Theories of European integration

1
Theories of European integration

• Lec 11

2
Theories of European integration

• Theories of European integration
• Federalism
• Functionalism
• Neo-functionalism
• Intergovernmentalism
• Liberal Intergovernmentalism

3
Integration theory
What is a theory? What are the purposes? To
describe a phenomenon To explain a
phenomenon To predict a phenomenon

• Integration theory
• the speed and direction of European integration
  overall
• the speed and direction of individual policies
• the failure to establish certain policies
• why progress occurred at certain times and not
  others
• description/explanation/prediction vs
  Prescription

4
Spinelli and European Federalism
The Ventotene Manifesto, (1941)

• federalism supported in resistance
• Spinelli advocated constitutional break and
  federal constitution for Europe
• European Congress The Hague (1948)
• Council of Europe intergovernmental
• national political elites already restored

5
Mitrany and Functionalism
A Working Peace System (1943)

• not a theorist of European integration
• influenced later advocates of integration
• proposal transfer functional tasks from
  governments to international agencies
• opposed world government inimical to freedom
• opposed regional federations potential
  super-states

6
Monnet and functional federalism

• Monnet devised Schuman Plan for European Coal and
  Steel Community
• Functional aims
• to develop a European-scale economy
• to control Germany
• to ensure coking coal for French steel industry
• Political aims Nous ne coalisons pas des Etats,
  nous unissons des hommes (we do not make
  coalitions of states, we unite peoples)

7
Integration theory in the 1950s and 1960s

• IR theory fails to explain European integration
• Various crises in the EC weaken the
  federalist/functionalist argument
• US scholars look at the EC from outside and
  develop theoretical approaches towards the
  understanding of political integration
• Two main streams neo-functionalism and
  intergovernmentalism

8
Neofunctionalism
Haas The Uniting of Europe The political,
Social and Economic Forces (1968)

• Assumptions
• integration would
• undermine states sovereignty
• states not unified actors
• interest groups important international actors
• integration would spill-over beyond states
  control  

9
- Functional Spillover

• Because modern industrial economies are made up
  of interdependent parts, it is not possible to
  isolate one sector
• The integration of one sector will only work if
  other sectors are also integrated
• E.g. transport sector

10
- Political Spillover

• Successful economic integration leads to
  political integration
• Key actors are interest groups which lobby
  national governments
• Governments eventually realise the benefits of
  integration and give up sovereignty

11
- Cultivated Spillover

• Neofunctionalists expected the Commission to
  cultivate the process
• It would broker package deals
• It would engage interest groups and national
  officials in partnership

12
Neofunctionalism in critical perspective

• Neo-functionalism fails explaining phase of
  intergovernmentalism and stagnation
• Predicted automatism between functional and
  political spillover did not happen
• Revival EMU and EPU fit in the concept of
  neo-functionalism

13
Hoffmanns intergovernmentalism

• Argued that neofunctionalists
• made three mistakes
• regional integration not
• a self-contained process
• states uniquely powerful actors
• Neo-functs fail to distinguish between low and
  high politics

Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the
nation-state and the case of western Europe
(1966)

• There is nothing inevitable about the path of
  European integration process and neither was
  there any evidence of any political will to
  create a federal state in Europe

14
Liberal intergovernmentalism (Andrew Moravcsik)
The Choice for Europe (1998)

• insisted states remained in full control
• proposed a two-level analysis
• 1. of domestic preference formation
• 2. of EU inter-governmental bargaining

15
Moravcsiks hypothesis

• there is no body superior to the state
• M. was reluctant to use integration or
  supranationalism
• His def. of integration process of merging
  domestic policy interests
• Co-operation is based on lowest common
  denominator
• State does not take economic gains from
  co-operation if it is presumed to damage
  long-term survival of the state
• E.g. M. argues that behind De Gaulles rejection
  of UK membership was not the pursuit of national
  grandeur but the price of French wheat (1998,
  241)

16
Moravcsiks method

• Multiple hypothesis testing (comparative
  approach federal, functional, liberal
  intergovernmental)
• Multi case study 5 case studies (1955-58,
  1958-69, 1969-83, 1984-1988, 1988-1991)
• Primary sources
• Moravcsiks tests for integration
• National preference formation theory (economic or
  geopolitical interests)
• Interstate bargaining theory (asymmetrical
  interdependence or supranational
  entrepreneurship)
• Institutional choice theory (federalist ideology,
  centralized technocratic management or more
  credible commitment)

17
Moravcsiks findings

• economic interests dominate domestic preference
  formation
• EU inter-governmental bargaining reflects member
  states relative power
• Institutional choice is determined by national
  desire for more credible commitment

18
Criticism on Moravcsik

• Selective on sources
• Did not account for institutional independency
  (e.g. ECJ)
• Disregarding impact of strong EU or Commission
  presidency (Delors)
• Underestimates global interdependence
• Overestimates national sovereignty

19
Criticism on Moravcsik

• Domestic positions change during negotiations and
  are not pre-fixed (Forster)
• Governments have own (often multiple and
  divergent) interests and do not only represent
  industrial demands
• Moravcsik neglects transnational actors
  (Sweet/Sandholz)
• In Maastricht, negotiation outcomes were far from
  clear and the implications unforeseeable (
  states not rational actors, relative bargaining
  power blurred)
• Schimmelpfennig LI is a theoretical school with
  no disciples and a single teacher

20
Summary

• Early Phase (60- 70s)
• Polity Making, nature of EC, triggers for
  integration
• Neo- Functionalism vs. Intergovernementalism
• Attempt to include EC in IR theory
• Second Phase (70er 80s)
• Policy Making
• Evaluation of single policies (Environment,
  taxes)
• IR theory abandoned
• Third Phase (beginning 90s)
• refreshed debate about polity making
• Europeanization of domestic politics
• Comparative analysis
• Policy- Analysis

Grand theories
Meso theories
Approaches, ecclectical theories
21
Class Questions

• Has inter-governmentalism replaced
  neo-functionalism as the main approach to the
  study of European integration?
• What evidence is there in favour of the various
  approaches?
• Could there be a division of labour between the
  approaches? What would it look like?