Freudlsperger & Schimmelfennig 2022
1. Research Why is war not necessary for European state building?
Question
2. Hypotheses Transboundary crises cause (administrative, fiscal and coercive) capacity building of the
EU (as a regulatory state).
Alternative hyp: War is a necessary condition for European state-building.
(causal mechanism: when the EU regulatory state can provide public goods more
efficiently/effectively then institutional competitors)
3. Conceptualisation (A reconceptualization, compared to K&McN): State building as capacity building
(administrative/fiscal/coercive) for the provision of public goods through regulatory
DV governance, yet without centralization like in a Weberian state
IV
Transboundary crises: external threats that reach across territorial, functional and
cultural (these 3 properties can also figure under operationalization) boundaries creating
urgent shock of disintegration
4. Operationalisation
DV a. Increase of fiscal and administrative central capacity building, yet no administrative
coercive capacity building
IV
b. transboundary crises (territorial, functional and cultural) creating demand for public
goods
5. Case selection Illustrative, qualitative case studies of EU capacity building in:
- Euro crisis: ECB, ESM, SRM
- Corona crisis: NGEU
General comparisons with other (federal) state-building cases
6. Comparison Difference in the conceptualization of the DV: EU is / isn’t incomplete and uneven (EU
as a regulatory versus nation state)
Difference in the hypothesis: war NOT as a necessary condition, according to F&S
Difference in case selection: K&McN omit the corona crisis reaction, which was the
most drastic reaction
Similarities:
Use of state building theory
They both agree that market integration was more of a driver than security for European
integration
The institutional set-up and lack of centralized capacity exacerbated recent crisis.
1. Research Why is war not necessary for European state building?
Question
2. Hypotheses Transboundary crises cause (administrative, fiscal and coercive) capacity building of the
EU (as a regulatory state).
Alternative hyp: War is a necessary condition for European state-building.
(causal mechanism: when the EU regulatory state can provide public goods more
efficiently/effectively then institutional competitors)
3. Conceptualisation (A reconceptualization, compared to K&McN): State building as capacity building
(administrative/fiscal/coercive) for the provision of public goods through regulatory
DV governance, yet without centralization like in a Weberian state
IV
Transboundary crises: external threats that reach across territorial, functional and
cultural (these 3 properties can also figure under operationalization) boundaries creating
urgent shock of disintegration
4. Operationalisation
DV a. Increase of fiscal and administrative central capacity building, yet no administrative
coercive capacity building
IV
b. transboundary crises (territorial, functional and cultural) creating demand for public
goods
5. Case selection Illustrative, qualitative case studies of EU capacity building in:
- Euro crisis: ECB, ESM, SRM
- Corona crisis: NGEU
General comparisons with other (federal) state-building cases
6. Comparison Difference in the conceptualization of the DV: EU is / isn’t incomplete and uneven (EU
as a regulatory versus nation state)
Difference in the hypothesis: war NOT as a necessary condition, according to F&S
Difference in case selection: K&McN omit the corona crisis reaction, which was the
most drastic reaction
Similarities:
Use of state building theory
They both agree that market integration was more of a driver than security for European
integration
The institutional set-up and lack of centralized capacity exacerbated recent crisis.
