expressing a certain set of values that a society will assume later through institutions.

For the purposes of this paper we will use the way of understanding the hegemony of the Neo-Gram-scian theory of integration support­ers. Unlike the uniformity that exists on the definition of this concept in many post-Marxist theories²⁰, the theory that we use in this paper takes this concept assigning to it new semantic values, other wise flexible, depending on the state and temporal fluctuations in the capital­ism direction on the global stage.

Robert Cox, the first to assume a Neo-Gramscian theorist label adapts the implications of this concept to the theory of International Rela­tions. He sees hegemony as a struc­ture of values and meanings that characterize the whole order of global actors. Moreover, this global order is built and dependent on power structures, in the sense that the ruling classes in the dominant states automatically will impose their way of thinking and acting before the ruling classes of other countries.

Therefore, the concept of he­gemony can easily be adapted to explain the logic of EU integration, since this organization has already an institutionalized order of state and non-state actors. The implica­tions arising from theorizing the concept of hegemony could explain the actor’s behavior, and the way asocial, economic, cultural policy gain directions within the EU.

An analysis of the present reality of the EU, based on the proposed concept, shows how the dominant class of economically and politically powerful states, imposes its own increasing ideological force. More­over, the imposition through this means on EU’s direction coincides with the harmonization of certain values, beliefs and behaviors glob­ally present, under neo-liberal logic.

Bourdieu and the concept of symbolic violence (power)

Before addressing the concept of symbolic violence  developed by

Pierre Bourdieu, we will remember the constructivist-structuralist ap­proach, also corresponding to the theories of integration, and the as­sumptions from which the French author starts his criticism across the EU, an important actor of mondiali-zation²¹ that works, evermore, in a direction neo-liberal.

Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Gramsci can be completed at certain points when raises questions about political, economic, social orders, both because similar biographical background and common points of interest and because of the similarity of certain concepts developed²².

Pierre Bourdieu’s structuralist-constructivism²³ is not a theory it­self of this area of research, but its defining concepts were taken to develop a certain aspect of socio-constructivist theory of EU integra­tion. This approach can be seen as complementary to Neo-Gramscian theory of European integration. Bourdieu also contributed to the development of critical trends and expression supposing EU’s neo­liberal agenda. First of all, he speaks of the existence of neo-liberal uto-pia²⁴, created and supported by some economic actors sufficiently well positioned to defend their in­terests.

But this happens in a way that „global neo-liberal program ends to favor the gap between economy and social realities and to build in real­ity, an economic system in accor­dance with the theoretical descrip­tion, a sort of logical machine what looks like a chain of constraints on economic agents²⁵.”

Symbolic violence (or power) serves as conceptual grid to under­line the way in which it is impose, or institutionalized a certain politi­cal and economic agenda, in a par­ticular social space, in this case the

EU.

Defining social classes brings together Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Gramsci, both taking strong influences from the work of Marx. Both of them raise questions about the report of domination in society. Based on these two issues, Bourdieu develops the concept of symbolic violence²⁶, like the Gramscian concept mentioned above. The two concepts, however, start from different normative assumptions.

Firstly, hegemony implies a re­lationship between the ruling class and the subordinate classes, based on consent, while symbolic violence is hardly recognized and identified, being deeply rooted in the logic of this report. Symbolic violence, along with the institutionalized co­ercion, is the instrument by which the ruling elite operate to legitimize and perpetuate its power structures. Symbolic violence unconsciously defines the characteristics of a par­ticular group or a particular social class and leads to the internalization of a particular type of conduct.

In addition to assuming the sub­jugated position, as a moral and societal natural behavior, subordi­nated individuals or groups partici­pate themselves to their continued marginalization, precisely because they can not define and analyze the rules that were imposed through unconscious means.

