Integration Theory Flashcards
Grand Theories of European Integration
(neo)functionalism
(liberal) intergovernmentalism
postfunctionalism
Theories on EU decision-making
different variations of new institutionalism:
rational choice institutionalism
sociological institutionalism
integration
overall = increase in cooperation between states, and the establishment of supranational institutions to facilitate this cooperation
what do grand theories do
Propose what defines the general state of EU integration
Explain the big picture: EU integration as a whole
what do grand theories not do
Explain the outcome in specific cases of decision-making
Explain who wins most in a decision-making process
Explain the room for maneuver for specific negotiators
functionalism (mitrany)
normative theory: create specific international organisations for specific functions.
experts should govern
neofunctionalism
cooperation leads to cooperation in another area (spillover)
focus on total set of policies
spillover
cooperation works better when there is also cooperation in another area
Spillover is caused by interests of people, but also because of the specific features of the EU institutions that allow policies to be adopted
so: cooperation triggers more cooperation
spillover; how and why
political systems are fragmented, and many groups try to influence decision-making wherever they can be most successful (interest groups, member states, etc.). Institutions (rules and organisations) enable this process. So, supranational organizations can take a life on their own.
evidence for neofunctionalism
integration mostly goes one way: increase
Total body of EU policy: a lot of small decisions, and no evidence of de-regulation
evidence against neo-functionalism
There are integration hiccups
Brexit
(liberal) intergovernmentalism background
Background: the Luxembourg Compromise (1966), and the failure of neo-functionalism to explain this
classic intergovernmentalism (hoffmann)
States are central actors in international relations, and rationally pursue their own interest
States want to survive, and thus remain sovereign
If they pool sovereignty (= EU), they only do so in areas of ‘low politics’
So, supranational institutions play a marginal role
liberal intergovernmentalism (Moravcsik)
step 1 = national preference formation. national economic groups may in fact push for more integration
step 2 = negotiations. rational behaviour. negotiations dominated by large member states. agreements are made on a lowest common denominator.
step 3 = empowerment of supranational institutions. to ensure that MS keep their promises. will not happen in areas of core state power
implications of liberal intergovernmentalism
member states are the crucial actors to explain integration
Within the EU, the European Council (and Council of Ministers) are most important
mechanism is bargaining, driven by state preferences
focus is on big issues and treaty change
puzzle of 1990s and later
various negative referendum outcomes, increasing politicization of the EU at national level
did not stop integration in the 1990s
but did impact later integration attempts, and member state leaders did in fact prefer more integration
= not explainable by neofunctionalism / liberal intergovernmentalism
postfunctionalism
Rooted in comparative politics, but has become an EU integration theory. Looks at pushes for further integration, but also at constraints. Causal mechanism: level of decision-making and identity politics.
Trying to find out how politically sensitive issues are. If issues are not really sensitive and do not make it to the debates, political leaders can decide whatever they want. If it is a sensitive topic, decisions could cost politicians elections.
sensitivity of issues - national implications & looks at constraints
postfunctionalism steps
step 1 = push for more integration (economies of scale)
step 2 = where does the political debate take place
step 3 = how do attitudes towards European integration shape political conflit
Identity issues may become politicized, and constrain political elites. May even lead to disintegration in extreme cases.
what do new-institutionalism theories do
Explain the outcome in specific cases of decision-making
Explain who wins most in a decision-making process
Explain the room for maneuver for specific negotiators
what do new-institutionalism theories not do
Propose what defines the general state of EU integration
Explain the big picture: EU integration as a whole
rational choice institutionalism
Many actors have different preferences, they try to realize these rationally
Institutions (= rules, organizations) define the possible range of outcomes – and thus constrain actors in what they can achieve (e.g.
voting rules
- actors create institutions
- institutions constrain actors (often unintended)
social constructivism
focus on shared norms betwen actors and culture
Not looking at what actors want to realize, or what the formal rules of the game are, but…
* Looking at how actors feel they should behave
* Logic of appropriateness
