Assess the Value of the Principal Theories of European Integration.
ASSESS THE VALUE OF THE PRINCIPAL THEORIES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION.
The raise and development, after the second World War, of the institutions of economic integration in Western Europe, gave a precious opportunity for both the implementation of current theories and the development of new viewpoints.
Which theory is most appropriate to what is Europe at the moment ?
After the debate of international relations concerning the early development in the European integration, two opposed theories came into sight. First E.B Hass exposed the theory of Neofunctionalism in 1958 followed by L.N Lindberg in 1963 and then S Hoffman brought to light in 1964 and 1966 the theory of intergovernmentalism. (George/Bache p5-6 2001)
Then again other theories appeared, such as neofederalism and supranationalism. These theories can follow the idea that the EU is an intergovernmentalism or a supranationalism institution or be developed against it.
In this essay I will expose all the principal theories of European integration with the point of view of academic theorists. In a first part I will develop the theories with the idea of a centred state, in a second part the theories more for a decentralisation of the state and finally analyse the debate on the future of Europe.
Some theories were developed with the idea that Europe should be ruled and controlled by a centred state, for example an institution.
The foundations of neofunctionalism were established in the late 1950's and during the 1960's by US academics, including, the most important, Ernst Haas (1958) and Leon Lindberg (1963).(Nugent p507 1999).
Neofunctionalism is both a set of theories and strategies.
Neofunctionalism is against the idea that a state is a single unified actor and that they cannot be the only actors on the international stage.
According to neofunctionnalists governments decisions were influenced by bureaucratic actors and different interests groups. They considered that non-states actors are important in international politics, such as the European Commission which seemed to be the most important.
The Commission was expected to be in a situation were it could influence either domestic and international pressures on national governments to make headway the process of European integration, even where governments showed a certain unwillingness.
Neofunctionalism is based on a process of functional spillover, integration in one sector produces pressures to create an integration in related sectors. The concept of spillover explains the fact that when governments set off the idea of integration, the process managed to continue by itself. There were two forms of spillover, functional spillover claim that modern industrial theories were constituted of coordinated parts, though this makes it difficult to limit integration in one sector.
The other form of spillover was the political spillover, that called for political pressure to accommodate integration in the state concerned.
According to Ernst Haas (1961) a group of states in an international organisation will beat down, if they are left on there own, to a simple link.(George/Bache p11 2001)
On the other hand Hoffmann highlighted the idea that functional integration and "politicization" would not obviously act in the dictated way because he considered that "the centrality of states actors and the persistence of nationalists sentiments" mustn't be forgotten.(Rosamond p 78 2000)
Hass's work clearly ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The other form of spillover was the political spillover, that called for political pressure to accommodate integration in the state concerned.
According to Ernst Haas (1961) a group of states in an international organisation will beat down, if they are left on there own, to a simple link.(George/Bache p11 2001)
On the other hand Hoffmann highlighted the idea that functional integration and "politicization" would not obviously act in the dictated way because he considered that "the centrality of states actors and the persistence of nationalists sentiments" mustn't be forgotten.(Rosamond p 78 2000)
Hass's work clearly conceived the supranational polity as an aspect of modernity.
Supranationalism is a theory that was developed by Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet in 1998, following the transationalism of Karl Deutsch in 1953 and 1957. The EU should be examined as a international form of government, as Moravcsik said, but not as a single regime, but as a succession of regimes for different policy sectors. (Beyers 1998)
Their approach had three main factors, the development of transnational society, the function of supranational organizations with important self-reliance to maintain the interactive agenda and concentrate on "European rule making" to resolve unintended effects of one country policies on an other country.(George/Bache p 26 2001)
According to W.Sandholtz and A.Stone Sweet the business across national boundaries was increasing and therefore actors of a supranational society would appear. They considered that the control of a sector should be at the EU level, as a consequence the "supranational regime" would move on via the issue of European rules. (George/Bache p 26 2001)
Therefore the new European rules would be experimented directly with the working actors, whom would be able to give their point of view and as a result help clarifying them.
This theory of a Supranational governance as been a part of a important debate in which it had been confronted to another essential theory, the intergovernmentalism. This theory is totally opposed to supranationalism as it considers that Europe cannot be controlled by a centred state.
The theory of intergouvernmentalism was demonstrated by Stanley Hoffmann in 1964 and 1966. This theory came out simply because Hoffmann started to criticise neofunctionalism.
According to Stanley Hoffmann European integration had to be considered in general circumstances, he highlighted the fact that neofunctionalists omitted that the international environment would have to face different changes. Furthermore Hoffmann believed that national governments were the only authoritative actor in the operation of European integration. The "national interests" was above all the first care of governments.
Hoffmann agreed that interest groups could influence governments, but anyway the fact that national governments possessed "legal sovereignty and had political legitimacy" made them the decisive authority for important settlement.(George/Bache p 12 2001) (Rosamond p76 2000)
In 1993 Andrew Moravcsik developed the idea of a liberal intergovernmental Europe. He built is concept by criticising the theory of neofunctionnalism, just like Hoffmann did.