EU and its historical neo­liberal trends

Neo-liberalism as a political-economic perspective has its roots in the work of Friedrich Hayek, who basically launched the idea of liber­alism’s revival, that for a long time remained deadlocked and incapable of meeting – programmatically speaking – our societal needs. Hayek assumed that individual hu­man freedom and real democracy can not be achieved in a society whose regulatory system is central­ized and planned. „The clash be­tween planning and democracy arises simply from the fact that the latter is an obstacle to the suppres­sion of freedom which the direction of economic activity requires. ²⁷„

Secondly, neo-liberalism as a political and economic program launched on a global scale-is dis­tancing itself from the school of thought launched by Hayek. From a historical perspective²⁸, the first relevant event was the establishment of some economic policies measures taken in Chile by Pinochet, at the suggestion of a group of economists who have studied in the U.S., known under the name of „Chicago Boys”. A second stage, achieved by global neo-liberalism, is the set of decisions taken in the Anglo-sphere by Margaret Thatcher in the UK and

Ronald Reagan in the US, in the ’80s.

Neo-liberalism, as we define and analyze it today, starts from a set of ideas and visions with immediate practical application, involving in­ternational institutions and actors able to rethink and reshape the world economy. These sets of eco­nomic rules-that have come to re­place what we know as Keynesian-ism²⁹ – are known as the Washington Consensus. Washington Consensus had as central figures, institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank (WB). Both the IMF and the World Bank have proposed, by developing this consensual type of reform policies, to redefine the global political and economic order, for example by fiscal discipline, trade liberalization and privatization of state enterprises.

A uniform definition of what neo-liberalism is does not exist, but of then approaches start from what David Harvey has described as be­ing „in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating indi­vidual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional frame­work characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices.³⁰„

The EU is even more complex and difficult to analyze. The institu­tional aspects and those related to policies that today are considered obvious expressions of a neo-liberal project have not been designed to this logic from the beginning.

Specifically, we will analyze the Single Market project, the Compe­tition Policy and the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) as dimen­sions of EU’s neo-liberalism³¹.

(a)  The Single Market, preceded by the creation of a free trade area, is a project of the liberal elite, but in its inception, when it has been institutionalized in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, its functional characteristics did not had neo-liberal expressions. Af­ter going through a period of stagnation in the 80s, revitaliza-tion projects and free market re­forms were proposed, that coin­cide with the acquisition of neo­liberal attributes, in the sense that it starts to be characterized by weak regulations, which Member States are required to assume; among other things, the liberalization of government procurement, avoidance of capi­tal controls, increased capital market integration and very im­portant, the emphasis on capital mobility.³²

(b)  Competition policy appears as a complement to the Single Market dimension, accentuating and ac­celerating the process of gradual liberalization and privatization. Just like the Single Market, the Competition policy has been in­stitutionalized by the Treaty of

Rome³³.

(c) The most obvious manifestation of EU’s restructured neo-liber-alism is the EMU.³⁴ Although EMU project has ancient roots, its institutionalization was ac­quired with the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, when its establishment was planned in three phases.³⁵ Start­ing from the premise that „EMU can be understood as part of a wider system of multi-level gov­ernance in the emerging world order”³⁶, Stephen Gill, a Neo-Gramscian theorist, uses the concept of new constitutional­ism, to explain that EMU does not have only an economic di­mension, but also a sociall and political one. In essence, believes Gill, EMU’s neo-liberal strategy seeks the reconciliation of re­gional integration with the forces of globalization.

The literature has developed the concept of „embedded neo-liberal-ism” to describe the historical EU’s neo-liberal trends. What Van Apeldoom, the theorist who devel­oped this concept, understands through „embedded neo-liberalism” involves the internalization of the principles that characterize this doctrine, not only by liberals, but also by social-democracy advocates, for example³⁷. Specifically, they introduce socialist doctrine aspects related, such as social protection, but only to perpetuate and reinforce the same political program.

In the context of LT, this be­comes even more evident. „The Lisbon Treaty will be an instrument for those who wish to pursue a neo­liberal policy, in which corporate rights are paramount and deregula­tion and privatization are hastened. […] This means that other goals, such as social welfare and employ­ment always take a back seat. This EMU policy is not reformed in the Lisbon Treaty in spite of the serious economic and social problems that have been made worse by the one­sided economic policy of the EU.³⁸„

The financial crisis and EU’s economic dynamics

The debates that seek to identify the causes, characteristics and con­sequences of the global XXI cen­tury’s financial crisis, which began in September 2008, are unfinished, a fact determined by the gap between the financial crisis and the deepen­ing of globalization³⁹, that leads to a huge number of grids of interpreta­tion of the relevant variables⁴⁰. It should be noted that we are talking about an international financial cri­sis whose characteristics are adapted and fragmented according to each region of the globe⁴¹. Some au-thors⁴² believe that neo-liberalism coincides with the stage that capi­talism has reached in its evolution.

