W1: theoretical perspectives on integration PRIO Flashcards
Multiple theories used for analysing the EU:
Theories explaining the integration process (integration theory)
- Neofunctionalism
- Intergovernmentalism
- Postfunctionalism
Theories regarding the political system: how the EU works
- New institutionalism
- Multilevel governance
- Comparative politics
Neofunctionalism
- Key authors: Haas; Lindberg; Schmitter; Niemann
- Context: integration process was going well (1950s- early 1960s)
- Aim: to explain how, after initial steps towards integration, the integration process takes a life of its own and sweeps governments along further than they anticipated going. Integration as a self-perpetuating process.
Four steps which drive integration:
- Recognizing the possibility of mutual economic gains. Governments set up a supranational body which is responsible for administering and implementing their arrangement.
- After the arrangement has been put in place, all parties realize that further economic gains can only be arrived at if adjacent sectors are integrated.
- The creation of a new centre of authority fosters the emergence of new transnational interests that put additional pressure on governments to move towards further integration.
- The increased complexity of several functional arrangements will lead to further institutionalization at the supranational level in order to coordinate policy-making.
- Core claim: European integration is advanced through spillover pressures
Spillovers
European integration is advanced through spillover pressures (neofunctionalism)
- Spillover: the phenomenon where an integrative step in one policy area generates pressures to take further integrative steps in other policy areas so that steadily more competences are shifted towards the EU level
- Functional spillover: if member states integrate one functional sector of their economies, technical pressures prompt integration in related sectors because the integration of one sector only works if functionally related sectors are also integrated. Example: the emergence of Euratom and the EEC.
- Political spillover: deliberate pressure exerted by national interest groups expecting benefits from further integrative steps due to focus switch to European level. Example: activities of the European Round Table of Industrialists, a lobby group of major industrial corporations.
- Cultivated spillover: Commission cultivates contacts between interest groups and bureaucrats in national civil administrations to rally support for further integration and increase pressure on governments.
The Commission can act as a policy entrepreneur: when it successfully influences decisions made by others, by skilfully mobilizing support, building coalitions and proposing solutions in the direction of an outcome close to its own preferences.
Intergovernmentalism
- Main author: Hoffmann
- Context: integration halted (1960s- early 1980s)
Assumptions and criticism on neo-functionalism:
- In areas of ‘low politics’ like economics, nations can share the same interests, and this may lead to collaboration (logic of integration)
- Integration is limited to overlapping national interests and thus will not spread to areas of ’high politics’ such as national security and defence (logic of diversity)
- National governments as uniquely powerful actors in integration process: control pace of integration by protecting national interest
Core claim: governments are ultimate arbiters of key decisions and therefore integration only goes so far as the governments allow it to go
- Member states are fully in charge of cooperative steps they take and collaborate only with a view to their direct self-interest
Postfunctionalism
- Key authors: Marks & Hooghe
- Context: rise of Euroscepticism since the 1990s challenges the optimistic predictions of seamless integration and the decline of the nation-state
- Aim: to highlight the effect of domestic public opinion and party politics on the integration process
Core claims:
- A permissive consensus (generally broad support) among the general public and mainstream political parties facilitated integration in the early decades.
- This has been replaced by a constraining dissensus because of a more critical public opinion and the presence of a stronger Eurosceptic voice among political parties.
- Issues of identity, culture, and national pride play a crucial role in shaping public opinion about European integration.
New institutionalism
- Key authors: Bulmer; Pollack; Hall and Taylor
- Context: re-introduction of institutions into a large body of theories
- Aim: explain how contextual factors like rules, traditions and cultures (i.e., institutions) shape the behaviour of actors involved in EU politics and policy making
Variation
- Rational Choice Institutionalism, Sociological Institutionalism, Historical Institutionalism
- ‘Each seems to be providing a partial account of the forces at work in a given situation or capturing different dimensions of the human action and institutional impact present there’ (Hall and Taylor, 1996)
Rational choice institutionalism
- Focus: the constraints that formal rules impose on self-interested actors
Core assumptions
- Actors are self-interested (they hold a relatively stable set of preferences and behave instrumentally so as to maximise the attainment of these preferences)
- Institutions are formal rules (laws and procedures) that influence the strategic calculation of actors. They structure the behaviour of actors by influencing how decisions are made and what strategies actors can(not) use.