He considered that theories of European integration should be completed by theories hat concerned the nation itself. The States continue to exert their sovereignty completely, so that the institutions are created only to act as secretariat preparing and implementing the policies of integration. "The regions, along with member-states and local governments, are the only actors in European politics enjoying electoral legitimacy."(Morcillo p 8)
In the case of the intergouvernmentalism, the States agree on certain points concerned with their national legislation, but there is no concept of common right.
On the other hand Moravcisk considers that the treaties are the key to the integration process.(Morcillo article)
The idea of federalism for he European integration came along after the Second World War. Resistance movements that had taken place during the war created in 1946 "The European Union of Federalists" (EUF), the most representative person was Altiero Spinelli. Spinelli was held prisoner by the Fascists with Ernesto Rossi, this is the time they wrote "the Ventotene Manifesto", claiming for a "European federation" (Woodard 1995)
Spinelli declared that if on one hand it was necessary to make the states accept a treaty according to which they declared themselves ready to cede a part of their sovereignty in favour of a supranational government, on the other hand it was necessary for the European people to participate in defining a constitution that established the form and responsibilities of this new union between the states.
"Private property must be abolished, limited, corrected, or extended according to the circumstances and not according to any dogmatic principle. This guiding principle is a natural feature in the process of forming a European economic life freed from the nightmares of militarism or national bureaucratism. Rational solutions must replace irrational ones, even in the working class consciousness." (The Ventotene Manifesto 1941)
During the late twentieth century the theory of neofederalism appeared, John Pinder is the most important figure that developed his idea, he considered that federalists had clear objectives to try to deal with the problems that nation-states are facing.
Neofederalism has been conceived close to the idea that a European federation could be the answer to the difficulties to which European states are confronted.
On the other hand he considers that some problems could be resolved by the institutions themselves : "...the institutions are those of constitutional government to deal with the common affairs, leaving the member states to manage their own affairs with their own institutions..." (Pinder 1991( Rosamond p 103))
European integration theories are complex and therefore quite tough to measure. The most important debate in theorising European integration has been the opposition between neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism. From these two theories appeared others which were even more "complex, sophisticated and nuanced".
At present member states have different opinions on the future of European integration, most of them are conscious of the fact that theories on European integration must hold account that the European Community has matured since its creation.
The Germans, for example, highlighted the fact that institutions should became stronger to be able to deal with new problems. They consider that decision-making at a European level should not interfere with the ideas of national governments. The Germans agree that some powers, that are presently at a European level, might be given back to the member states, implying that it would not act as a go between the single market or other policies.
The French President Jacques Chirac, also declared that "the nation-state is the basis of EU" and "For the peoples who come after us, the nations will remain the first reference points" furthermore that "it would even be absurd to foresee their extinction" (Pace (Europa))
Jacques Chirac admit that the legitimacy of the institutions should be enhanced, in the first place, before creating others.
On the other hand the French Prime Minister, at that time, Lionel Jospin gave notice that he wasn't supporting "the German and the United States federal models". According to him this political theory was giving to much power to an executive above the decision of member states. He was much more for the idea, developed by Jacques Delors, of a "Federation of Nation-States", as both the European Union and Member States have different abilities.
The United Kingdom as for him has a more neutral position, however Tony Blair maintained the idea that the federalisation of the European Union should be strengthened, "monetary union, the European defence policy and enlargement". According to Tony Blair some problems should be resolved by national governments on their own, while other should be settled with a certain co-ordination.
He added that the "EU will remain a unique combination of the intergovernmental and the supranational."(Pace (Europa) 2001)
We can establish that in all the theories presented above, the main interest is the position of the member states in European integration. Either they can try to find issues together or some problems must be solved by a higher institution common to all countries parts of the European Union. Concerning the debates on European integration, the national governments had a controversial place. Anyway during fifty years they have played a significant role in the approach of European integration.
As we can note the principal "fear" is the lost of the sovereignty of the states, but some theories consider that even though governments can through into gear the process, it finally goes on by itself.
Presently the main objective is finding a way to make people realise that a European culture exists, and therefore they would be able to consider themselves as European.
This procedure has already been launched with the creation of a single European currency which could be the first sign for people of a real unification among themselves.
The enlargement towards Eastern Europe is, at the moment, one of the main goal of the European Union. It is, in my opinion, a proof that member states agree that they are presently in a safe position, allowing them to welcome other countries in the bosom of the actual "European Union".
I guess that neither the theory of inergouvernmentalism nor the theory of supranationalism, or other theories, can be regarded as most suitable for Europe at present. All theories have valid arguments. However, we must account that the European Union is in a constant evolution, thus one theory would be adequate at a certain period, while in another time an other theory could be more apposite.
/ 1