Moreover, the main coordinates of neo-liberal economics, deregula­tion and liberalization of the sectors that matter for the states, are consid­ered to be structural causes that led to the crisis. Stephen Gill calls this stage as one of „market civiliza­tion”⁴³, whose form of government,, is primarily framed by the discourse of globalizing neo-liberalism, and expressed through the interaction of free enterprise and the state, its co­ordination is achieved through a combination of market discipline and the direct application of politi-

44

cal power .

We mentioned that every region of the globe has unique characteris­tics when talking about the financial crisis. Therefore, there is a specific EU crisis, also known as the euro-zone crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that has hit countries such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain or Italy. It goes without saying that although there were vulnerabilities due to alack of full consolidation of EMU, the EU and its Member States did not have contributed di­rectly to the crisis, but were ,vic-tims of collateral damage”⁴⁵. How­ever, these vulnerabilities are in­cluded in the structural dimension characteristic of EU’s neo-liberal-ism and the response to the eco­nomic crisis should be seen as part of the same neo-liberal logic, in the sense that they have been taken to strengthen and deepen, such as the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in Economic and Monetary Union, rather than rethink the neo-liberal directions.

The relationship between the fi­nancial crisis and the EU can be analyzed by examining the norma­tive dimension of EMU and the state it was in when the crisis began. EMU implies a structural asymme-try⁴⁶, determined by the gap be­tween Germany and the euro-zone periphery. ,Even though the EMU’s goal was the convergence on growth rates, interest rates and inflation, the result was a divergence between the

core and the periphery of the euro

47

area .

Note

¹     H. Wallace, W. Wallace, Mark A. Pollack, Elaborarea politicilor în Uniunea Europeană, ediţia a cincea, Institutul European din România, Bucureşti, 2005, pp 15-24.

²     Martin J. Dedman, The origins and development of the European Union 1945-1995. A history of European Integration, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 1996, pp 16-33.

³     I will mention two important fig­ures, Giscard d’Estaing and Romano Prodi, then President of the European Commission.

For a thorough analysis of the causes that led to the rejection of ECT see Hobolt, Sara Binzer, Brouard Sylvain, „Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French Rejected the European Constitution” in Political Research Quarterly, vol. 64, nr. 2, 2011, pp. 309-322. Also Jürgen Habermas starts from this assumption in The Crisis of the European Union. A response, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012.

Ryan   Neil,   Globalisation,   Neo-Gramscianism and Open Marxism, document found at http://www.soci alsciences.manchester.ac.uk/discipli nes/politics/research/hmrg/activities/ documents/Ryan.pdf. Mudimbe,   V.Y.,   „Reading   and Teaching Pierre Bourdieu”, Indiana University Press, Transition, nr. 61, 1993, pp. 144-160. Stephen Gill, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Re­lations,    Cambridge    University Press, 2010, pp. 333. Ernst Haas, The Uniting of Europe, Stanford Univ. Press,  Standford, 1958.

Philippe C. Schmitter, „Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunction-alism”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 2005, 12:2, pp. 255-272. Jeremy Richardson, European Union: Power and Policy-Making, Routledge; 3 ed., 2005, pp. 87. Stanley Hoffmann, „Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe”, in Daedalus, vol. 95, nr. 3, Tradition and Change (Summer, 1966), pp. 862-915. Wallace H, Wallace W, Pollack A. Mark, Elaborarea politicilor în Uniunea Europeană, Ediţia a cincea, Institutul European din România, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 17. Cafruny, Alan W, Ryner Magnus, op. cit, p. 17.

