Transcript 슬라이드 1 - Sogang

Theories of European Integration
I. Ideas and Concepts
1. The Importance of Ideas
* no 'single currency' of ideas in relation to European
integration and a remarkable diverse range of ideas and
theories.
- prescriptive : the authors approve of integration and seek
to prescribe integration strategies
- descriptive : the authors are primarily concerned to
understand and explain the 'why' and ' how' of integration.
1
2. definitions
* integration?
- the coming together of separate units to form a whole.
-> this implies that goes beyond 'interstate co-operation'
although the boundary between co-operation and integration
is very fuzzy and the two terms are often used as synonyms.
* definitions by economists : international economic
integration as ‘a process by which the economies of separate
states merge in large entities.’
definitions by political scientists : focusing on the
‘implications of political integration processes for national
sovereignty and for the behaviour of political actors.’
2
 From this perspective the integration process involves
(1) the voluntary relinquishment by nation-states of the power
to make independent decisions in certain policy areas
(decision making is shared by the governments of
participating states or is transferred to new central
institutions) and
(2) the shifting of the loyalties, expectations and activities of
national political actors to a new centre.
3
* voluntary and involuntary integration
(1) involuntary form
- the forcible incorporation of many newly independent states
into the Soviet Federation after the Bolshevik revolution.
- regional economic integration in Eastern Europe during the
communist period, because of the coercive power exercised
over the East European 'People's Democracies' by the
Soviet Union
(2) voluntary integration
- EU : no country is forced to join and no country would be
prevented from leaving it.
: from its inception, it has had explicitly political, as well
as economic, goals.
4
* positive and negative integration according to types of
integration
(1) positive integration - the building of common institutions
and policies
(2) negative integration - the removal of cross-border barriers
of various kinds
=> In practice, however, this distinction between 'building
things up' and 'knocking things down' is difficult to sustain:
for instance, the Single European market programme was
nominally about knocking down barriers to trade, but entailed
major institutional and policy changes amounting to the most
significant exercise in positive integration since the 1950s.
5
•integration 'width' and integration 'depth'
(1) integration 'width' - the range of subjects covered by
integration agreements
(2) integration 'depth' - the extent to which there is a
pooling of sovereignty in a particular policy area.
6
3. Sovereignty
* two principal aspects:
(1) an internal aspect - supremacy, or authoritative decisionmaking power, within a state (for example, the sovereignty of
parliament, the supreme law-making body within the UK)
(2) an external aspect - the independence of states in
international affairs.
=> The sovereign state is still generally regarded as the chief
actor in the international system. It has shown remarkable ability
to adjust to new realities, such as increasing international
interdependence and the rise of 'non-state actors', such as
MNCs, IGOs(such as the IMF) and international
nongovernmental organisations (INGOs, such as Oxfam).
7
=> However, in an increasingly interdependent world, the
meaning of sovereignty has to be continually redefined. For
example, the internationalisation of modern business,
manifested in copious flows of trade, investment, technology
and information across state boundaries, means that the old
‘ billiard ball’ model of the state (in which states are assumed
to have hard, impenetrable surfaces), is clearly out of date.
Sovereignty is not at all-or-nothing condition and therefore it
can be gained or lost by degrees.
8
•the drive towards integration ? <- motivated and justified by
the perceived welfare and security benefits of 'going it with
others'
-these benefits are likely to outweigh the trade-off costs in
terms of the erosion of sovereignty.
- “in an increasingly interdependent world, national
sovereignty is being eroded anyway and that countries joining
together are likely to have more 'clout' in the international
arena.”
9
* Conversely, opposition to integration generally reflects a
desire to defend state sovereignty (which tends to be
equated with national independence).
- “it enables peoples to govern themselves, it protects
smaller countries against domination by larger countries, and
it remains a focus of national loyalties.”
10
* What are the principal integration mechanisms through
which the sovereignties of participating states may be eroded?
(1) elements of decision making power may be transferred
from national governments to 'supranational' authorities'
'supra' -> 'above'
'supranationalism' -> 'above the level of nation-states'
for examples, the High Authority of ECSC, the European
Commission, The European Parliament and the European
Court of Justice
11
12
(2) Governments of states may participate in shared
decision-making, in which they agree to be bound by
collective decisions.
