Study of Todays European Union: Theoretical Perspective - Coursework Example

STUDY OF TODAYS EUROPEAN UNION: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE In order to form a critical perspective of the modern-day European Union, it is important to perform a succinct analysis of the two theories of intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism. The analysis will better be performed by comparing the conventional theoretical approach to the critical theoretical approaches of critical political economy, as well as the concept of governance. A critical analysis of these major theoretical streams has been postulated in the research by several scholars, and corroborating the same with some of recent historical factual information. Furthermore, the research in this paper also takes into account the numerous changes that have taken place in the five decades of European integration. Thus, the methodology adopted by the paper is an assessment of both the development of the European Union as anticipated by the early scholars. In addition, the approach had the analysis of the evolutionary process of the two major theoretical postulations of the post-war period. The two conventional principles are crucial in offering some precise analytical tools that help in explaining the discrepancies in the European Union policy-making across various issue areas, and over time, rather obscure in many perspectives. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that the conventional theories are the best placed to facilitate a succinct study of the European Union as it is today. For several years, the assessment of the European Community was integrated with the study of the European integration process. The assessment focused solely on the debate between the foremost schools of neo-functionalism, inter-governmental and European integration. Moreover, it is of important is that the leading schools of thought has highlighted about integration. The debate drew a set of theories and inferences about the nature of the European Community policy development (Wallace & Pollack 2005, p. 14). According to some leading analysts, the European Union is unarguably the most heavily institutionalized international organization on a global platform. The wallow of supranational and intergovernmental institutions and a rapidly growing body of both primary and secondary legislation has become a global economic and political force (Fligstein, 2008, p. 66). Neo-functionalism In 1943, David Mitrany presented the theory of functionalism in which he underpinned in a way the same echoes of Schuman and Monnet, who were actually the founding fathers of the European Community. Through his advocacy, David Mitrany anticipated a worldwide, instead of a local solution, to what he termed as the major issue of this generation (Moga & Cuza, 2009, p. 797). The problem itself refers to the ways in which the European leaders can weld together the major interest of all people without disrupting the particular ways practiced by each community (Richardson 2001, p. 53). Functionalism is usually considered to depict the theoretical impulse that preceded the process towards European integration (Richardson 2001, p. 31). In fact, the Community model of functional integration built in the 1950s by Monnet and Schuman had proposed that German and French steel and coal production should be placed under one, supra-national authority. The proposed High Authority would have the responsibility of creating a common market for mineral such as steel and coal between the member countries (Richarson, 2006, p. 38). Neo-functionalism with its roots from functionalism was initially elaborated by Ernst Haas in a book titled The Uniting of Europe. By initiating a new vision and dwelling specifically on the integration project in Europe, Haas succeeded in improving the theory of functionalism. He helped in understanding and adapted it to the inherent needs with which the European Community had been confronting for many years. According to Haas, the development of political integration involves actors altering their perception to allegiances and party-political activities to a new power center (Lianos & Leblanc, 2011, p. 4). A center demands or possess jurisdiction over the national states that were already in existence. By solving issues such as the necessity of supranational institutions and by presenting a concrete account of how parts fit it together, neo-functionalism attempted to offer a political theory that dwelled mainly on regional integration. Thus, the European Steel and Coal Community Treaty was signed. The treaty created the five major institutions that formed the foundational framework for the European Community. On a critical theoretical approach, the relationship between state and non-state actors features a mutually dependent and non-hierarchical characteristic. It is worth noting that the major feature that is closely associated with the neo-functionalist model of study is the European integration. This development could be disintegrated into two major components; the functional spillover and the political spillover (Moga & Cuza, 2009, p. 798). The functional spillover comprises the growth of integrative accomplishments from one unit to a different, such as, from mining products to food production (Kostakis, 2012, p. 22). Another example involves the synchronization of economic plan such as transport policy. Moreover, it is a shift from customs union to monetary union (Barbee, 2012, p. 9). The other element, the political spillover, entails the exacerbated politicization of sectoral activity. This may include the coordination of monetary policies that was replaced by a largely centralized system of governance (Daugbjerg, C, 2009, p. 403-405). Furthermore, neo-functionalists anticipated that the process of sectoral integration would turn up to be self-sustaining. Thus, this would lead to the establishment of a new politically aware body with its headquarters in Brussels (Pollack, 2005, p. 360). The course of spillover is greatest discernible in the Merger Treaty that successfully integrated the three Rome Treaties (Wallace & Pollack 2005, p. 14). The Treaties later delivered for a Single Council and a Single Commission of the three European Communities (Chalmers, 2006, p. 15). The snowball effect