Peter Cocks, „Towards a Marxist Theory of European Integration”, in International Organization, vol. 34, nr. 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 1-40. See „Theoretical and Methodologi­cal Challenges of neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Politi­cal Economy”, in International Gramsci Society Online Article, ar­ticle found at http://www.internatio nalgramscisociety.org/resources/on line_articles/articles/bieler_morton.s html.

Robert Cox, „Gramci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Es­say in Method”, in Millenium: Jour­nal of International Studies, vol 12, nr. 2, 1983, pp. 162-175. Mihail Caradaica, „Neo-gramcian-ism and European Integration”, in Infusing Research and Knowledge in South-East Europe”, South-East European Research Centre, 2012,

932. 932.

To familiarize with the work of the Italian writer, we read the following title: Roger Simon, Gramsci’s Po­litical Thought: An Introduction, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd; 2nd Re­vised edition, 1990. from the post-Marxist theories we have to mention Chantal Mouffe’s work, who took over and developed the concept of cultural hegemony together with Ernesto Laclau, in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, first published in 1985. concept present in Bourdieu’s work, through which he understands neo­liberal globalization. for details on the similarities be­tween the two, see Michael Burawoy, Durable Domination: Gramsci meets Bourdieu, found at http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Bourdi eu/Lecture%202.pdf. see Niilo Kauppi, „Bourdieu’s Political Sociology and the Politics of European Integration”, in Theory and Society, vol. 32, nr. 5/6, Special Issue on The Sociology of Symbolic Power: A Special Issue in Memory of Pierre Bourdieu, pp. 775-789.

Pierre Bourdieu, „Neoliberalismul, o utopie (în curs de realizare) a unei exploatări fără limite”, în Contraofen­sive, Editura Meridiane, Bucureşti, 1999, p. 110. Ibidem, pp. 112-113. Claudio Colaguori, „Symbolic Vio­lence and the Violation of Human Rights: Continuing the Sociological Critique of Domination”, in Interna­tional Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, vol. 3, nr. 2, June 2010, pp. 388-400. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Routledge, 2001, pp.74; For a more detailed historical analy­sis, see Ronaldo Munck, „Neoliber­alism and Politics, and the Politics of Neoliberalism”, in Alfredo Saad-Filho, Deborah Johnston, Neoliber­alism. A critical reader, Pluto Press,

2005, pp. 62-63.

Theorized by J. M. Keynes, Keyne-sianism advocates the existence of a stable economy with public sector intervention and with the state con­trolling a efficient fiscal policy. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford, 2005, p. 2; We will present them based on the analysis proposed by Christoph Hermann, „Neoliberalism in the European Union” in Studies in Po­litical  Economy,   nr.   79,   2007,

89. 61-89.

Richard Baldwin, Charles Wyplosz, Economia integrării europene, Editura    Economică,    Bucureşti,

2006, pp. 38-39.

For a historical analysis of the trans­formation of the competition policy in an expression of European neo­liberalism see Hubert Buch-Hansen, Angela Wigger, „Revisiting 50 years of market-making: The neo­liberal transformation of European competition policy”, in Review of International Political Economy, vol. 17, 2012, pp. 22-44. Christoph Hermann, op. cit., p. 75. For details on the three stages of EMU, we consulted the following address http://www.ecb.int/ecb/his tory/emu/html/index.ro.html. Stephen Gill, „European governance and new constitutionalism: Eco­nomic and Monetary Union and al­ternatives to disciplinary Neoliber­alism in Europe”, in New Political Economy, 3:1, 1998, p. 6. E. Bastiaan van Apeldoorn, „The Contradictions and Limits of Emb-beded Neo-liberalism and Europe’s Multi-level Legitimacy Crisis”, in Contradictions and Limits of Neo­liberal European Governance. From Lisbon to Lisbon, (ed. B. van Apel­doorn, J. Drahokoupil, L. Horn), Palgravre Macmillan, 2009, p. 25. Swedish MEP Jonas Sjôstedt’s con­clusions, The Lisbon Treaty – Cen­tralization and Neoliberalism, pub­lished in 2008, found at http:// www.guengl.eu/uploads/_old_cms_f iles/10_lisbon_treaty%281%29.pdf. I. Wallerstein defines globalization in relation to neoliberalism as an ideological expression of dominant groups that support global free trade and capital accumulation without re­striction from the state. I took this information from William I. Robin­son, „Globalization and the sociol­ogy of Immanuel Wallerstein: A critical appraisal”, in International Sociology, 26(6), 2011, pp. 723-745. see Noah Berlatsky, The Global Financial Crisis, Greenhaven Press,

2010.

