The second and perhaps the most commendable purpose of the book is to locate the different theoretical debates within their broader historical and intellectual context. Rosamond argues convincingly that on the basis of this broader understanding we are able to evaluate debates between different schools in their own terms. Understanding the varying theoretical positions as they evolve in a broader context not only helps to establish theoretical trajectories between different approaches, but also avoids potentially unwarranted classifications of approaches as either wrong or misguided.

Judging theories on the extent to which they correspond with the ‘observed’ reality is only one way of evaluating the relevance of a theory. One might arrive at a rather different assessment when applying a more differentiated evaluation concept, including the underlying assumptions about both the nature of the social world and the processes/purposes of theorizing inherent in a certain approach. In advocating this more reflective procedure in dealing with theories of European integration, Rosamond emphasizes that there are ‘serious problems involved in cordoning of “theory” in EU studies. An always latent danger is that EU studies becomes populated by sub-specialisms such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the relationship between German domestic politics and EU decision-making’ (p. 3). In particular the author claims ‘that “international theory” has been too readily written off by contemporary writers seeking to offer theoretical treatments of the EU’ (p. 19), misreading and misinterpreting some very important theoretical developments.

It is especially this linkage of a detailed analysis of theoretical work on European integration and the reflective evaluation of the varying approaches in light of their broader historical and intellectual context, that constitutes one of the major achievements of this book. Rather than simply adding up to the numerous collections and readers on integration theory, the book offers an insightful account of the particular social scientific concerns that gave rise to certain approaches and the social scientific environments in which they operated.

The third objective of the book is to explore the respective claims of International Relations and Comparative Politics to offer the most appropriate conceptional framework for the study of the European Union. Rosamond characterizes this question as a ‘non-problem, relying on a false dichotomy between these two disciplinary domains’ (p. 196). Although scholars with a different disciplinary background might assess and conceptualize European integration in different ways, there are a lot of opportunities for theoretical connections between the two subfields. There are converging tendencies which allow for the transcendence of the disciplinary divide between International Relations and Comparative Politics, given the common focus on similar theoretical frameworks, such as theories of regulation, epistemic communities, institutional choice, the role of ideas in policy making as well as policy networks.

Although fully convincing, this argument is certainly not entirely new. In fact, studies addressing issues of European integration, in many instances, combine questions of International Relations and Comparative Politics in a rather fruitful way. In particular, it is the process of European integration, which indicates the synergy effects emerging from the erosion of ‘disciplinary boundaries’.

In conclusion, the book offers a highly valuable assessment and evaluation of the theoretical work on European integration. It combines detailed description, critical analysis and reflexive evaluation of the main conceptual and theoretical discussions generated by the study of the European Union. It should therefore be essential reading for students and scholars interested in the field, regardless of their disciplinary background.