Integration Theory and Policy Development in the EU - Case Study Example

INTEGRATION THEORY AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN THE EU The study of integration theory forms the basis for understanding various policy developments in the European Union. Theories such as functionalism, neo-functionalism, and intergovernmentalism all contain internal processes of governmental and organizational integration focused on implementing policies. The EU’s policy in the protection of the ozone layer, illustrates the levels of integration required to fulfil its obligation to ensure that the guidelines laid out by the policy are met by all member states. This paper seeks to explain the role of integration theory in EU policy development. The EU ozone policy grew from scientific research conducted on the ozone layer in the 70’s which showed that industrial pollutants including those produced by certain home appliances and household sprays were having great and far reaching effects on the ozone layer surrounding the Earth. To minimize potential hazards and set international standards, the EU together with its executive body the European Commission partook in the framing of multilateral environmental agreements. Since the EU was the biggest exporter of CFC’s due to surplus production1, its involvement in developing an ozone policy was crucial. However the EU is dependent on the effectiveness of the EC and the subsequent participation of the member states into agreeing with the policy. In implementing this EU policy, the two grand theories of integration, neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism, work in different ways. One of the earliest policies that illustrated the theory of neo-functionalism was the Common Agricultural Policy in the 1960s (Lindberg 1963). A neo-functionalistic approach uses the technical and scientific knowledge of ozone depletion data and the substances causing the effect, to allow technocrats in the EC to draw out schemes that curtail or eliminate the use of ozone depletions substances (ODS). Integration using the neo-functionalistic method permits a sharing of scientific knowledge among similar sectors in the various member states, enabling manufacturing and technical companies in those states to implement a common strategy. The consequence of this is a unified body of technical know how in the whole region of the EU fostering further technical collaboration. Integration also causes a natural spill over of knowledge and activities into other associated sectors (EPSnet). A functional-spill over occurs when certain processes are functionally connected to each other due to the intermeshing of the economy (Lindberg and Scheingold 1970: 117). The common goal of eliminating ODS needs no mandate and thus the populace of the EU is left out. The formation and implementation of an agreement relating to regional issues compels the various states to adopt the common policy (Schmitter 1969). A few public interest and environmental groups may be involved in the process and together a common strategy may be formulated but by and large the institutions of the EU are on their own in the decision making process. The problem that may arise is when a state is slow to implement the policy thus stalling the integration process. On the other hand, an intergovernmental approach would elevate discretionary powers of the EU member states rather than the supranational institutions. Since the states themselves remain the principal arbiters of integration, they possess decision making powers as to whether or not the EU ozone policy should be implemented locally. Here too more powers rest with the national executives of the states and their advisory boards. Their decision to accept or reject the EU ozone policy can override the power of the supranational institutions of the EU such as the European Commission. The consequence is that unequal implementation in the entire EU with some states applying the ozone policy while others rejecting it or delaying its implementation. With the intergovernmental approach the main issue of ozone depletion is never truly addressed by common consensus. Various internal pressures such as more focus on social and political issues may compel a state to reject the policy which may involve considerable financial and technical assistance. Since sharing of technical know how is low on the priority list in intergovernmentalism, corporations in different states must use their own scientific and technical pool of experts in order to devise strategies. Ozone policies have been introduced since the 1980’s and various treaties have been responsible in contributing to the gradual phase out of ODS. This process has been encouraged by EU integration without which, a lack of understanding of the importance of the ozone issue would be widespread and very little effort would have been initiated to solve the environmental problem. The EU’s ozone policy has been largely successful. The EU and the member states have reached their targets over a short period of time. The policy was effective in securing the swift phasing out of the Ozone Depleting Substances, due to the enforcement of an EU regulation rather than a directive, enabling the enactment of the policy. This regulation had the full force of EU law behind it. All member states including the corporations that produced ODS in large quantities were simultaneously required to execute a ban. Many of the theories of integration stress on the representation of states rather than representation of their population. In so far as implementing the ozone policy is concerned, the EU has been able to address the larger problem of ODS, without having to consider the consensus of the people. Nye (1971) affirmed that external factors can play an important part in the integration process. Ozone policies and other environmental polices are less concerned with national interests and are proposed with a wider public interest. Much of EU policy implementation occurs with very low levels of consensus politics. The integrative process influences the states to act on common areas of interests and compels them to integrate a universal policy. The different models of integration view the EU as a neighbourhood of territorial communities who aim to resolve concerns consensually to avoid disintegration. In some ways the EU exhibits federalism but its main goal is to maintain stability in areas of tension. The pluralistic composition of the EU revolves around mutual governance and maintenance of close bonds between the various states. When these states agree on common grounds they accept the plurality of co-operative arrangements. Integration insists on the merging of different individual political entities to meet common goals, without having to loose the sovereignty or surrender to a central power (Chryssochoou 1995, p.287). The EU Social Policy and the European Employment Strategy faced hurdles in the integration process in the mid 90’s with high unemployment rates in Europe. With the need to restructure the welfare system and generate more employment, policy makers focused on increasing the number of eligible workers in employment rather than keeping unemployment rates low. Neo-liberals sought to remedy the situation by limiting social protection programs but this was undesirable to many governments who wished to conserve their social model. Since this problem was widespread throughout Europe, a European level solution sought to use the centrality of the Union to reproduce the national social models and elevate them to the EU level. Resistance came from the member states who were reluctant to yield their social policy competence. The EU faced opposition by the states who feared their encroachment into all areas. Integration was difficult in these countries which held deeply rooted social policies and national