For a more technical perspective on the development of the financial cri­sis, we consulted Ajit Singh, Ann

Zammit, „The Global Economic and Financial Crisis: Which Way For­ward”, in Philip Arestis, Rogerio Sobreira, Jose Luis Oreiro, An As­sessment of the Global Impact of the Financial Crisis, Palgrave Macmil­lan, 2011, pp. 36-59. Gérard Duménil and Dominique Levy, The crisis of neoliberalism, Harvard University Press, 2011. Which, in StephenGill’s view, cre­ates a historical, economistic and materialistic, me-oriented, short term and ecologically myopic world perspective.

Stephen Gill, Power and Resistance in the New World Order, 2nd edi­tion, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, p. 125.

Jonathan Perraton, „Crisis in the Euro Zone”, in Philip Arestis, Rogerio Sobreira, Jose Luis Oreiro, An Assessment of the Global Impact of the Financial Crisis, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, pp. 84. Jesse Hembruff, „European Son: Neoliberal Integration the European Monetary Union and the European Sovereign Debt Crises”, in Inquiry and Insight, vol. 4, nr. 1, p. 12. Ibidem.

Bibliography

Apeldoorn, van E. Bastiaan, „The Con­tradictions and Limits of Embbeded Neoliberalism and Europe’s Multi­level    Legitimacy    Crisis”,    in

Contradictions and Limits of Neoliberal European Governance. From Lisbon to Lisbon, (ed.B. van Apeldoorn, J. Drahokoupil, L. Horn), Palgravre Macmillan, 2009. Baldwin, Richard, Wyplosz, Charles, Economia integrării europene, Editura    Economică,    Bucureşti,

2006.

Berlatsky, Noah, The Global Financial

Crisis, Greenhaven Press, 2010. Bieler, Andreas, Lindberg, Ingemar,

Global Restructuring, Labour and the Challenges for Transnational

Solidarity, Routledge, 2010. Bourdieu, Pierre, „Neoliberalismul, o utopie (în curs de realizare) a unei exploatări fără limite” in Contra­ofensive,      Editura     Meridiane,

Bucureşti, 1999.

Buch-Hansen, Hubert, Wigger, Angela, „Revisiting 50 years of market­making: The neoliberal transforma­tion of European competition pol­icy” in Review of International Po­litical Economy, vol. 17, 2012.

Burawoy,   Michael,  Durable  Domi­nation:  Gramsci meets Bourdieu, http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Bourdi eu/Lecture%202.pdf.

Caradaica, Mihail, „Neo-gramcianism and European Integration” in Infusing Research and Knowledge in South-East Europe, South-East European Research Centre, 2012.

Cocks, Peter, „Towards a Marxist Theory of European Integration” in International Organization, vol. 34, nr. 1 1980.

Colaguori, Claudio, „Symbolic Vio­lence and the Violation of Human Rights: Continuing the Sociological Critique of Domination” in Interna­tional Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, vol. 3, nr. 2, June 2010.

Cox, Robert, „Gramci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essayin

Method”, in Millenium: Journal of International Studies, vol 12, nr. 2, 1983.

Dedman, Martin J., The origins and development of the European Union 1945-1995. A history of European Integration, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 1996. Dumenil,G., Levy, D., The crisis ofneoliberalism, Harvard University

Press, 2011. Gill, Stephen, „European governance and new constitutionalism: Eco­nomic and Monetary Union and alternatives to disciplinary Neolibe­ralism in Europe”, in New Political Economy, 3:1, 1998. Gill, Stephen, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Rela­tions, Cambridge University Press,

2010.

