Transcript Слайд 1 - Sogang

Theories of European Integration
& Intergovernmentalism
Part I. Classical approaches:
federalism & neo-functionalism
Theoretical work on IR is characterized
by a high degree of diversity:
• Realism (pessimistic about the progress in political relations);
• Liberalism (more optimistic about the possibility of avoiding
conflict);
• Constructivism (reject traditional views about both the centrality of
states in Int’l affairs and the importance of material factors).
Common:
• IR study has always been considerably Eurocentric. As it developed
strongly in Europe after the First World War, and even after the
Second World War, it mainly shifted to the USA, the Cold War kept
the focus on the problem of European order;
• Ignoring the development of the common European foreign policy.
Why Europe is treated mainly from a general
integration point of view rather then in terms of foreign
policy?
• Most mainstream theories of IP deal with states and
relations between them. EU is neither a state nor a
traditional alliance, therefore it represents a heterodox unit
of analysis.
• IR theory explains broad phenomena, tend to generalize.
When EU is a unique example of int’l cooperation &
integration.
• The achievements of integration in domestic policies seem
more substantial than those in area of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy. On the top of these reasons
stand the major changes in the global system, such as the
fall of the Berlin Wall, which have radically changed the
background for European integration.
Federalism
‘The national states have lost their property rights since they cannot guarantee
the political and economic safety of their citizens’ (Altiero Spinelli).
Theory Basis:
• The main problem of IR is int’l anarchy. The independence of multiple nation brings mistrust,
reciprocal threats, violence. The decentralization of sovereignty had been the root cause of
conflict (concerning two world wars);
• Suggests the abolition of national independence and the fusion of different political entities
into one;
• A union would bring Europe to solve conflict among different groups, since no group would
enjoy the liberty to resort unilaterally to arms. The autonomous use of force or the liberty to
raise independent armies would be legally forbidden;
• The reasons for unification are political (tackling int’l anarchy & conflicts);
• The main aim: the achievement of common defence and foreign policy;
• Sets up two tiers of government, the parts and the whole, distributing specific functions to
each;
• A supranational government would regulate relations among states as states’ governments do
among citizens;
• Federation must control the instruments of violence to prevent parties to fight with each other
or with the central power.
Federalism
Critics
Lack of analytics:
It is more a discussion of why states
should form a union rather than an
explanation of why they would willingly
surrender their sovereignty, despite the
fact that such a voluntary transfer has
been extremely rare in history, and even
in European case is still far from certain.
Concerns only ‘high politics’ (life-anddeath issues of political order and
violence). Ignores ‘low politics’ matters
(economic and social questions).
Perceives need to have an effective
European foreign policy
Functionalism
‘Between the conception of continental unions and that of a universal league there is a
difference not merely of degree but of essence. The one would proceed in the old way by a
definition of a territory, the other by definition of functions; and while the unions would define
their territory…, a league would select and define functions for the contrary purpose of
integrating with regard to the interest of all’ (Mitrany).
• Political functions must be performed at the most
efficient level. Ideally the whole world should be
unified. Mitrany criticizes federalists for their
narrow geographical focus;
• Fundamental motive for integration: concern
about inability of nation states to provide
essential services to their citizens (‘low politics’);
• Stresses importance of individuals and their
societies.
Neo-functionalism
Integration brings ‘loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre,
whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states.
The end result of the process of political integration is a new political community,
superimposed over the pre-existing ones” (Ernest Haas).
Combines federalism and functionalism:
• Utilizes Mitrany’s framework of analysis and its
emphasis on ‘low politics’.
• Agrees with federalists on the desirability and
feasibility of a continental union becoming a
superstate with its own foreign and defence
policy.
• Inspiration from Jean Monnet’s pragmatic
approach to European integration.
Neo-functionalism
Core concept
Integration evolves spontaneously by a process of spillover
Functional spillover
spillover in an economic context
e.g. integrating coal and steel, then integrating transport systems so that coal and
steel are moved around more easily.
Political spillover
political actors shift their allegiance to a new centre,
e.g. from the national parliament to Brussels.