precipitated by neo-functionalism was not just limited to sectoral or political sectors, but also pointed to a geographical spillover (Aspinwall, M, 2002, p. 105-109). Haas had initially underlined that collaboration between the certain member states had the potential to influence other members and influence them to join the league. Despite the persistent praise for the neo-functionalist principle, recurrent crisis within the European Community’ summit resulted in deadlocks in meeting by the Council of Ministers. Apart from the deadlocks, the discordant relationship between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Community has on many occasions shaken the neo-functionalist arguments (Marks G, 1996, p. 356-361). Inter-governmental analysis In the inter-governmental analysis is a neo-functionalist argument coined by Hoffman. He stressed the need for the national governments to uphold the responsibility of modeling the organization of the European Community (Lianos & Leblanc 2011, p. 800). He underscored the need for the national governments always to endorse their interests on a broader platform. For purposes of demonstrating the limits of the functional method, the scholar argued that it was the diversity logic that prevailed. Furthermore, it also prevented the spillover effects of the neo-functionalist theory (Bartolini, 2005, p. 18-24). The scholar went ahead to demonstrate the dichotomy that exist between low politics. These are the kind of political principles that comprise sectors such as welfare policies, economic policies, and crucial national interests. These pivotal areas, as seen in the current European Union, include security and defense, and foreign policy. Most individual governments are unwilling to share part of their authority with a supranational body (Hix, Noury & Roland, 2006, p. 501-506). Some proofs to this theoretical approach include the difficulties created by the accession of new member states. For example, Ireland, Denmark, and United Kingdom have made it clear that they will fight any attempt to handover their autonomy to the European Community (Wallace & Pollack, 2005, p. 17). It is conceivable that the neo-functionalist principle dominated the earlier days of the integration. However, it shortly became clear that its forecasts were not sufficient to elucidate the movements and recedes of the whole progression of integration (Lianos & Leblanc, 2011, p. 801). Hoffman’s theory came under heavy criticism from neo-functionalist scholars who argued that the European Commission played a pivotal role in the period towards the enactment of the Single European Act. Therefore, the backing of a transnational industry coalition that favored a single market. The dynamic commission have succeeded in inducing member states’ with the idea that market unification was important for all states (Rosamond 2000, p. 64). This contemporary description appears to fit well within the intergovernmentalism framework. The growth of nationalist sentiment eventually ended in a crisis. Furthermore, the emotion precipitated the subsequent re-negotiation of the integration process in favor of adherent states in Luxembourg. These two perspectives correlate well with a state-centric viewpoint. This viewpoint is further improved by the seemingly constrained room for maneuver allowed for the European Commission and the economic protectionist measures taken by member states during the period of recession. From a critical theoretical approach, it is notable that the function of supranational actors in many aspects of European foreign policy is not as pivotal as in other public realms. However, a critical look at the current activity of the European Union reveals that the governance perspective can still be used to describe and evaluate both the processes of decision-making and subsequent implementation of EU foreign policy. As for the CFSP, the bargaining for intergovernmentalism is clearer when one takes into consideration the fact that there exists a greater level of sensitivity among many. Moreover, rally behind foreign policy as a special realm where national concerns dominate European or international interests (Smith, 2000, p. 614). In order to understand this perspective, it is important to critically analyze the first pillar of the European Union, the European Communities pillar. According to the pillar, Brussels reserves the capacity to impose the outright strains on other states in the form of subordinate regulation and treaty articles (Smith, 2000, p. 613). Governance From a critical theoretical approach, it suffices to note that the element of governance was initially introduced in the realm of Public Administration, and hence does not represent the European integration as such. However, concepts such as external governance, network governance, multi-level governance, and the Europeanization process today figure among the major source of theoretical approaches when assessing the process of European integration. From as early as 1990s to date, the governance approach has been adopted to elaborate the process of policy formulation, as well as implementation in the EU. On another perspective, scholars who seek to highlight the obsoleteness of the neo-functionalist approach have advocated that the European Union institutions have an impact that transcends the interstate bargain by refining the interests of member states. It is this impact that enables these institutions to define the paths of political influence. The European countries created an international organization that has independent powers. However, they established an organ that is not entirely out of their control due to its unlimited autonomy (Sandholtz, 1996, p. 408). Firstly, the Commission has absolute powers to enforce the rules of the European Union that can disallow member states from giving subsidies to industrial enterprises. The Commission also has authority to stop the progress of corporate acquisitions that can culminate in reduced competition within the European Union market. On the second part, it is notable that the European Court of Justice performs a critical role in enforcing EU regulations. Therefore, it gives more power to supranational rule-making (Auel, 2005, p. 312). An important concept that is important to evaluate is the issue of Europeanization, which has