How useful are 'integration theories' for our understanding of the origins and evolution of European integration?

As mentioned before however, trying to find a suitable theory to account one hundred per cent for the facts appears to be rather problematic. And, even if one theory is considered useful in our understanding for the origins and evolution of the European integration, we will see that, it might not be the only theory involved in a project, aiming at European Integration.  Therefore one has to be careful before classifying the ECSC as a purely functionalist one. Mitrany criticized the project as one that encompassed the idea of “federal-functionalism”.

The reasons for the creation however, of the ECSC, as well as the events ending with the formation of this project bring to light another perspective of things. The ECSC was a plan undertaken at a time where France, felt the possible deprivation of coal supplies when Ruhr was to be returned to Germany. Put that aside, on a larger scope, there was also the threat of American dominance. Therefore there was need for European unity. Hence, the idea of pragmatism or realism rather than ideology is also argued by George and Bache.

 The importance however of functionalism as a theory must not be overlooked or overshadowed completely by pragmatism, as it is the basis of the functionalist theory that is evident in the ECSC (focusing integration of a single area hoping to promote integration in further areas) and moreover, it is functionalism that laid the stepping stone for Neo-Functionalism, which was one of the most famous theories in the process of European Integration. In the words of Yves Meny and Andrew Knapp, the Neo-functionalist approach not only includes non-state actors and a European dynamic independent of national governments into their view of integration: they practically depend on them.

Neofunctionalism, begun with the analysis of the ECSC by a school of thought that was in its turn, trying to conceptualize the process of European integration. Neofunctionalism, not only tried to describe the process of integration but their aim was to also predict the path that the European Integration was taking.

 These theorists based their theory upon the works of Mitrany and Monnet. The key figures related with this theory were Ernst Haas, Leon Lindberg and Philippe Schmitter.

Neofunctionalism was a pluralist theory of international politics .It gave emphasis to the interest groups and supranational actors. “Neofunctionalists argued that the international activities of states were the outcome of a pluralistic political process in which government decisions were influenced by pressures from various interest groups and bureaucratic actors.”, and was in opposition to the power-based government/state-centric model. The central theme of this theory was the conception of spillovers. It was through this process; of functional, political and cultural spillovers, that European Integration was to take place according to Neofunctionalism.

Even though Neofunctionalism dominated the debate of European Integration during the 1950s and 1960s, some countries were very reluctant to abandon their national sovereignty; as the theory implied. This fact was exposed when the Pleven Plan in 1950, for the formation of a European Political Community (EPC) and of a European Defense Community (EDC), failed. Furthermore, nor did the Messina negotiations in 1956-7 proved to be in favor of neofunctionalism since they voiced the defense of national interests.

Nevertheless, the Neofunctionalist approach, was justified when the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), was formed under the Treaty of Rome in 1957. As a conclusion, even though the argument of spillover, which is central to neofunctionalism, is not so apparent when associated to negotiations on the European Economic Community (EEC), the process of spillover is more valid in the ECSC to Euratom example. Consequently, the neofunctionalist approach was justified and it continued to be so, especially when a supranational Commission, a Council of Ministers and a Parliamentary Assembly were set up, which emphasized and put in practice the neofunctionalist argument of central-based leadership.

As mentioned beforehand, the neofunctionalist’s objective was two-fold. They were also to predict the evolution of European Integration. This is another reason why this theory is of considerable usefulness. “Just as Neofunctionalists had predicted, changing circumstances led to changed behavior”. This was apparent when companies started to sign cross-border agreements on co-operation or negotiated outlets for their products, therefore moving towards a single market structure, which became official on January 1958 at the EEC Treaty.

Supranationalism however, was not a vision or a notion shared by all national leaders especially by Charles de Gaulle who “believed in a ‘Europe des parties’ under French leadership and was openly hostile to the notion of supranationality” .

This fact brought about the 1963 and 1965 crises, which brought forth the beginning of the end for the success and the justifications of the neofunctionalist theory.

On its own, the Neofunctionalist theory cannot account for the sentiments of the whole of the European states or for the whole picture of it. Undoubtedly however, this stage of the European Integration process had distinct neofunctionalist marks. Tranholm-Mikkelsen spoke of the 1963 and 1965 crises as being a serious blow to neofunctionalists and what they had expected. “As the EC….developed in ways other that expected, neofunctionalism gradually fell into disfavor.”  Generally, Neofunctionalism was the receiver of substantial criticism which gave rise to Intergovernmentalism that appeared as a strong alternative.

Contrary to the neofunctionalist approach, Intergovernmentalism supports the notion of nation-state supremacy in international affairs. For the intergovernmentalists, the key actor in the process of European Integration is the state.

