During these early stages of integration there was also a widely held belief that this seemingly unstoppable trend towards deeper integration would result in politicians with a more regional outlook. Haas was one of the biggest advocates of this idea suggesting that national values would be “superseded by a new and geographically larger set of beliefs” (Haas 1958: 72). That is to say that as integration continued politicians would become less focused on the nation state and instead progress to a more supranational outlook. In the early years of integration this held to be true and thus supported the theory of neo functionalism. Politicians recognised the need to cooperate and were thus prepared to pool interests and develop a regional outlook in order to establish agencies such as EURATOM. More than this, though European governments recognised the benefits in security in numbers. In a period of global insecurity and with the danger of the USSR influencing eastern European states, governments were able to come together for the interests of Europe as a whole. Wendt explores this collective shift in values and outlook through the term “European Identity” and argues that cooperation allows and results in states forming a more regional outlook and to gain a more regional perspective. (Wendt 1994: 387). This is perhaps best labeled as political spillover in neo functionalist terms.
However, whilst Neo Functionalism appeared to be an almost perfect theory at the time, we can now look back and witness the weaknesses of the theory that became apparent around the seventies. Neofunctionalist theorists and indeed many integrationists believed that the Supranational institutions of the European Community would continue to push for and encourage states to engage in a deepening of integration. The European Court of Justice and the European Parliament were largely tasked with fulfilling this ambition however member governments remained firmly in control (Sandholtz 1998: 217). Neofunctionalists argued that their theory until this point had been dominant in integration theories however this was somewhat thwarted by the power the intergovernmental institutions of the EU, namely the council of ministers and the european council, exerted on the European integration process. During these early years then, neofunctionalism could not overcome the constraints that the more powerful intergovernmental organisations exercised on the institutions that were, at that time, relatively weak.
These initial problems with neofunctionalism theory and integration were further compounded by the dark ages of european integration. During this time Europe experienced, as did the rest of the word, a large amount of financial turmoil. This led to protectionist policies which somewhat thwarted integration attempts by more enthusiastic Countries. Perhaps the first signs that neofunctionalism may be failing as an all encompassing integration theory were apparent as early as the failure of the European Defence Community. These problems came to a crescendo with the empty chair crisis in which De Gaulle withdrew all French representatives from the European Community (Hoffman 1966 870).
As such, Neofunctionalism was seen by many to be defunct as a theory with Ernst Haas himself, seen to be the founder of the theory declaring it obsolete (Haas 1975: 24). This however, was not the end of scholarly interest in neofuctionalism. The theory was modernised and updated by Sandholtz and sweet and has since featured somewhat of a revival along with intergovernmentalism. Whilst Europe did undergo somewhat of a crisis in its ‘dark age’, integration has since picked up at quite an astonishing pace, in particular with the common currency and the largest of the EU enlargements which almost doubled the unions membership.
One of the downfalls of neofunctionalism was the failure of supranational institutions to guide integration however, as integration has progressed neo functionalism has allowed us to see once again the need to endow the European Parliament with greater powers. Sandholtz defines this shift as resulting in ‘Autonomous actions by supranational actors’. (Sandholtz 1998: 217). The rise of the European Parliament is crucial in the continued relevance of neofuctionalism. With successive treaties the Parliament has managed to acquire more and more power until such a time that it is now relatively on par in terms of influence with the council of ministers and indeed Council of Ministers decisions must be approved by the European parliament before becoming law. This crucial shift from an institution whose foundations were composed of week appointed members, to elected members that exert influence and provide a significant force in the system of checks and balances is better understood through the application of neofunctionalism. Gradually the influence of the european parliament has spilt over into more and more areas. (Rittberger 115 2007).
Furthermore the European Court of Justice has grown considerably in power from the days in which Haas declared his theory defunct. The court of Justice has now gained credibility and recognition and continues to exert influence of the daily lives of all Europeans. Neofunctionalism supports this transfer of power to the courts as Countries spill over and begin to rely on uniform decisions made by a central body in areas from human rights to competition policy.
As a result, avery interesting concept is formed in which the price for a state to leave this union of countries reaches a point of being too high. States have spilled over and cooperated in so many areas that their non cooperation becomes impossible. To perhaps bring this slightly confusing concept into focus we can use the traditionally euro-sceptical United Kingdom as an example. Whilst many British citizens desire a separation from the union and many right wing politicians favour a realist unitary approach, the reality is as Tony Dark argues that ‘‘Britain is stuck with the EU and the EU with britain’ (Dark 2011: 40). The UK relies on the EU as its largest trading partner and whilst some favour a swiss free trade agreement in which britain would remain a distant trading ally, this would only result in the UK having to comply with EU trade rules whilst having an almost insignificant influence on legislation. Only more integration becomes possible as Countries become more and more dependent on one another. Once again neo functionalism allows us to frame and grasp this fascinating concept.
Yet, whilst neoliberalism has once again experienced somewhat of a revival thanks to Sandholtz and Sweet it is still severely lacking if it is to provide an all encompassing theory. The EU constitution was recently rejected and whilst the lisbon treaty did bring in many of the constitutions aims, it does indicate that supranationalism is still not favoured by all in the EU. In reality the EU is something of a mosaic of theories. As Wiener attests, in this modern age a mosaic integration theory Is the best fitting approach to the EU. Neofunctionalism still has many areas in which it can contribute - especially in relation to the European Parliament, but at the same time there is also room in this theoretical explanation for intergovernmentalism. The EU is, without doubt, the most complex regional alliance ever established and as such no single theory can be drawn upon to explain the unique integration process.
In conclusion then, neofunctionalism acted as the dominant theory for integration theorists during the early years of european integration because it provided a sufficient explanation for the rapid and unique expansion of a regional alliance that handed over powers to a supranational bodies. Whilst the theory was declared as defunct during Europe's dark age of integration, this was not to last and thanks to a revival neo functionalism now enjoys a position in which it is referred to alongside inter-governmentalism. Both of these theories now work in tandem in an effort to explain European Integration. This growing regional alliance shows no sign of slowing down and with unprecedented levels of integration such as the introduction of a single currency, the theory of neo functionalism still has much to contribute to the work of todays theorists.
Bibliography:
Dark, T (2011), ‘Perfidious Albion Again’, The Economist, 398/8722, 18-45
Diez, T and Wiener, A. (2003) ‘Introducing the mosaic of integration theory: Its past, present and future’, EUSA 8th Biennial conference Nashville, TN
Haas, E (1975) The Obsolescence of Regional Integration Theory, Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley
Haas, E. (1958) The uniting of Europe; political, social, and economic forces, 1950-1957. Standord University Press: Stanford, California.
Hoffman, S (1966) ‘obstinate of obsolete? The fate of the nation state and the case of western europe’ daedalus
McCormick, J (2008) Understanding the European Union, Palgrace Macmillan, New York.
McGowan,L (2007) "Theorising European Integration: revisiting neo-functionalism and testing its suitability for explaining the development of EC competition policy?," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), 11/05. 157-170
Sandholtz, W (1998), European Integration and Supranational Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rittberger, B, (2007), Building Europe’s Parliament, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Wendt, A (1994) ‘Collective Identity Formation and the International State’, The American Political Science Review, 88/2, 384 - 396