- Shared decision-making by governments :
'intergovernmentalism'
But distinctions which place supranationalism and
intergovernmentalism at opposite ends of a spectrum are
misleading, because collective decision-making by
governments is also literally supranational (that is, above the
level of individual national governments). Shared decisionmaking in its minimalist form (loose intergovernmentalism)
constitutes no appreciable threat to sovereignty, because
individual governments can veto decisions they find
unacceptable.
13
But in its maximalist form (tight intergovernmentalism),
based on the principle of binding majority voting, it imposes
limits on sovereignty, because member states are forced to
accept majority voting (an example of tight
intergovernmentalism) constitutes a greater threat to state
sovereignty than the transfer of functions to 'supranational'
authorities. Its raison d'etre is that it enables the Union to
move forward, by preventing decisions favoured by the
majority from being vetoed.
14
- However, as long as membership of the Union remains
voluntary, then it can be argued that sovereignty has been
'lent' rather than lost. The TEU explicitly confirmed the right
of any member state to withdraw from the Union. Although
the principle that Community law has primacy over national
law is well established, this principle is ultimately based on
the willingness of national parliaments to accept this.
Europsceptics would retort that, because the issue of
withdrawal is not on the political agendas of member states,
lent sovereignty is as good as lost (a circular argument!).
15
16
II. Theories of Integration
1. Functionalism
* 'functionalists'
(1) the strategy of gradually undermining state sovereignty by
encouraging technical co-operation in specific policy areas
across state boundaries
(2) David Mitrany, the founding father
- a Romanian-born scholar who taught for many years at the
LSE
- nationalism as the biggest threat to world peace
- a shift in human loyalties from the national to the
international level through mutually beneficial international cooperation in sectors such as transport, agriculture, science and
health
17
- the assumption that governments are less able to meet the
welfare needs of their citizens than 'nonpolitical' international authorities.
- favored technical self-determination over national selfdetermination and believed that human loyalties would shift
from the nation-state to supranational authorities, because
of the tangible material benefits these authorities would
provide. People would therefore become more committed to
transnational co-operation and less nationalistic.
18
- envisaged the emergence of a spreading web of
supranational authorities, to undertake tasks formerly
performed by national governments. So international power
would be diffused rather than centralised.
- thought that these authorities would have a strong
managerialist ethos and would be 'above' politics.
- interested in global rather than regional co-operation
(whereas Monnet's ideas had a strong regional focus.).
Regional integration was nationalism writ large. Therefore, he
was opposed to a 'continental union' in Europe, and to the
creation of institutions which in his view mirrored those of
sovereign states.
19
* weaknesses
- glaring in the light of post-war history: z. B. it assumes
that functional co-operation can be separated from politics.
However, the decisions of technical agencies are often
highly political: several, such as the UNESCO and the ILO,
have been torn by political disputes. The have been created
by states for their mutual benefit: they remain under the
ultimate control of sovereign states and are dependent upon
them for their resources.
20
- the creation of functional authorities has arguably made
the states system work better rather than undermining it.
- scant evidence that loyalties are shifting from the state
level to international organisations.
- many key questions unanswered, such as how coordination of functional authorities would work or how
disputes between them would be resolved.
21
2. Neo-functionalism
(1) far more realistic than the older functionalism, and less
prescriptive
- developed in the 1950s and 1960s to explain integration
processes in the European Community. therefore it is based
on intensive study of an actual case.
22
(2) founders - Haas, Nye and Lindberg
- Haas (1958): integration as a developing and expanding
process involving bargaining and compromise, like other forms
of politics.
: argued that there could be a learning curve of co-operation
between governments, in which the experience of co-operation
in some field could lead of co-operation in others
: co-operation was likely to begin in the field of low politics
(such as coal and steel) and might then be extended to high
politics (such as foreign and defence policy)
- a spillover effect from co-operation in one policy area to
another. However, not automatic or inevitable, not least
because it would depend upon choices made by governments
and other actors.
23
- the principal differences between neo-functionalism and
the older type of functionalism
1) Neo-functionalism: the political dimension and the role of
governments in integration processes are fully accounted for.
