Beyond EU navel-gazing: Taking stock of EU-centrism in the analysis of EU foreign policy
| Author | Stephan Keukeleire,Daan Fonck,Floor Keuleers |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716631777 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2016, Vol. 51(3) 345 –364
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836716631777
cac.sagepub.com
Beyond EU navel-gazing:
Taking stock of EU-centrism
in the analysis of EU foreign
policy
Floor Keuleers, Daan Fonck
and Stephan Keukeleire
Abstract
Whilst concerns about the EU-centric character of EU foreign policy analysis have become more
frequent in recent years, a systematic toolbox for diagnosing and remedying this problem is
still lacking. This article’s contribution is twofold. First, it proposes a new typology of three
approaches to foreign policy analysis, offering conceptual body and nuance to the debate on EU-
centrism. The typology can be used for scrutinising existing analyses, as well as for shaping new
research projects. Second, this typology is applied in a meta-analysis of post-Lisbon EU foreign
policy scholarship: a built-for-purpose dataset of 451 articles was analysed, covering all work
on EU foreign policy published in seven key journals for the period 2010–2014, was analysed. It
was found that academic work on EU foreign policy wass indeed rife with EU-centric research
questions, and, moreover, that this is the case irrespective of either the policy area under study
or the focus of the journal.
Keywords
EU-centrism, European Union, foreign policy, meta-analysis, policy cycle
Introduction
Over the past 8–10 years, an increasing number of academics have identified the ‘exces-
sively Eurocentric perspective’ of existing research on European Union (EU) foreign
policy, a factor regarded as undermining the relevance of scholarship on this topic
(Adriaensen et al., 2013; Keukeleire, 2014; Lucarelli, 2014: 11; Mayer, 2008; Mayer
and Zielonka, 2012). Discontent with this (perceived) state of affairs has led some to
Corresponding author:
Floor Keuleers, Leuven International and European Studies (LINES) Institute, University of Leuven,
Parkstraat 45 Box 3602, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Email: floor.keuleers@soc.kuleuven.be
631777CAC0010.1177/0010836716631777Cooperation and ConflictKeuleers et al.
research-article2016
Article
346 Cooperation and Conflict 51(3)
call for ‘a paradigm shift that de-centres the study and practice of Europe’s international
relations’ (Fisher Onar and Nicolaïdis, 2013: 283). It has also inspired the development
of new sets of literature seeking to provide an alternative, of which the literature dealing
with EU external perceptions is perhaps the most established example (Chaban and
Holland, 2008, 2014; Elgström, 2007; Lucarelli and Fioramonti, 2010). The underlying
premise of EU-centrism, however, remains both conceptually vague and unsubstanti-
ated empirically. What exactly constitutes an EU-centric approach to the study of EU
foreign policy? Is such an approach problematic and, if so, why? What might an alterna-
tive look like? And is it true that the existing literature is characterised by a dominance
of EU-centric work?
There are two principal objectives of this article. First, it elucidates the concept of
EU-centrism by building on the basic framework of the policy cycle and introducing a
threefold typology of approaches to the study of EU foreign policy. The three types of
approaches – inward-oriented, inside-out, and outside-in – are delineated in terms of
their main aims, key research questions and dominant concepts. Going beyond the crude
distinction between ‘EU-centric’ and ‘non-EU-centric’, this typology is intended to offer
a more systematic and fine-grained conceptual tool.
The second objective of the article is to provide a thorough mapping of existing
research on EU foreign policy, to determine whether there is indeed a problematic domi-
nance of EU-centric work. To this effect, it analyses an original, built-for-purpose dataset
containing all articles on EU foreign policy published in the post-Lisbon period (2010–
2014) by seven prominent journals with an explicit EU focus. In total, 451 articles were
analysed.
The article is structured as follows. First, the basic heuristic device of the policy cycle
is used to clarify what is meant by the term EU-centrism. The second section presents the
conceptual framework, discussing in-depth the core tenets of each of the three approaches
to analysing EU foreign policy. Section three starts by explaining the construction of the
dataset and the methodological choices regarding the empirical analysis. This is fol-
lowed by a presentation of the results and insights from the mapping exercise, establish-
ing that the literature is indeed highly skewed in favour of a limited subset of approaches
and research questions.
(EU) foreign policy analysis and the policy cycle
When academics express concern about EU-centrism in the analysis of EU foreign pol-
icy, what do they actually mean by this? While references to the problem are often fleet-
ing, one of the more substantive discussions can be found in the work of Hartmut Mayer.
Mayer has argued that ‘most scholarship and policy discourse about the future of
European foreign policy remains too self-absorbed, looking at Europe through European
eyes in a well-shaped European mirror’. He explains further that ‘research on EU foreign
policy has been, on the whole, a bit too narrow and specialized’, focusing excessively on
topics such as institutional questions, EU-member state relations in foreign policy, the
uniqueness of the EU as an international actor, or the EU as a model. According to
Mayer, however, ‘not Europe, but global concerns, should be the benchmark for the EU
in external affairs’ (Mayer, 2008: 8–11).
To continue reading
Request your trial