MOTION #77: NEO-FUNCTIONALISM EXPLAINS THE INTEGRATION OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION
The two main competing
theories of EU integration are Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism.
Although these theories have been heavily criticised, amended or even
abandoned, they do contain two strong theoretical integration arguments.
Firstly,
Neo-functionalism was developed in the second half of the 1950s and is the
first, ‘classical’ grand theory/narrative of European integration. It is a
theory of regional integration, building on the work of Ernst B. Haas, an
American political scientist and Leon Lindberg, also an American political
scientist. Jean Monnet's approach to European integration, which aimed at
integrating individual sectors in hopes of achieving spill-over effects. The
core of Neo-functionalism is the use of the concept of ‘spill-over’. The process
of ‘spill-over’ refers to situations when an initial decision by governments to
place a certain sector under the authority of central institutions creates
pressures to extend the authority of the institutions into neighbouring areas
of policy, such as currency exchange rates, taxation, and wages. This core
claim meant that European integration is self-sustaining: ‘spill-over’ triggers
the economic and political dynamics driving further cooperation. Haas later
declared the theory of Neo-functionalism obsolete, after the process of
European integration started stalling in the 1960s, when Charles de Gaulle's
‘empty chair’ politics paralyzed the institutions of the European Coal and
Steel Community, European Economic Community, and European Atomic Energy Community.
Neo-functionalism proposed the concept of ‘spill-over’ - 'Integration within
one sector will tend to beget its own impetus and spread to other sectors.
Intergovernmentalism was developed in the
mid-1960s and initially proposed by Stanley Hoffmann. It suggests that national
governments control the level and speed of European integration. The theory
proposed the Logic of Diversity, which 'set limits to the degree which the
‘spill-over’ process can limit the freedom of action of the governments...the logic
of diversity implies that on vital issues, losses are not compensated by gains
on other issues'. Any increase in power at supranational level, he argues,
results from a direct decision by governments. He believed that integration,
driven by national governments, was often based on the domestic political and
economic issues of the day. The theory rejects the concept of the spill-over
effect that Neo-functionalism proposes. He also rejects the idea that
supranational organisations are on an equal level (in terms of political
influence) as national governments. This debate is intended to look at the core
points of each theory, where they differ and which is the more convincing
argument?
Pros
|
Cons
|
Neo-functionalism explains the cause of integration. Spill-over is the following concept – in order to
enjoy the full benefits of integration of the first sector you need to
integrate the related sectors. An example of this is the ECSC (European Coal
and Steel Community) evolving into other energy sectors and forming Euratom.
There are three types of spill-over – functional spill-over, political
spill-over and cultivated spill-over. Firstly, functional spill-over, which
regards spill-over in an economic context. For example, this might involve
integrating coal and steel, then integrating transport systems so that coal
and steel are moved around more easily. Secondly, there is Political
spill-over, where political actors shift their allegiance to a new centre,
for example from the national parliament to Brussels. Thirdly, there is
cultivated spill-over, which is the idea that institutions drive further
integration by being in practice; for example the European Commission’s
growing autonomy.
|
The counter theory to spill-over is the logic of
diversity. Neo-functionalism is flawed as it assumes that integration in low
politics (economic) will lead to integration in areas of high politics. This
is not possible as issues of high politics are integral to the national
interest; so integration will only be possible when national interests
coincide, which is possible but unlikely. Neo-functionalism believes areas of
high politics can be cultivated into integration, whereas
intergovernmentalism believes that the fate of the nation-state should never
be subject to the decisions of others.
|
Neo-functionalism proposes a purpose to EU integration. Neo-functionalism proposed building a community Europe,
through the concept of spillover the theory proposes economic determinism.
Spill-over will eventually lead to a completely integrated Europe with a
strong central government. This has not yet been proved true, as EU
integration has become a long and difficult process. This is understandable
since it is not exactly easy to integrate together all those policies,
economies and people. However this would most probably be the eventual
result, which is already visible: The experience of the European Union (EU)
is widely perceived as not just an example, but the model for regional
integration. In recent years, the EU has also been pursuing an increasing
number of trade agreements which may in turn lead to spillover. Furthermore
the recent enlargements of the EU in Eastern Europe, as well as the ongoing
negotiations with Croatia and Turkey have renewed the academic and political
interest in the effects of European Economic integration.