institutions. The EU could not implement uniform policies for all the states. Social policy was one of the areas where member states were able to assert themselves and not submit to the supranational entity of the EU. These states are concerned with preserving their sovereignty and view the supranational institutions as only serving or furthering the state’s purposes. Any policy which does not conform to their own social model faces rejection. Consequently social reforms on an EU level are difficult to achieve. Since employment policies are constantly evolving in any state, neofunctionalism which focuses on regional integration fails when there is little collaboration by member states. The development of the European Employment Strategy (EES) in the late 90’s saw the introduction of a ‘soft law’ which linked EU policy to those of the member states. The key factors of the ESS, is its iterative nature and multi-level procedures. Focus on the supply side strategy on changing structural hurdles to employment, is one of the key strategies of the ESS. One aspect of this law is member states do not face sanctions should they decide to refrain from applying the law’s guidelines immediately. Some member states are likely to submit to the EU policies over time. Also the iterative nature of the soft law allows close monitoring on an annual basis until desired goals are reached. The iterative multi-level, multi-actor process uses multiple levels of government and involves many actors both in the social and public spheres. These levels of government are required to co-operate and produce plans of action with the participation of partners. The overall aim is to reform European welfare states2. With respect to EES, the theory of neo-functionalism seems to work less well with social policies since state interests in protecting their social structures supersede EU or supranational policies that aim to help them. Intergovernmentalism appears to fair better as some aspects of the theory fall in line with EES. A preference to the upholding of state sovereignty and state institutions are a dominant factor. Supranational actors such as the EC find themselves less able to make head way in social policy restructuring among the states. More emphasis is placed on state politics and independence. Moravcsik (1993) stated that only good institutions can create believable commitments. This has not been entirely true with the EU. Although a good institution, their commitment towards social equalization and improvement in all member states has fallen short of expected goals. The European political order features disagreements, insufficient resources among other things. Functionalism reasons that a political system such as the EU works if communication with interaction and cooperative efforts are focused on solving problems with regards to decision making effectiveness. Essentially the EU is organised for deliberation (Lord 2003: p.22, 23). The EU has no structural hierarchy and is unified without a separation of powers. The entire system relies on the credo that deliberation is essential for the transfer of ideas, and acceptance or dismissal of the same. In theory the ‘soft law’ opens the doors for discourse and debate. When the neo-functionalistic or intergovernmental approach is unworkable or minimal as in the case of the EES, a flexible form of governance where states are open to welcome, limit or reject EU policies often appears to be the only way towards integration. Neo-functionalism seems to work less well in the area of social policy, where states are resistant to changes in their social structure. The open methods of co-ordination (OMC) will continue to be used for social policy restructuring. European integration theory has largely ignored the link between political order and discourse. Intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism are inclined to position structures of governance as a hierarchy of power beginning with a supranational entity on one end, to intergovernmental disorder at the other. There appears to be little attention given to placing the cross border dialogue at the heart of the political structure. Moravcsik (1993:480) views the EC, where theories such as liberal intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism appear to function, as an international administration where policy co-ordination and institutional expansion emerge from the study of state preferences and intergovernmental relations. Haas (1958) viewed integration as a collective and automatic process. Moravcsik (1991) sees integration as a convergence of state interests but EU integration also introduces distributive concerns, reshapes social disparities within states and affects a state’s political agendas. Another consequence is that integration determines which nations gain better access to European decision making in addition to influencing the nature of entry or the baring of potential nations in the waiting list. With regards to security, integration gives rise to a border between the economically wealthier states and those regions that are deprived or unstable outside it. Most integration theories tackle the positives of the integrative process and ignore the occasions when integration fails or stagnates. Intergovernmentalism for example does not explain day to day policy making or the dealings between institutions. Neofunctionalism has been criticized as overlooking the difference between high and low politics and also rejecting the idea that economic benefits can be achieved without the placement of a supranational organization. Conclusion The study of integration theory informs us as to which theory is at work in the integration process. Different policies have different methods of implementation. Much of this has to do with the policy in question, whether it affects states directly or covers a universal problem. In the implementation of the EU’s ozone policy, neo-functionalism has been a factor where all member states have agreed to implement the recommendations laid out by the policy. On the other hand, the EU Social Policy and the European Employment Strategy, forced new shift in governance with traditional methods such as issuing regulation side stepped in favour of directives which are more open and adaptable. The focus is on participation rather than regulation. Various social, political and economic forces may compel integration to move forwards and help the development of new institutions or alter present ones. References EPSnet. Neofunctionalism: EU as an International actor. Retrieved on 21st Oct 2006 from the ESPnet website Haas, E.B. (1958), The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces 1950-1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lindberg, L.N. (1963), The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lindberg, L.N. and Scheingold, S.A. (1970), Europes Would-Be Polity: Patterns of Change in the European Community. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Lord, C. (2003) Legitimising a Contested Polity. The Case of the EU. Moravcsik, A. (1991), Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community, International Organization 45, pp. 651-688. Moravcsik, A. (1993), Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach, Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 31, No. 4 (December), 473-524. Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Nye, J.S., Jr. (1968), Comparative Regional Integration: Concepts and Measurement, International Organization, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 855-80. Oberthur S. (1998) Production and Consumption of Ozone-Depleting Substances 1986- 1996. The Data Reporting System under the Montreal Protocol (Eschborn: GTZ) Schmitter, P. (1969), Three Neofunctional Hypotheses About International Integration, International Organization 23 (Winter), pp. 161-166. Read More