Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration?
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration? From an ambitious project originally envisaged to remove the catastrophe of war from such a war-torn continent, the European project has proceeded in 'fits and starts'. Since its inception, there has been much debate regarding what forces drive the integration process forward. Why now, when interstate war in Europe seems impossible, do member states continue to 'pool' their sovereignty in so many areas? Two theories have dominated previous attempts to answer the question of "how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours, so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty."1 Neofunctionalism, the idea that the integration process, once started, develops its own momentum for further integration, saw the height of popularity in the 1960s, following the initial success of the ECSC/EEC and the hugely influential theoretical explanation by Ernst Haas. The second theory, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, surfaced in the 1990s and was championed by Andrew Moravcsik. It saw flaws in neofunctionalist thinking and instead offered an alternative account in which the integrative process was always, and remains, in the hands of national governments;
Is Pluralism Faithful to the Idea of Democracy?
Is Pluralism Faithful to the Idea of Democracy? This broad question can be asked in a few different ways to help us decipher what its intention is, and also to provide a rough guide to the path to be taken to answer it. Can the existence of pluralism be said to also mean the existence of democracy? Is pluralism the closest we can get to democracy, for the type of societies we live in today (in the West)? Or, is pluralism a diluted form of democracy, in the classical sense, which does not meet the definition of 'rule by the people'? Without turning the investigation into a question of definitions it is necessary, before we embark, to briefly say a few words about the two key concepts in the question: pluralism and democracy. Since the inception of the term, Robert Dahl has been one of the most prominent pluralists. He, and his contemporaries, sought to theorise the 'actual' workings of democracy in a modern society. They documented objectively what is achievable in modern societies as opposed to theories of 'classic', or 'populist', democracy (Dahl, 1956, ch.2). For brevity's sake, we will use the broad definition given by Hague and Harrop: Literally 'rule by the many', pluralism refers to a political system in which numerous competing interest groups exert strong influence over a responsive government. However, each of these groups concentrates on its own area (for