A central assumption - functional co-operation will take
place at the behest of governments. Unlike the older
functionalism, neo-functionalism accepts the importance of
political conflict and the existence of competing interests. It
emphasises the importance of elites and elite bargaining
rather than mass support for integration in its early stages.
24
2) Neo-functionalism has s stronger empirical foundation
and seeks to explain in some detail how a specific
integration process actually works.
3) It focuses upon integration between groups of countries
in specific regions or subregions of the world ('regional
integration') rather than upon global integration.
- Later Haas noted that there had not been spillover to other
areas besides agriculture,
argued that the power of nationalism and the influence of
external factors (international events) had both been
underestimated, and
recognised that European integration was to complex to fit
neatly into any theoretical model.
25
(3) the Single European Market programme since the mid-
1980s - the result of 'spillover'?
- a combination of factors, in particular to the convergence of
national interests, to developments in the global economy and
to concern aout the poor competitiveness of European
industry.
- Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that recent deepening of
integration within the EU could have occurred without a
learning curve of collaborative experience. z. B. the SEM
programme may well have provided the momentum for the
TEU's provisions on economic and monetary union.
26
3. Federalism
* a federal system: a formal distribution of power between
central and regional levels of government.
* The central level invariable has responsibility for foreign and
security policy, but many functions are shared with the
regional level.
* In Europe,
federal systems tend to be associated with decentralisation
and are viewed as a means by which the powers of the
central government can be kept in check, whereas in the UK
(which does not have a federal system of government)
federalism is often viewed as a centralising doctrine,
designed to wrest power from national governments and
parliaments.
27
* “Eurofederalism” - still regarded as a laudatory idea in many
parts of continental Europe.
* contemporary federalists (often neo-functionalists) - more
realistic about the prospects of realising their goals than their
predecessors and prepared to build a federal union in
incremental steps rather than all at once. (Monnet also
espoused an 'increamentalist' approach.)
28
* some remarks:
- the EU : already a federation in all but name, or on the way
to becoming one.
- many federal characteristics: a Union title, some
supranational institutions, including an increasingly powerful
Parliament, a Court of Justice and a seemingly ever-widening
range of common policies.
- however, several major differences between the Union and
a 'typical' federation.
1) the EU - no written constitution, and based upon treaties
negotiated by governments
29
2) the power exercised by member states in EU decision
making has no parallel in any existing federation.
3) the Union - somewhere between a confederation and a
federation ?
a confederation : a looser arrangement than a federation, in
that the participating units retain a very high degree of
independence.
the EU : clearly more than a confederation, but is less than a
full federation.
30
4) several reasons why the EU is unlikely to develop into a
'United States of Europe' on the US model: the peoples in the
American colonies were more homogeneous than are
contemporary Europeans (they had a common language and
culture and were largely of British ancestry);
the colonies were not fully formed nation-states; nor were
their economies fully developed.
31
4. Confederalism
* a system of administration in which two or more
organizational units retain their separate identities but give
specified powers to a higher authority for reasons of
convenience, mutual security or efficiency.
* the component units are sovereign and the higher authority
is relatively weak, existing solely at the discretion of the units
and doing only what they allow it to do.
32
* Federalism is different in the sense that it involves the local
units surrendering some of their sovereignty and giving up
power over joint interests to a new and permanent national
level of authority.
- Federalism and Confederalism : distinct from the unitary
system of administration used in countries such as Britain,
France, Japan and Italy, where sovereignty rests almost
entirely with the national government, which can abolish or
amend local units at will.
33
* few examples of confederalism - the United States in
1776-89 and Switzerland today
- US: the founders were equally worries about anarchy (too
little government) and tyranny (too much government), and
until 1789 the original colonies related to each other as a
loose confederation.
- Switzerland: almost entirely confederal until 1798, it has
given up fewer powers to the national government than has
been the case with other federations, such as Germany, the
United States and Russia. The Swiss encourage direct
democracy by holding national referenda, have a Federal
Assembly elected by proportional representation and are
governed by a Federal Council elected by the Assembly. One
of the members of the Council is appointed to a one-year
term as head of state and head of government.
34