One of the theory’s strengths is to predict the outcome
of integration and an eventual conclusion to the process, allowing for
political and economic aims to be made and realised. For example ‘Larger
companies have been acting on the assumption that the internal market will
eventually be established’.
|
Neo-functionalism believes in building a community
Europe, but then the question is raised, what is the purpose of this new
entity? There is no common outlook and getting the major powers of Europe to
agree what this should be will be near impossible. Intergovernmentalists
would also argue that economic determinism regarding integration is wrong. As
they believe national governments have to consciously make these decisions
and will not be economically driven alone, ‘Extensive cooperation is not at
all ruled out: on the contrary, such cooperation will benefit all
participants as long as it corresponds to and enhances mutual interests’. It
will always be politics that drive integration, while the motive may be
economic – to solve a crisis or even just to profit – the key decisions by
all actors will be political.
|
Neo-functionalism - liberal theory of regional
integration. Neo-functionalism is an example
of a liberal theory of regional integration. Its focus is on human welfare
needs, not political conflict and law. Its focus is on individuals aggregated
into interest groups as the main actors in integration, so the focus is on low politics and the
areas which become integrated in the European Union reflect that. As such
there has been much more progress on economic integration than there has on
creating a common foreign and security policy.
It also accepts the independent role of international
organisations and that the transformation of the international regional
system towards a better order is feasible so making the European Union a
project worth investing effort in.
|
Intergovernmentalism assumes states to be the core
actors, this is difficult to deny as most economic boundaries and policies
are administered by the nation state. It believes that the logic of diversity
will prevail in areas of high politics (e.g. security), however it does
accept the logic of integration in low politics, that when interests coincide
integration is possible (when there is consensus among elites, similar
external situations and domestic politics situations). Intergovernmentalism
does not allow for the idealist aim of transforming the regional system to a
‘better’ order as what qualifies as ‘better’? The logic of diversity denies
the possibility of states agreeing on what is ‘better’.
|
Neo-functionalism provides a good starting point for EU
analysis. Neo-functionalism is an
accessible theory which provides a good starting point for analysis. As a
theory it has the advantages of being able to predict the outcome of
integration and clearly explains which actors must be studied in order to
explain integration. Haas and Lindberg’s “main thesis was that sectorial
integration was inherently expansive - integration of some functional tasks
would tend to spill over into integration of other tasks(…) In the basis of
this analysis, Haas argued that an acceleration of the
integration process could be 'safely predicted' and
that it might lead to a 'political community of Europe' within a decade”.
|
Neo-functionalism is too simple, it does not account
for external forces well, as some states have better defined their
international position more towards US hegemony than towards each other.
“Whereas in economic issues (soft power) the EU has been able to respond to
the US in trade disputes, in political and security affairs (hard power) the
panorama is mostly discouraging”. Intergovernmentalism rejects economic
determinism and therefore rejects Neo-functionalism’s ability to predict.
Neo-functionalism may provide a starting point for analysis but it requires
much more to be able to explain other pressures of integration.
|
Supranational Entrepreneurs played a crucial role in
integration. The role of supranational
entrepreneurs within the development of integration within Europe has been
crucial. Characters such as Jean Monnet envisaged and worked continuously
towards uniting Europe. As the head of France's General Planning Commission,
Monnet was the real author of what has become known as the 1950 Schuman Plan
to create the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), forerunner of the
Common Market. Later a similar role was played by Jacques Delors with the
creation of the Single European Act (SEA) and the all-important 1992 project
that would see the single market and eventually fully Economic and Monetary
Union complete. These characters act in support of integration within Europe
and represent an empirical example of cultivated spill-over. Unmitigated
pressure from Delors in pushing for the single market ensured that it became
a reality in the time it did.
|
The role of elites acting in their national interest
better explains the logic behind integration. Key players such as Charles De
Gaulle and his untiring opposition to British membership and Qualified
Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers and his success in gaining
what he set out to achieve through the Luxembourg compromise demonstrates
that the true power actually lay with him and the state. Another example to
contradicting the role Delors played was that of Margaret Thatcher. Her
relentless demand for a British rebate (1979) and general demeanour in the European
Council demonstrated a powerful state elite getting her way. The single
market came about because Thatcher wanted it more than most and was thus
willing to compromise on certain areas of the Single European Act (i.e. on
QMV in the Council of Ministers). It is because of this that the role of
individual elites is far superior to that of supranational entrepreneurs.
|
Ernst B. Haas was the founder of Neo-functionalism in
1951, Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen identified the 3 types of spill-over within
the theory. However neither author placed a time limit on how long the
integration process would take. The revival of European integration in 1985
shows it may be many years between instances when Neo-functionalism is an
adequate theory for explaining integration. This may be equally coming true
in the financial crisis as the Euro is necessitating further reforms and may
well lead to much greater integration in order to have the tools prevent
members being forced out. The political spill-over concept makes account for
the fact that national elites 'will undergo a learning process, developing
the perception that their interests will be better served by seeking
supranational than national solutions'.
|
The assumption of
the automaticity of Spill-over is wrong. The core of Neo-functionalism that spill-over being the main driving
force behind continuing integration assumed the automaticity of integration.
