Festschrift für Fritz W. Scharpf - MPIfG

V. Schmidt · The Boundaries of “Bounded Generalizations” 329
standing how actors overcame the constraints of negative integration, it still
does not fully explain why positive integration, rather than stalemate, was
the result, nor how those actors were able to muster the political resources to
mount a strong coalition for positive integration. For this, we need to turn to
the role of ideas and discourse, specifically those of French policy actors
(not only governmental actors but also leaders of interest groups and social
movements), with their normative arguments about the obligations of states
to their citizens. This enabled them to rally support from the public (the
general public and the informed public of consumer interests) as well as first
the EP and then other EU-level policy actors, to eventually win over even
the Commission – which originally had used purely cognitive arguments
about the necessity of liberalization, but which since the Amsterdam Treaty,
which incorporated public service obligations, now also uses extensive
normative arguments about the need to safeguard public services (ECE
Communication 2000; Héritier in this volume).
Scharpf himself is the first to admit the limits of rational choice institutionalism,
and even the “boundedness” of his own “bounded” generalizations
of actor-centered institutionalism. He readily accepts the “search for
information on more idiosyncratic factors … when the more parsimonious
explanation fails” (Scharpf 1997: 42). This is when he sees the turn to the
role of ideas, policy learning, and ideational coalitions and communities (or
the interactive side of discourse in my terms) as appropriate. For Scharpf, in
other words, ideas and discourse can be a crucial factor – even if this is not
what he has been interested in pursuing intellectually. But he may himself
wish to revisit this intellectual preference, since his most recent recommendations
on how to overcome the problems of positive integration in areas of
“legitimate national diversity” point mainly to solutions that highlight the
power of ideas and discourse (Scharpf 2002). For example, his critique of
the EU’s Treaty-based restrictions on “closer cooperation” points to a problem
of ideas or “framing” (in his words) – that progress is one-dimensional,
leading to a “two-tier” or “two-speed” Europe, with some countries racing
ahead and others left behind. This he seeks to remedy by re-framing the
terms of the debate – by arguing that progress is multi-dimensional and that
closer cooperation is the way to ensure EU-wide correction of market failures
while safe-guarding national social welfare aspirations. Moreover, in
Scharpf’s further recommendations with regard to closer cooperation in the
social policy arena – that the EU use framework directives which outline
common purposes but leave the implementation to member-states operating
alone or in “pioneer groups” in the open method of coordination – the prin-