engrossed transformed consideration from political scholars focusing in the process integration. This process demonstrates in a suggestive manner the inter-linkage between the theories of neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism. Therefore, the process of Europeanization represents an interaction between the European and the national (Börzel, 2005, p. 226-232). This perspective presents the progression of Europeanization as a continuous, cooperative, and equally constitutive model of change. The integration links the national and European levels in one entity (Armstrong & Bulmer, 1998, p. 18-20). The model operates in a reciprocal way. For example, the responses of the member states regarding the process of integration feed back into the European Union policy processes and vice-versa (Cafruny & Lankowski 1997, p. 62-76). Critical Political Economy There is something unusual about heralding political economy approaches in the study of European integration at a period when non-economic factors seem to hold power over popular attention. The European Convention, the European identity, the war on terrorism, and the enlargement are today among the leading issues of public debate in the EU. In the current European Union, it is notable that member states have always protected their national interests and anchored limits on any transfer of sovereignty in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the members have tried to avoid handling any form of supreme authority to any central institution that can consequently weaken or neutralize their individual sovereignty. Instead, the members prefer to cooperate through intergovernmental institutions like the Council of Ministers (Moravcsik, 1991, p. 27). National government are constrained at home by local societal pressure and on an international platform by their strategic environment (Keohane & Hoffman, 1991, p. 78-88). According to Moravcsik, the motivation for member states to incorporate did not mean an attempt to circumvent the forthcoming dispute over geopolitical policies in Europe (Lianos & Leblanc, 2011, p. 802). Additionally, the impetus did not aim at following the American federalist model. Rather, it aimed at coordinating policy responses to increasing opportunities for meaningful economic exchange, especially the growing of capital movements and intra-industry trade (Moravcsik 1998, p. 6). The above theoretical postulation can be argued in the current state centrist perspective as advocated by several scholars with an argument that European Union membership not only preserves, but also strengthens state sovereignty. From this perspective, supranational institutions are only meant to facilitate agreements between member states. This is because the benefits of member states’ officials define policy results, and not individuals of the multinational actors (Keohane & Hoffman, 1991, p. 17-20). One can note how bargaining currently takes place between Directorate Generals or between the commissioners themselves. Inter-institutional collaboration also takes place among the Council, the Commission, and the European Parliament (Page, 1996, p. 9). There emerges unclear information about the principles that have left a mark on the policy process after going through the two major theories of European integration. One obvious thing is how the influence and roles of intergovernmentalism have increased, especially in crucial instances like those that precede vital agreements. On the other hand, neo-functionalism has maintained its relevance in cases that involve more administrative and bureaucratic decisions. In fact, state executives perform a decision role in creating the major legislation and basic treaties that govern the European Union. However, the roles of these executives are less dominant in many areas of day-to-day policy-making (Caparaso, 1998, p. 6-11). From a theoretical perspective, the European Union seems to be an experiment in pooling sovereignty and not in moving the sovereignty from the individual states to the supranational institutions. This assertion appears very eloquent when talking about the relevance of the two principles. In contrast to other international institutions, the European Union in general has earned some shares of the individual states’ sovereignty. On the other perspective, member states no longer enjoys supremacy over all other authorities in the context of their traditional territory as this was lost in favor of institutions affiliated to the European Union. Therefore, these can be regarded as some of the benefits that neo-functionalism has achieved so far (Keohane & Hoffman, 1991, p. 277). It is important to note that the competition among the two principles has been diminished substantially in the last two decades. Therefore, the establishment of institutionalism, multi-level governance, and network analysis has become more apparent in the integration of European countries. The new theories harbor additional explanations that highlight how the process of European integration is continuously shaped. In the end, Moravcsik assertion becomes more edifying in that any common explanation of the interaction cannot anchor on a single theory of either intergovernmentalism or neo-functionalism. Rather, it must stand on a multi-casual platform that instructs a sequence of more scarcely engrossed theories (Moravcsik, 1998, p. 15). This assertion has remained lively and can still be seen in the current status of the European Union. Conclusion From the theoretical postulations presented by the conventional theories and contrasting the same with the view gathered in the critical theoretical approaches, it is plausible that the conventional approaches better define the dynamics of the European Union as it stands today. In order to support the intergovernmentalism viewpoint, it should be noted that state representatives are the sole legally recognized signatories of the numerous European Union treaties. Essentially, treaty creation has become the realm of cooperation amongst the states veto, state leaders, as well as side-payments. This is done to convey the disobedient domestic leaders on panel (Lianos & Leblanc, 2011, p. 803). The point is clearly notable in the current Treaty of the European Union (Kassim, 1994, p. 23-24). The respect for national identity as seen