Cultivated spillover,
the idea that institutions drive further integration by being in practice;
e.g. the European Commission’s growing autonomy.
Spillback returning authority in an area to the national level
Spill around integration without institutional deepening.
Neo-functionalism
Supranationalism
• In the center of the theory there are
supranational institutions.
• Supranational organizations would have their
own political agendas (not influenced by
states interests):
• Supranational decision-making. Members of
European parliament are divided into groups
according to their political views and ideology
(not by their national origin).
Neo-functionalism
Interest groups
• Cooperation would make elite representatives to consider
supranational interests as their own, to value the
intergovernmental system.
• That will cause the establishment of elite groups which
would promote supranational values and put pressure on
state’s government to further integration.
• International negotiations would become less politicized
and more technocratic.
• With the integration Interest groups would reorganize at
the supranational level to satisfy transnational interests
(e.g. BUSINESS-EUROPE, Green Peace).
Neo-functionalism
History & Critics
1960’s-1970’s (Haas) 1970’s
1990’s (Stone Sweet
(liberalists,intergove and others)
rnmentalists)
After 2003
(Niemann)
Appearance of the
EC – appearance of
the theory
Attempts to develop
Haas’s theory:
•Integration is rather
dialectic than
automatic process;
•Social spillover
Almost disappeared
Reasons:
•EC crises;
•Reconsideration of
the role of the
nation state in
integration;
•Predictions about
incremental
integration didn’t
take place
•Theory on elite
socialization was
denied
Revival (partially
accept Haas’s theory,
attention to
increased levels of
transaction)
Reasons:
•SEA, single market
•EC/EU dynamics;
•Cooperation with
Western Europe
Intergovernmentalism
Definition, classical and liberal
intergovernmentalism and their
critics
What is?
•
•
•
•
•
Integration process
VS realism and neo realism
The primary actors : states
See EU as decision-making arenas
A pooling or sharing of sovereignty and
delegating it to EU
• The supranational actors are considered
agents of the member states
Classical intergovernmentalism
• The mid-1960s, critics neo-functionalist theory,
respond to federalist assumptions
• Stanley Hoffman’s work
• Distinguished between high(the political
sphere) and low(the economic sphere) politics
• Critics : limits to the use of the distinction
between low and high politics
Beyond classical intergovernmentalism
Confederalism
The domestic politics
approach
The ‘locking-in’ of states
-the framework for
European integration
-remaining national
sovereignty intact
-the institutionalized
nature of European
integration process
-involving supranational or
international law
-catch the transnational
nature of the European
policy process
-the impact of domestic
politics on EC policymaking
-important to identify the
domestic determinants of
preference formation
-how states have become
locked into the European
integration process
-emphasize the importance
of institutional factors
-show intergovernmentalist
ideas
-’fusion hypothesis’
Liberal intergovernmentalism
• National preference formation, inter-state
bargaining and institutional delegation
• How national interests are formed
• Critics : only focusing on ‘history-making
decisions’ and ignoring day-to-day politics and
the multilevel character of the European
Union
• Rather an approach to studying European
integration
Theorizing the EU
• Whether internal(academic) or external(real
world) drivers account for the changing shape
of theoretical work
• Whether theory development follows a
progressive logic of scientific progress or
whether instead it reflects the operation of
disciplinary structures
Critics of the classical debate
• ‘reality’ Inability to capture the integration
and the EU reality
• Supposed entrapment
• ‘scientific limitations
• A number of alternative theoretical projects
Five ways forward
•
•
•
•
•
Comparative political science
International relations
Critical theories
Governance
Normative political theory
The ‘new institutionalism’ and the EU
• EU political system n=1 problem
• Worthy four points
• 1.desire balance between national and
supranational forces
• 2.cultures are distinctive
• 3.various informalities exist
• 4.multilevel
Three subspecies of institutionalism
• Rational choice the changing relative power of institutions
• Historical
the long-term effects of institutions
• Sociological
the role of culture or persuasion and
communicative action
Social constructivist approaches
• A positivistic conception, ‘scientific’ method,
the neutrality of facts, observable realities
• A middle way between rationalism and
reflectivism
• Interest in a process of European integration
• Focus on identity and European norms