During the last two decades the study of European foreign policy has experienced remarkable growth, presumably reflecting a more significant international role of the European Union. The Union has significantly expanded its policy portfolio and though empty symbolic politics still exists, the Unions international relations have become more substantial and its foreign policy more focused. European foreign policy has become a dynamic policy area, being adapted to changing challenges and environments, such as the Arab Spring, new emerging economies/powers; the crisis of multilateralism and much more. The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy, Two-Volume set, is a major reference work for Foreign Policy Programmes around the world. The Handbook is designed to be accessible to graduate and postgraduate students in a wide variety of disciplines across the humanities and social sciences. Both volumes are structured to address areas of critical concern to scholars at the cutting edge of all major dimensions of foreign policy. The volumes are composed of original chapters written specifically to the following themes: Research traditions and historical experience Theoretical perspectives EU actors State actors Societal actors The politics of European foreign policy Bilateral relations Relations with multilateral institutions Individual policies Transnational challenges The Handbook will be an essential reference for both advanced students and scholars.
There is no doubt that the concept of Europeanization as applied to EU foreign policy has a growing academic profile. A rudimentary search of Google Scholar, for example, reveals that the concept, linked to foreign policy, was cited in just over 200 scholarly publications in 2000, in 800 such publications by 2005 and over 1,800 academic publications in 2013. However, this very growth has led to criticism. Europeanization has been censured as the poster child for concept-stretching (Radaelli, 2000), as being poorly and confusingly defined (Mair, 2004) and for having limited explanatory capacity, either by reason of lacking parsimony in its measurement (Lodge, 2006) or as a result of confusion over its causal status (Wong and Hill, ...