Gill, Stephen, Power and Resistance in the New World Order, 2nd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Haas, Ernst, The Uniting of Europe,

Stanford Univ. Press, 1958. Habermas, Jürgen, The Crisis of the European Union. A response, Polity

Press, Cambridge, 2012.

Harvey, David, A Brief History of

Neoliberalism, Oxford, 2005. Hayek, Friedrich A.,   Drumul către servitute, Ed. Humanitas, Bucureşti,

2006.

Hembruff, Jesse, „European Son: Neoliberal Integration, the European Monetary Union, and the European Sovereign Debt Crises” in Inquiry and Insight, vol. 4, nr. 1. Hermann, Christoph, „Neoliberalism in the European Union” in Studies in Political Economy, nr. 79, 2007. Hobolt, Binzer S., Brouard S., „Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French Rejected the European Constitution” in Political Research Quarterly, vol. 64, nr. 2, 2011.

Hoffmann, Stanley, „Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe” in Daedalus, vol. 95, nr. 3, Tradition and Change, 1966.

Kauppi, Niilo, „Bourdieu’s Political Sociology and the Politics of European Integration”, in Theory and Society, vol. 32, nr. 5/6, Special Issue on The Sociology of Symbolic Power: A Special Issue in Memory of Pierre Bourdieu.

Mitrovic, Ljubisa, „Bourdieu’s Criti­cism of the Neoliberal Philosophy of Development, the Myth of Mondialization and the New Europe”, in Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology, vol. 4, nr. 1, 2005.

Mouffe, Chantal, Laclau, Ernesto, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 1985.

Mudimbe, V.Y., „Reading and Teaching Pierre Bourdieu” în Transition, nr. 61, 1993.

Munck, Ronaldo, „Neoliberalism and Politics, and the Politics of Neoli­beralism” în Alfredo Saad-Filho, Deborah Johnston, Neoliberalism. A critical reader, Pluto Press, 2005.

Neil,  Ryan,  Neo-Gramscianism  and Open Marxism,  http://www.social sciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplin es/politics/research/hmrg/activities/d ocuments/Ryan.pdf.

Perraton, Jonathan, „Crisis in the Euro Zone”, in Philip Arestis, Rogerio Sobreira, Jose Luis Oreiro, An Assessment of the Global Impact of the   Financial   Crisis,   Palgrave

Macmillan, 2011.

Richardson, Jeremy, European Union: Power and Policy-Making,

Routledge; 3 ed., 2005.

Robinson, William I., „Globalization and the sociology of Immanuel Wallerstein: A critical appraisal” in

International    Sociology,    26(6),

2011.

Saurugger S., Merand F, „Does European integration theory need sociology?” in Comparative Euro­pean Politics, vol. 8, 1, 1-18, 2010.

Schmitter, Philippe C. „Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctiona-lism”, in Journal of European Public Policy, vol.  12, Issue 2,

2005.

Simon, Roger, Gramsci’s Political Thought: An Introduction, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd; 2nd Revised edition

edition, 1990.

Singh, Ajit, Zammit, Ann, „The Global Economic and Financial Crisis: Which Way Forward”, in Philip Arestis, Rogerio Sobreira, Jose Luis Oreiro, An Assessment of the Global Impact of the Financial Crisis, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Sjostedt, Jonas,The Lisbon Treaty -Centralization and Neoliberalism, http://www.guengl.eu/uploads/_old_ cms_files/10_lisbon_treaty%281%2

9.pdf.

Theoretical and Methodological Challenges of neo-Gramscian Pers­pectives in International Political Economy, in „International Gramsci Society Online Article” http://www. internationalgramscisociety.org/reso urces/online_articles/articles/bieler_ morton.shtm

Wallace H., Wallace W., Pollack A.

Mark, Elaborarea politicilor în Uni­unea Europeană, ediţia a cincea, Institutul European din România, Bucureşti, 2005.

Electronic resources

http://www.ecb.int/ecb/history/emu/htm l/index.ro.html,     accessed     on

04.04.2013.

Official documents

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,http://www.eurotreaties. com/constitutiontext.html.

The Treaty of Lisbon, http://europa.eu/ lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_ro.ht.