You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the Journal of World History online. About 603 words from this article are provided below; about 961 words remain.
 
If you are a subscriber to the Journal of World History, you may:
• login here if you have already registered for online access.
• Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.

If you are not a subscriber to the Journal of World History, you can:
• subscribe here.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of World History.

Instititutions can:
• Subscribe to the journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.
| Book Review | Journal of World History, 19.1 | The History Cooperative
19.1  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
March, 2008
Previous
Next
Journal of World History

Table of Contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 


Book Review



European Integration 1950–2003: Superstate or New Market Economy? By JOHN GILLINGHAM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 588 pp. $70.00 (cloth); $25.00 (paper).

      John Gillingham has written an entertaining and informative history of European integration. He is a professor of history at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. Gillinhgam's history is invaluable, yet the book is more than just history; it is also political commentary and makes no attempts to conceal this behind the historian's cloak of objectivity or avoidance of presentism. Gillingham's spirited prose can be refreshingly clean, albeit at times a bit breezy. Alternatively, it can also have bite, possessing a sarcasm and wit in the tradition of essayists such as Hunter S. Thompson or P. J. O'Rourke, but with the politics decidedly of the latter. Its style can be both forceful and tiresome, but more the former. Published by Cambridge University Press, Gillingham's book breaks many conventions of historical and academic writing. It is bold in its scope and in its transdisciplinary methodological approach taken to its topic. 1
      Gillingham's clear methodology and strong statement of his ideological bias are welcome, even though this reviewer disagrees with his politics and sees limitations to his mythological approach. Gillingham has discovered Friedrich von Hayek along with the neoliberal institutionalist approach of political science. He finds the explanatory power of both compelling, and with the zeal of a new enthusiast gets a bit carried away in their application to his subject under study. Indeed, Gillingham's subtitle makes clear his interest. He sees two competing philosophies guiding the EU's development, as made clear in the book's subtitle. The EU can be either a "superstate" or a zone for a "new market economy." He clearly prefers the latter, and believes the former would impede the construction of a new market economy. Although his argument is clear enough in its presentation, it fails to understand the nuance of states, markets, and the relationship between the two. Essential questions are absent, however, such as what is the state and market, and more importantly, how do they change it over time to reflect different global economic contexts? Moreover, he presents a false dichotomy in hermetically sealing each off from the other. 2
      While world historians will welcome his global historical intent, if only trans-Atlantic in practice, it would behoove both historians and other social scientists to follow his lead in employing both historical and social science methodologies to explain the recent past and present. Alone, each disciplinary model fails to explain the workings of the world; such as national histories often fail to explain nations when divorced from global dynamics. Just as our histories should be more global they must have greater methodological breadth. 3
      Commendably, for world historians, Gillingham asserts that the EU cannot be understood apart from international trends, and that the "tradition of divorcing studies of the European Union from these surrounding contexts ... only makes for arid texts." Unfortunately, while his work is a trans-Atlantic study, it is by no means global. Indeed, one gets the sense that East Asia was excluded from examination because its very success in employing the developmental state defies neoliberal nostrums regarding economic development. Moreover, the book appears to have been written before the equity market collapse of our new millennium. Yet, the book was published after those market busts, but Gillingham provides no explanation for this important event. He merely expresses a utopian's confidence so prevalent in the business press of the 1990s that we have entered a new age of prosperity, if only we can keep the state from screwing it up. . . .

There are about 961 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.