Theories Of European Integration Flashcards
Short revision: some basic concepts
Theory: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions. Theories explain something (explanandum, dependent variable) with something (explanans, independent variable) and need to be falsifiable
Explanandum: dependent variable: what you want to explain, what you measure in the experiment and what is affected during the experiment. The dependent variable responds to the independent variable. It is called dependent because it depends on the independent variable. Example: why is there smoke?
Explanans (independent variable): what you use in order to explain the Explanandum. The variable you have control over, what you can choose and manipulate. It is usually what you think will affect the dependent variable.
Exam. Because there is fire!
Falsifiable: the possibility that a theory can be contradicted by an observation.
All swans are white (universal quantifier)
There is at least one black swan (existential quantifier)
Verifiable: the possibility to proof that a theory is true by observation
All swans are white…
EU widening
1973: Denmark, Ireland, UK
1981: Greece
1986: Portugal, Spain
1995: Austria, Sweden, Finland
2004: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus
2007: Bulgaria, Romania
2013: Croatia
Remember: theories contain general scientific statements about reality
Easy:
Descriptions of social, economic, poetical structures, processes and content
If-then-statements (correlation)
Explications (causality)
Projections and forecasts
value judgements
Advice, instructions, directives
Conceptual prerequisites: 5 concepts needed
- statehood: a system, composed of three elements; territory, people, sovereign authority
- Sovereignty: the highest power within a territory (Jean Bodin): internal and external sovereignty
- Federalism: multi level governance: state competences on several levels , no level with competence-competence
- intergovernmentalism: states decide together, but they stay sovereign, they are forced to cavort decisions (unanimity, imperative mandate, national government )
- Supranationalism: states delegate power to a multi national body (transfer if sovereignty, majority votings, supranational institutions)
The Explanandum of integration
Theories: European integration
A process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over pre-existing national states. The end result of a process of political integration is a new political community, superimposed over the pre-existing ones.
Dimensions of political integration
Object Policy areas (sectoral integration)
Distribution of competences between EU and state level (vertical integration)
Territory ( horizontal integration)
Process of integration: extension: additional policy areas
Deepening: supra nationalization, majority voting instead of unanimity
Enlargement or widening: additional territory
About what does EU integration theory tell us something?
International organizations:
EU integration theory tells us something about the way IO’s May be organized and about the way IO’s May function
Regional integration
EU integration theory tells us something about he difficulties and upsides of the way how states in a region integrate
Policy-making
EU integration theory tells us something about the dynamics of policy-making in a multi-level political system
EU as an institution Sui generis
EU integration theory tells us something about the EU
European integration is not treated as an instance of anything other than itself, EU therefore cannot be a testing site for broader generalizations EU as an historically - rooted phenomenon
Three phases in integration theory
Diez/ wiener 2004
Explanation integration: 1960s- 1970s : how can integration outcomes be explained? Why does European integration take place?
Analyzing governance: 1980s what kind of political system is the EU? How can the political processes within the EU be described? How does the EU’s regulatory policy work?
Constructing the EU: 1990s onwards: how and with which social and political consequences does integration develop? How are integration and governance conceptualized? How should they be?
8middle range theories of European integration
Federalism
EU integration is explained by the interest of formerly sovereign states to promote peace and security through uniting into one federation
States/ elites build federal structures to promote peace
One time constitutional leap
Political strategy: institutions first (function follows form)
Clear normative goal: federal state via association (eg USA) to replace system if competing nation states
Theoretical proposition shared by many political actors engaged in the early process of European integration
Guiding principle: study of federal systems (with their mixture of unity and diversity) helps designing an adequate European polity
Focus on constitution and state symbols
No level with competence-competence
Functionalism
Peace through worldwide cooperation among states
Integration starts with (expert) institutions fulfilling (“agencies”) specific functions (low politics instead if high politics)
Form follows function
Classical theory of regional integration that holds that a common need for technocratic management of economic and social policy leads to the formation Of international agencies. Such agencies promote economic welfare, this eventually gaining legitimacy, overcoming ideological opposition to strong international institutions, and in the long run evolving into a sort of international government, though perhaps not a true state.
Belongs to the liberal-idealistic tradition of international relations theory (Kant, saint-Pierre, Rousseau, Wilson)
Main figure: David Mitrany (1888 - 1975) a working peace system (1944)
Criticism to functionalism: technocratic, naive, poor record or prediction, lack of scientific rigor
Neo-functionalism
Regional approach instead of global approach
Start with functional areas (low politics) and continue to political areas (high politics)
Deepening economic integration will create the need for further European institutionalization. Political integration and supranational institutionalization are therefore side-effects of economic integration
Functional spill over: integration in one sector produces pressure integration in other sectors
Political spill over: national elites get socialized supra nationally, increasing role of supranational institutions
Challenge to traditional IR theory: re-placement of power politics of states by supranational consensus politics, eg. In Ernst Haas: the Uniting of Europe (1968) and in the so-called “community method” (Jean Monnet)
Criticism to neo-functionalism: implausible because of continuing relevance of states, Ernst haas (1970s) : neo- functionalism Should rather be seen as a pre-theory, relying on a teleological assumption of progress
Intergovernmentalism
European integration explained by member state’s government’s interest in creating intergovernmental agencies helping them to promote their national internet in specific areas
Key actors in European integration: national governments
Liberal intergovernmentalism: liberal interest formation, rational state behavior, relative bargaining power
Important authors: Kenneth waltz, Andrew moravcsik, john mearsheimer, Stanley Hoffmann
Basic assumption: anarchy can produce order, but cooperation between states is always limited. Rational states seek to maximize the possibilities for their survival. Most powerful states dominate system.
Gained ground during the intergovernmentalist backlash (empty chair policy): originated in realist IR theory
Spillovers take place only in. Areas if low politics
Critiques: does not explain waves of integration; false assumptions (instrumental rationality of states, anarchy as main structural feature)
Constructivism
Building blocks if international reality are ideational as well as material (norms and values should not be overseen!)
IR theory, interest in European integration has only started recently
Important authors: John Ruggie, Thomas Risse, Thomas Diez, Alexander Wendt
Typical research questions in Europe- related constructivism: consequences of social interaction of states on the international systems (Alexander Wendt)
Consequences of national norms on international politics (eg Peter katzenstein)
Impact of European norms on changes in domestic politics (eg Thomas Risse - concept of europeanization )
Relevance of images of governance (eg cooperation of states, federal state, economic community, network) on political actors in Europe (eg Thomas Diez)
Multi-level- governance
The point of departure: existence of overlapping competences among multiple levels of governments and the interaction of political actors across those levels
Member states executives are only one set of actors in the European polity
Instead of two-level-games assumptions, MLG theorists posit a set of overarching, multi-level policy networks.
Structure of political control is variable, not constant, across policy areas
Governance: governing with or without government
Approach by Jeremy Richardson: different theoretical tools for analyzing different stages of the policy process in Europe:
Agenda setting: epistemic communities
Policy formulation: network analysis
Decision-making: institutional analysis
Implementation: behavioral analysis
New institutionalism
Institutionalist approaches are built around the claim that institutions matter
They matter particularly because of the ways in which institutional configurations have an impact upon political outcomes
Four types of new institutionalism
Historical: path dependency, critical juncture, structural inertia
Rational choice: institutions constrain choices of actors (bounded rationality )
Sociological: similar to constructivist approaches
evolutionary: institutions as sets of rules and corresponding actions (institutional form and practices form, institutional mutations, variance-inheritance-retention-scheme