Once integration has started it will be a self-continuing force that will
eventually integrate the whole of Europe - is clearly wrong. Supranational
functionalism 'assumed first, that national sovereignty, already devalued by
events, could be chewed up leaf by leaf like an artichoke'. The functional
method of spill-over is very limited, its success in the relatively painless
area in which it works relatively well lifts the participants to the level of
issues to which it does not apply well any more. For example no common
defence or foreign policy within the community project has been successful.
This failure in high politics is fundamental, without a coordinated foreign
and security policy the role of the EU in the world is open to question.
Opposition too much further enlargement reduces the role the EU can play
outside the union unless a common foreign policy can be agreed.
|
Intergovernmentalism too has proved 'out of date'. It
fails to pay enough attention to supranational institutions; its focus is too
exclusively on big treaty negotiations and fails to understand to increasing
importance of economic issues. Intergovernmentalism as a theory collapses in
the view of actual integration taking place: the revival of integration from
mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s Intergovernmentalism was supplanted by
'Liberal Intergovernmentalism' from the scholar Andrew Moravcsik in his work
'Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal
Intergovernmentalist Approach' (1993).
|
The Founder of
Neo-functionalism abandoned his own Theory (Haas). The Founder of Neo-functionalist theory Ernst B. Haas
later abandoned his own theory; According to Tranholm-Mikkelsen (1991)- “By
the mid-1970 s, Ernst Haas had effectively abandoned the neo-functionalist
theory by assimilating it within general interdependence theories of
international relations”. The theory proved a success in the economic realm
but a fiasco in high politics; “…at the time of the ‘empty chair’ crisis [see
next point] neo-functionalism was considered too incapable of describing the
process of integration in general because of its extreme Eurocentric nature.
Rosamond states that it is emerged from the process of complex web of actors
pursuing their interests within a pluralist political environment.” Neo-functionalism remained a partial
theory, good at explaining particular parts of integration but required
supplanting by other theories to keep it relevant.
|
The Empty Chair Crisis of 1965 may lead some to presume
that National governments are all powerful, but it may have just been a
‘speed-bump’ on the road of spillover. Ben Rosamond (2005) did a reassessment
of Haas and concluded that he never abandoned Neofunctionalism; he just
changed it and accepted more the view of ‘Complex Interdependence’. The
revival of integration since 1985 including the Treaty of Maastricht 1991 led
to co-decision procedures which are an example of Political spillover as
political decisions and procedure moved to the supranational level.
|
The Empty Chair
Crisis 1965. In 1965 during the Empty Chair
Crisis brought integration came to a halt and shifted the institutional
balance of power away from the commission to the Council of Ministers, it
shows that spillover will not always occur. It was caused by President de
Gaulle of France being in conflict with other member states, specifically
Germany and Italy. France wanted a deal on the Common Agricultural Policy but
was unwilling to agree to further integration through creating majority
voting in the Council of Ministers.
When France took on the Presidency the normal system of mediation was
lost. Bonn and Rome were unwilling to give way. De Gaulle pulled his
ministers out of the Council of Ministers thus reasserting the power of
national governments. This showed that states would not automatically be
prepared to give up their national sovereignty and might of helped lead to
the abandonment of Neo-functionalism in the 1970s.
|
Neo-functionalism has a liberal view of the
international system; whereby agreements can be easily reached.
Actually the European Union has proven the exact
opposite of the statement – “Nations prefer the certainty, or the
self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled
uncertainty of the untested blender” as they give more and more power to the
united institutions of the European Union – the European Commission and the
European Parliament. The most recent treaty, the Lisbon treaty, proves this
as it gives more rights to the EU on account of national power Lisbon’ gives
the European Parliament a much greater say in the EU’s decision-making
process, it reduced national vetos, created a president and a representative
for foreign affairs.
|
The international
system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and
military capabilities. Stanley Hoffman used
a Neo-Realist view of International relations to build the theory of
intergovernmentalism. In a neo-realist understanding the international system
is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military
capabilities is of primary importance. States will not trust each other but
can still reach agreement, but the agreement will be characterised by
bargaining and negotiation (not an automatic process!) ‘Nations prefer the
certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to
the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender’.
|
0 Comments