here is very well protected, especially in crucial moments when intergovernmental decisions are made under unanimity. On a greater standpoint, such decisions are relevant for the second and third pillars of the European Union. These are the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Justice and Home Affairs pillar that aims at fostering cooperation (Wiener & Diez 2004, p. 83). The theory of neo-functionalism suggested the establishment of Europe integration, and through its thought of spillover, recommended the establishment of trade and industry determinism. This is comprehensible given that it is not easy to bring together all those economies, policies, and even the people. Nevertheless, the anticipated result remains visible given that the experience of the European Union is mainly seen as not merely an example, but as a realistic model of regional integration. In the last few years, the European Union has been on a pursuit for the increased number of trade agreements that may in turn precipitate the spillover (Olsen, 2002, p. 951-952). Additionally, the recent enlargements of the Union in Eastern Europe, and the current negotiations with Turkey and Croatia have reinvigorated the political and academic interest in the inherent interests of European Economic integration. One of the strengths of this theory is its ability to make a prediction for the result of the integration process and an eventual termination of the process, enabling economic targets to be realized. For instance, larger corporations have been acting on the presumption that the internal market will finally be established. It is clear that the idea of functional spillover has been adopted by several authors who argue that the foreign policy of the EU is inextricably intertwined with other policy domains. In this regard, the integration in contemporary policy fields has called for further integration in the Union’s external policies. For instance, the customs union is now directly linked to development policy and trade policy as entrance to the Union’s market could only be determined on a common platform. Similar connections can be seen between democracy promotion and developmental policy. References Armstrong K., Bulmer, S, 1998. The Governance of the Single European Market. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Aspinwall, M, 2002. Preferring Europe: Ideology and National Preferences on European Integration. European Union Politics, 3(1): 81-112. Auel, K, 2005. Introduction: The Europeanization of Parliamentary Democracy. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11; 303-318. Barbee, I., 2012. The Path to Customs Union: The European Experience and North American Integration. [Online] Available at: https://www.american.edu/sis/usfp/upload/Barbee-Path-to-Customs-Union.pdf [Accessed 09 November 2014]. Bartolini, S, 2005. Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring Between the Nation State and the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press. Börzel, T, 2005. Mind the gap! European Integration between Level and Scope Journal of European Public Policy, 12(2): 217-236. Cafruny, A, & Lankowski, C, 1997. Europe’s ambiguous Unity: Conflict and Consensus in the Post-Maastricht era. Boulder, London: Rienner. Caparaso, J, 1998. Regional Integration Theory: Understanding our past and anticipating our future. Journal of European Public Policy, 5 (1): 1-16. Chalmers, D., 2006. European Union Law: Text and Materials. New York: Cambridge University Press. Daugbjerg, C, 2009. Sequencing in Public Policy: the Evolution of the CAP over a Decade. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3): 395-411. Fligstein, N 2008. Euro-Clash. The EU, European Identity, and the Future of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hix, S., Noury, A. & Roland, G, 2006. Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2): 494-511. Kassim, H, 1994. Policy Networks, Networks and European Policy Making: A Skeptical View. West European Politics, 17 (4): 15-27. Keohane, R., & Hoffman, S, 1991. The New European Community: Decision Making and Institutional change. Boulder: Westview Press. Kostakis, G., 2012. The “Europeanization” of the Western Balkans: Is European Conditionality Fostering Democracy?. [Online] Available at: https://dspace.cuny.edu/bitstream/handle/11049/24133/2012SpSs15.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 09 November 2014]. Lianos, L. & Leblanc, J., 2011. Trust, distrust and economic Integration: setting the stage. [Online] Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/clge/wp-series/ucl_clge_013_11.pdf [Accessed 09 November 2014]. Major, C, 2005. Europeanization and foreign and security policy: undermining or rescuing the nation state? Politics, 25; 12-26. Marks G, 1996. European Integration from the 1980s: State-Centric v. Multi-Level Governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34 (3): 341-78. Moga, T. L. & Cuza, A. l., 2009. The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 1(3), pp. 796-807. Moravcsik, A, 1991. Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community. International Organization, 45: 19-56. Moravcsik, A, 1998. The choice for Europe: Social Purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht: London, UCL Press. Olsen, J, 2002. The Many Faces of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5): 921-952. Page, E. C., 1996. People Who Run Europe. London: Clarendon Press. Pollack, M. A., 2005. Theorizing the European Union: International Organization, Domestic Policy, or Expriment in New Government?. Annual Review of Political Science, 4 March, pp. 357-398. Richardson, J, 2001. EU: Power and Policy Making. London: Routledge Richarson, J. J., 2006. European Union: Power and Policy-making. 3 ed. New York: Routledge. Rosamond, B, 2000. Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Sandholtz W, 1996. Membership Matters: Limits of the Functional Approach to European Institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34 (3): 403-429. Smith, M, 2000. Conforming to Europe: the domestic impact of EU foreign policy cooperation. Journal of European Public Policy, 7 (4): 613-631. Wallace, W, Pollack, M., (2005). Policy-Making in the European Union, 5th edition. Oxford: OUP. Wiener A. & Diez T 2004. European Integration Theory: Oxford, OUP. Read More