In the chapter 9 “The Europe to come”, Perry Anderson talks about the “New Europe” that is emerging because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Treaty of Maastricht and the reunion of Germany. “For the first time since the war, Europe is living in anticipation of large but still imponderable changes to the part that has stood for the whole” (p. 126) However, in author’s view the end of communism was the main event that caused the others and it was supposed to change the whole concept of European Union. “The total population of candidates from East European countries is 130 million” “A completely new configuration would be at stake” (p. 127).
New, bigger and stronger conglomerate required economic reforms and many economists of 1990s were …show more content…
In the chapter 10 he argues that for many countries EU seemed like a way to economic prosperity “Removing barriers to trade and enterprise meant greater economies of scale, which meant a faster growth of income, which meant the growth of democracy” (p. 150). However, opening markets resulted led to social problems, the largest of which is social inequality. “The diversity of incomes, formerly known as income inequalities, opened more widely in Britain” (p. 154). Author also says that EMU is the creation of the elite “Policy comes from the top down because parties have become more authoritarian in their struggle for the small number of voters who swing in elections”. There were many opponents of the idea of creating European central bank and single currency in UK, Germany, and Holland. As Connolly argued “denunciations of the undemocratic procedures by which EMU has been pushed through” (p. 155). I think that for general populations such things as an increase in family incomes and higher social benefits predicted by EU economists played a crucial role in the polls and domestic opinion as a whole.
To conclude, I would like to state that there are different opinions on what have influenced the European integration in the end of 20th century. Anderson focuses on political side of integration but he undermines economic reasons behind some of the EU reforms. Milward states that public opinion and desire to have a better life was the main root of economic reforms in Europe and I see his argument
New, bigger and stronger conglomerate required economic reforms and many economists of 1990s were …show more content…
In the chapter 10 he argues that for many countries EU seemed like a way to economic prosperity “Removing barriers to trade and enterprise meant greater economies of scale, which meant a faster growth of income, which meant the growth of democracy” (p. 150). However, opening markets resulted led to social problems, the largest of which is social inequality. “The diversity of incomes, formerly known as income inequalities, opened more widely in Britain” (p. 154). Author also says that EMU is the creation of the elite “Policy comes from the top down because parties have become more authoritarian in their struggle for the small number of voters who swing in elections”. There were many opponents of the idea of creating European central bank and single currency in UK, Germany, and Holland. As Connolly argued “denunciations of the undemocratic procedures by which EMU has been pushed through” (p. 155). I think that for general populations such things as an increase in family incomes and higher social benefits predicted by EU economists played a crucial role in the polls and domestic opinion as a whole.
To conclude, I would like to state that there are different opinions on what have influenced the European integration in the end of 20th century. Anderson focuses on political side of integration but he undermines economic reasons behind some of the EU reforms. Milward states that public opinion and desire to have a better life was the main root of economic reforms in Europe and I see his argument