Examples of application
- Creation of EU institutions: EU institutions are created to reduce transaction costs and ensure credible commitments (Tsebelis, Garrertt, Pollack)
Functioning of EU institutions:
- Formal procedures: Unanimous decision-making creates ‘joint decision trap’ (Scharpf, 1988)
- Member state control: MSs deliberately design a wide range of control mechanisms to limit discretion of supranational institutions and to maximize the benefits of delegation
- Autonomy of CJEU and Commission: Supranational agents develop their own distinct preferences, generally for greater integration, and they pursue these preferences as ‘engines of integration’, within the bounds of the discretion allocated to them’ (Pollack, 2003)
Sociological institutionalism
Core assumptions (versus rational choice institutionalism):
- Notion ‘institution’ is broader than formal rules and includes informal norms and conventions
- Institutions not only shape actors’ strategic calculation, but redefine their identities, interests and beliefs
- Actors do not merely attempt to maximise their self-interest but are searching for outcomes that are most legitimate in terms of the institutional values within which they have been socialised.
Examples of application
- Institutional choice: delegation of powers to European parliament to enhance democratic legitimacy of the EU (logic of appropriateness)
- Identity / interest formation: in EU institutions, European Commission DGs
Historical institutionalism
- Focus: how sequences of decisions matter.
- Aim: enhancing the understanding of the origins, evolution, and consequences of humanly created institutions across time and place.
- Critical juncture: a brief period in which agents have a range of institutional options.
- Path dependency: once it has been decided to pursue a certain course of action, it becomes increasingly difficult to radically depart from that course later on.
Large investments
Status quo is seen as ‘the right way’ to do things
Application examples: Unanticipated and unintended outcomes of integration decision
- Member governments cannot simply move back from established policies and decisions (e.g. voting rules in Council)
- Member governments may agree to EU policies that lead to long term loss in return for short term electoral returns
- Member governments’ preferences are likely to change over time, leaving new governments with rules and policies established by previous governments
- EU policies and decisions can become locked-in through support from existing institutions from below, which have a vested interest in continuation of specific EU policies
Multilevel governance
- Key authors: Marks and Hooghe
- Context: emergence of new governance approaches in public policy literature
Core claims:
- EU constitutes a unique political system and should be studied as such.
- National governments act alongside subnational and supranational actors.
- Policy-making is characterised by negotiation and deliberation between these different levels of government: interconnected arena’s
Three key insights:
1. Decision-making authority has been dispersed over several levels of government and is no longer confined to national governments. It also includes subnational levels (regions) and supranational levels (Commission).
- The national level of government depends upon the resources (information, money, expertise) of other levels of government in order to prepare and implement these policies.
- Subnational levels of government are directly involved in making cohesion policies and do not have to rely on the willingness of their national government to press their case in Brussel.
The EU as an unique political actor and is a multilevel governance actor:
1. Initiation. Multi-actor activity: Commission engages with multiple actors
- Decision-making. Legislative powers MS are high, but EP has increased powers and Commission (even in purely intergovernmental areas) and interest groups exert influence
- Implementation. MLG very prominent in day-to-day implementation (Commission interacts with regional governments and interest groups)
- Adjudication. CJEU decisions are taken up by Commission and national courts
Governance:
a mode of governing characterized by collaborative and networked forms of policy-making
Comparative politics
- Context: Against the (MLG) idea that the EU should be studied as a unique case
Core claims:
- Building upon insights from comparative politics allows profitable use of existing methodological and theoretical insights
- Comparing with national political systems leads to a better interpretation and understanding of EU policies.
Diverse field
- Legislative (passing EU legislation), executive (Commission, ECB), judicial politics (CJEU, strategic use of EU law)
- Citizens, political parties, and interest groups (direct/indirect lobbying, strategies)
- Comparative federalism: comparing the EU to federal states (allocation of competences, democratic representation)
Is the EU a federalist state?
Yes to some degree:
- Sovereign states have set up a higher federal level of government to which they have delegated certain policy making tasks
- The autonomy of the member states is constitutionally guaranteed via the explicit enumeration of competences (treaty of Lisbon)
- Judicial system in which federal legislation has priority over lower legislation, and rulings of federal courts take precedent over lower courts