Stanley Hoffman is the figure whose work is associated with the Intergovernmental theory. His main argument was that nation-states and national governments were not “obsolete’’ but rather “obstinate”  .His point was proven with  the empty chair crisis in 1965, involving Charles de Gaulle, which indicated that the nation -state was not a dead concept. Hoffman argued that states were still motivated by self- interest and that their co operation was a matter of “low politics”. He proceeded with arguing that the neofunctionalist theory was not at all justified, as integration and success in “low politics” failed to spillover into “high politics”.

According to Hoffman, once co operation begun in order to “make Europe”; skepticism prevailed because policy makers were not geared up to integrate on terms too different than those familiar to them.

Andrew Moravcsik, who is of more recent times, described the concept of intergovernmentalism in a more refined way. He spoke of the notion of Liberal Intergovernmentalism and through it, emphasized the power and importance of national governments in the process of integration. A central element of his analysis is the notion of “state rationality”  in the sense that European Integration can best be explained as a series of rational choices made by national leaders”. According to Moravcsik, governments play a two-staged game based on the assumption of rationality, of which the first stage is the defining of national interest and the second, involves negotiations in the Council of Ministers.

Intergovernmentalism in its turn dominated the theoretical debate from the early 1970s to the 1980s. These years were troublesome ones for the process of integration. There was a crisis in the European Economy which resulted to an inadequate collaboration between member states. Moreover, the admission of three more member states (Britain, Ireland, and Denmark) made the process of integration even more problematic. Britain held a nationalist line and in general, all member states retained awkwardness at the time. “There was little in the period onto which the neofunctionalists could cling as evidence of their theory being vindicated” On the contrary actually, all the central developments of the time like the creation of the European Council and the European Political Co-operation, were intergovernmental responses. This mere fact justifies clearly the view that each theory suits a different period of time and once again we acknowledge that the usefulness of each theory is determined by the timing and the events that precede or follow the period.

In 1985, comes along a figure who had significantly contributed to the process of European integration. Jacques Delors in 1985 was the President of the European Commission. It was under this man’s leadership qualities that Europe begun to walk steadily towards a single market and finally, the Single European Act (SEA) begun to operate in July 1987. Delors role was very important as he led the period that prompted the EC into a new and vibrant phase where public interest for the future was very much alive.

Tranholm-Mikkelsen argued that since 1985, there was a re-emergence of the concept of spillovers which is central to neo-functionalism. Functional, Political and Cultivated spillover is most evident during this time. This fact is a clear proof, according to Tranholm-Mikkelsen, against Hoffman’s belief that neofunctionalism is not ‘obsolete’ after all. Intergovernmentalism is not undermined and neither is its importance towards our understanding of the origins and evolution of European Integration.

However, the importance of spillovers since 1985 “makes neo-functionalism indispensable to the understanding of European Integration”.  With the free movement of goods, services and capital, came a fear of increased competitiveness and the unfavorable results it would have upon national environmental policies. This reason led to the “functional link between the internal market and the Community’s environmental policies.”

Political spillover is also evident since interest group activity influenced the government’s decisions and views and also limited their room for manoeuvre. Also, cultivated spillover is traced as the Commission was involved with cultivating the support of supranational interest groups (ETUC-European Trade Union Congress, UNICE-Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe) through negotiations and discussions.

 This constant reappearance of Neofunctionalism, reveals the difficulty of describing the integration process with the sole reference to just a single theory. Each theory is recognized as useful in the European integration process, at a particular time-frame.

Neofunctionalism made its way back into the 1990s dynamically mainly due to the Treaty of the European Union, signed in Maastricht, December 1991. This was the grand step towards the single currency of Europe. This was a success for the Neofunctionalists. Naturally however, national interests were not sacrificed as neofunctionalism hinders. In fact, this treaty has found some member states unhappy, for example, Europe’s awkward partner, Britain.

Furthermore, by the time of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 , there was a clear “concern to prevent further slippage of power from the national or sub-national level to the supranational level”  and for this reason, no agreement was reached upon institutional reforms needed for the enlargement process. Therefore it is clear that member states feared over-supranationalistic actions and were starting to retrieve in order to protect their national interests as well.

However, we shall not remain restrained to the neofunctionalist-intergovernmentalism debate because the above approaches “are fundamentally theories of European Integration rather than of European Politics….they give relatively little attention to …low politics of the EU’s regular functioning” (setting of agendas, formulation and implementation of policies, judicial review). Therefore, new theories emerged. These new recent theories draw from Comparative politics. They did not try to conceptualize events or the process of integration in terms of history. Instead they tried to explain how the European Union was governed. They tried to show that the EU was governed by a set of policies (regional, agricultural, environmental) and that previous theories did not place the adequate emphasis that they should have on other, also important actors.

These new theories criticized the old ones. They saw them, indeed as fully-blown grand theories, that attempted however, to explain and conceptualize every single event and apply a single theory to it. Therefore, there has been a considerable body of literature that has attempted to overcome this polarization of the neofunctionalist- intergovernmental dispute.

