lecture 11 - theories and European integration

Question 1

theory - definition

Answer 1

a theory is a simplified device that allows you to decide which factor matter and which not

(you can’t look at all facts -> you need this simplifying model)

Question 2

grand theory vs meso/mid-range theory

Answer 2

• grand theories = general/classic integration theory - try to explain a lot (basically everything)
• meso theories = developing theoretical approaches to explaining particular aspects of functioning of the EU
  they really zoom in

Question 3

why do European states integrate?
- federalism

Answer 3

‘federalist’ used to describe diff things

• Burgess: federalist idea = previously discreet, distinct or independent entities come together to form a new whole, in which they merge part of their autonomy

two understanding

• political science theoretical phenomenon of federalism (normative, empirical etc.)
• federalism as political movement that wanted to create European federation (existed even pre-EU)

federalism as political movement

• 1941 ‘democratic radicalism’ (Spinelli and Rossi): creating special European assembly as heart future European federation
• 1943 Foundation of the European Federalist Movement
• 1946 Foundation of the European Union of Federalists
• Jean Monnet: small steps to create federal EU (rather than revolutionary/quick) = ‘federalism by instalments’ (starting with ECSC)

analytical approach:

• William Riker: two levels of gov.: each at least with one autonomous sphere of decision-making

combines plurality of ideas, preserving them, but at the same time integrating more

Question 4

functionalism

Answer 4

1943 David Mitrany ‘A Working Peace System’

critique of federalism

• utopia
• focus on role of states and intergov. agreements

peace through a network of institutions dealing with non-controversial issues
- creation functional international agencies making national agencies less and less important
(fits with Jean Monnet)

Question 5

Neofunctionalism

Answer 5

first theory of European integration in late 50s by Ernst B. Haas

integration =

• the process whereby national political actors are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new center, whose institutions posess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states
• the end result of the process of political integration is a new political community, superimposed over the pre-existing ones

main concept = spill over

1. functional spillover: integration in one functional area will lead to integration in others
   - e.g. internal market -> social dimension -> single currency -> fiscal harmonization
2. political spillover: national elites become favorably disposed towards integration process and consider common interests -> supranational institutions and non-gov. actors become influential while states become less influential
   - increase role Commission -> increased use of QMV voting in the Council -> role of ECJ and support for integration

main claims

• rational and self-interested actors learn and can change their preferences + elites provide impetus to integrate + loyalties may shift towards Brussels + membership ESCS/EU change the way in which nat. gov. see their interests
• once established, institutions take on ‘a life of their own’ (become actors of their own, strive to survive, gain power)
• ‘supranational’ style of decision-making is a positive-sum game (rather than zero-sum)
• functional interdependencies between economies of MS will foster further integration

Question 6

critique neofunctioanlism

Answer 6

• can’t provide a general theory of European integration, especially not of the origins (general critique)
• spillover is not automatic
• difficulties in explaining a slow-down in integration in 60s and 70s (e.g. foreign policy)
• overly reliant on the role of actors (diplomats) as opposed to structure (institutional structures)
• does not adequately account for the broader international context

but: it has been an ‘evolving theory’ and we have seen recently its revival in EU scholarship`

Question 7

intergovernmentalism

Answer 7

explains integration through the actions and decisions taken by the govs. of the MS
- states are key actors (unlike in the neofunctionalism, where it was elites and NGOs)

intergov. has roots in realism

• Stanley Hoffmann: Obstinate or Obsolete -> logic of diversity rather than logic of integration
• Moravscik: libera intergov. : EU integration as serie rational choices of national leaders (based on eco. interests)

Question 8

liberal intergov.

Answer 8

3 main ideas (see textbook)

• states are rational actors -> achieve their goals through bargaining rather than through a centralized authority making (like in neofunctionalism)
• domestic politics matters, it shapes the state goals
• gov. are key in relations between states and the relative bargaining power pre-determines the outcome of negotiations

national security is not the motivation behind state action

lowest common denominator (the basis in which all interests overlap) is often the outcome of negotiations
- ! is not always the case, e.g. sometimes MS give more than they initially wanted

Question 9

liberal intergov. critique

Answer 9

• choice of ‘‘easy cases”: only look at history making decisions (highest political level) -> where states’ gov play key role
  e.g. also focus on agriculture (was important, so big role state gov. in integration)
• ignoring the informal decision-making (which restricts formal decision-making)
• insufficient attention to the diff ways in which the gov. choose their policy options
• underestimating the powers of European Commission, the ECJ and interest groups

Question 10

the governance turn in 1990s

Answer 10

governance approaches became fashionable

• governance = the capacity to overcome collective action problems in ways that are agreed by the participants in the society

governance approaches are about explaining how the EU works as a political system

Question 11

Multilevel governance

Answer 11

MLG

• sovereignty of individual states is diluted
• the locus of political control has changed

3 main ideas:

1. decision-making competences are shared among actors at diff levels: regional, national and European (not monopolized by the state)
2. there has been a significant loss of control for state executive (e.g. use of QMV, state gov. small role day-to-day decisions, informational assymetrys between MS)
3. the political arenas are interconnected (-> complex decision-making environment)

“instead of being explicitly challenged, states in the European Union are being melded gently into a multi-level polity”

Question 12

feminist critique of integration theories

Answer 12

EU integration process did not take into account sufficiently gender relations
- main POV is male, needs to be corrected

• Annica Kronsell:
• Roberta Guerrina:

gender as main organizing principle of social relations

criticisms:

• liberal intergov. = fails to recognize power relationship between state and nation / gender relations become irrelevant (defines politics as a place (state gov.) where women aren’t), power equals masculine power
• neo-functionalism = pays no attention to dominance of certain interest groups over others
  *good: highlight importance interest groups (imp. mechanism for change acc feminism)
• Multilevel governance = could be more critical in patterns of authority that emerge from multi-level interactions
  *good point: shares similarities with feminist views on power

Question 13

de-centering and post-colonial approaches - critique of integration theories

Answer 13

Mostly applied to foreign policy EU

Eurocentrism is present in how we look at EU place in the world
Postcolonial perspectives have been emitted from initial theorising integration

Table = how to correctly/re-interpret

Decentered = take Europe outside of the center space we usually see it having