The most important of these theories is new constitutionalism. “New Institutionalism argued that…the importance of institutions in structuring political action had been lost. In the words of Bulmer, the core assumption of this approach is that institutions matter” . Within New Institutionalism, two analytical approaches can be identified. Rational choice institutionalism and Historical institutionalism. The first had to do with the ways in which the institutions shape the actions of political actors  and the second emphasizes that decisions are shaped by previous institutional relationships and focuses around the concept of “unintended consequences”

Of these two approaches, Historical institutionalism is the most important in relevance with the EU and it tried to explain the reason behind the failure of some policies to materialize as thought. However, new institutionalism is not a ‘fully blown grand theory’ but rather a ‘middle range’ theory that cannot get to the very mainsprings o integration provides an attention-grabbing view that “institutions take on their own dynamics, norms and values.”

The policy networks approach is viewed as an application of new institutionalism. They are seen as “arenas in which decision makers and interests come together to mediate differences and search for solutions”. This approach however was criticized by Kassim who questioned the usefulness of this approach to the European Union.

As theorists were trying to develop new ideas to study the EU, Multi-level governance was borne. According to George and Bache, all of these theories were created and fuelled by the debate on the neo-functionalist-intergovernmentalist debate or developed as a rejection to it. In this case, the origins of Multi-level governance can be found in Neofunctionalism. It rejects the idea that the governments control the integration process. This approach emphasized the importance of actors at different levels both horizontally and vertically. It was found however to be lacking the dynamic element found in neofunctionalism. The idea of supranational governance however founded later, succeeded in encompassing this dynamic element.

Supranational governance emerged as an effort to rise above the intergovernmentalism-supranationalism dichotomy. They tried to explain the “transition, in any given policy sector, from national to intergovernmental to supranational governance”. Their focus was in examining the increase in cross-border transactions and communications. They saw this as leading to the demand for new regulations at the supranational level. Following the establishment of new regulations, a process of institutionalization would arise which would finally bring about further integration.

The final theory that is included in the theories existent to aid the understanding of the evolution of European Integration is Consociationalism. This approach seeks to elucidate; how political steadiness can be achieved in societies with profound social cleavages. Key figure to this approach was Arend Lijphart. Political Scientists have tried to link this definition to the EU. The European Union some argue is a confederal consociation, a coalition of strong states, a mergence of member states into a union in order to further common ends but without sacrificing their national identity or their sovereignty. 

“The complexities of the process [European Integration] and the organization [European Union] are such, that different sets of conceptual and theoretical tools are necessary to examine and interpret them”

Having analysed the different integration theories, we are able to draw to the conclusion that no single theory can prove useful to our understanding of the origins and evolution of European Integration, for the mere reason that none- if taken alone- can satisfactorily explain the process of integration.

Undoubtedly, both Neofunctionalism and Intergovernmentalism are of great significance and usefulness at times throughout the process of integration. But the fact remains, that neither was able to account for every development. Also, looking at the comparative politics approaches, they all have their limitations.

However, even with their limitations and their imperfections, every single theory and approach of European Integration, has each provided history and politics with a substantial amount of literature to aid the understanding of the unique and complicated process of integration. It is for that reason that their usefulness, in our understanding of the origins and evolution of European Integration, is enormous and unquestionable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bulmer, Simon J., “New Constitutionalism and the Governance of the Single European    

    Market,” Journal of European Public Policy (Sept.1998), 5 (3): 365-386

2. Chryssochoou, Dimitris N., “Democracy and Symbiosis in the European Union:                                   Towards a Confederal Consociation?” West European Politics (Oct.1994), 17 (4): 1-14

3. George, Stephen and Bache, Ian, Politics in the European Union, New York: Oxford     University Press, 2001

4. Stanley Hoffman, “Obstinate or Obsolete? The fate of Nation-State and the case of Western Europe”, in Brent Nelsen and Alexander Stub eds., The European Union (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998) p.157-171

5. Kassim, Hussein, “Policy Networks, Networks and European Union Policy Making: A Skeptical View,” West European Politics (Oct.1994), 17 (4): 15-27

6. Lijphart, Arend, “Consociation and Federation: Conceptual and Empirical Links”, Canadian Journal of Political Science (Sept.1979), 12 (3): 499-515

7. McCormick, John, Understanding the European Union, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1999.

8. Moravcsik, Andrew, The Choice for Europe, London: UCL Press, 1998.

9. Nugent, Neill, The Government and Politics of the European Union, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 1999

10. Rosamond, Ben, Theories of European Integration, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000.

11. Alec Stone Sweet and Wayne Sandholtz, “European Integration and Supranational Governance” Journal of European Public Policy (Sept.1997), 4 (3): p.297-317

12. Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen, “Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the new dynamics of the EC” Millennium: Journal of International Studies (1991), 20 (1):22

13. Yves Meny and Andrew Knapp, “Government and Politics in Western Europe (Britain, France, Italy, Germany)”: Oxford University Press (1998)

---