The European Political Process and Its Theorization - Term Paper Example

 The European Political Process and Its Theorization Introduction The European Union is a political and economic partnership involving 28 European countries. The states cover much of the Europe continent. The member states created the European Union after the devastating effects of the Second World War with a view to foster economic cooperation (Bache, George & Bulmer 2011, p. 92). The belief relied on the idea that countries that trade together develop strong economic interdependency thus exhibiting less possibility of conflicts. The process began with the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958. Member countries initially formed EEC to increase the economic cooperation between six European countries namely Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands. The outcome was the creation of a vast single market among countries that has continued to develop towards its full potential (Wallace, Pollack & Young 2010, p. 47). The European Union began as a purely economic union that later grew into an organization with policies from development aid to environment. The change in name from EEC to European Union in 1993 reflects development in the union. Member countries accredited restoration of peace, stability and prosperity and raised living standards in the individual countries to the European Union (Hix & Follesdal, 2006, p. 74). The European Union developed a single currency and an internal market, abolished borders thereby making traveling to and working in the Europe easier. Theorizing European Union integration process has proved an indescribable task. Member states have made approaches giving rise to a number of explanations and each bearing different assumptions and emphases. The task of explaining the integration process remains important because, first, the European community is important as the most prominent example of European integration (Bache, George & Bulmer 2011, p. 65). Secondly, the existence of the European community raises debatable questions of a universal nature. Theorists have set forth two main theories to explain the integration of the European Union into its current state. The approaches include the neo-functionalism and the intergovernmentalism theories. These ideas have stirred heated debates among scholars and stakeholders who have tried to explain which theory best explain the integration of the European Union (Hix & Follesdal 2006, p. 545). This paper will compare the two theoretical approaches describing the process of the European integration and declare the most appropriate theory that can be used to study the European integration process. The paper begins by introducing the European Union. The second part provides an overview of the neo-functionalism theory while the third part provides the intergovernmentalism theory. The fourth section will compare the two theories’ explanation of the integration process against each other. The last section provides the conclusion regarding the comparison. Neo-functionalism theory The neo-functionalism theory, developed in 1950s, is the first established theory of the European integration. The theory is a development of Ernst B. Haas and Leon Lindbergh both of who are renowned American political scientists. The idea aimed at integrating individual sectors with a view to achieving spill-over effects while giving up on national sovereignty. The spill-over concept refers to the condition where the government’s initial decision to place certain sectors under the authority of the central institutions creates pressures to extend the power of the institutions to neighboring areas of policy. These areas may include currency exchange rates, wages, and taxation. The core claim of the neo-functionalism theory meant that the European integration is self-sufficient. The spill-over effects triggered the economic and political dynamics and consequently driving further cooperation. Haas pioneered the approach with the primary assumption that the role of nation-states would decrease. He did not consider the country as a single unified actor in the international positions (Bache, George & Bulmer 2011, p. 54). The activities of interest groups and bureaucratic players are not limited to the domestic political status of the member states. Has argued that states with familiar ideas and objectives but from different geographical locations would get together at a supranational level. He refers to the condition as transnationalism. Theorist Haas later declared the neo-functionalism theory obsolete in the 1960s after the European integration process began stalling. During this period, Charles de Gaulle’s ‘empty chair’ politics paralyzed the institutions of European Coal and Steel Community, European Atomic Community, and the European Economic Community. The theory proposed that integration within one sector will eventually spill over to other areas while attaining its momentum. Intergovernmentalism theory Stanley Hoffman developed intergovernmentalism theory in 1960s. The theory suggests that the national government controlled the speed and level of the European integration and declares member states as the core players in the European Union. The theory sets the government with the strong and autonomous position to bargain intensively in order to get their interests catered for in the European policies (Wallace, Pollack & Young 2010, p. 63). The theory set limits to the degree through which the spill-over effects of the neo-functionalism approach. It proposes the logic of diversity which implies that losses are not compensated by gains from other matters on vital issues. Stanley Hoffman argued that any increase in power at the supranational level resulted from a direct decision by the governments. Hoffman believed that integration driven by the national government was based on domestic political and economic issues of the time. The theory discards the concept of the spill-over effects of the neo-functionalism approach and also the idea that supranational organizations are equally placed in terms of political influence as national governments. One major criticism of the intergovernmentalism theory questions the assumption that different countries have fixed preferences on the shape and nature of the European Union. The criticism further questions the assumption that the division of roles between the European Union member states balance. The critics argue that the preferences can change as the states’ position in the world ranking is dynamic and varies due to constant global changes. As such, citizens will only require the further integration process if it benefits them and reject it if it aggravates their current living conditions. Comparison of Neo-Functionalism and Intergovernmentalism Theories The intergovernmentalism theory describes the European Union as a political organization composed of nation-states with a common interest in appreciating their economic interdependence. In contrast, the neo-functionalism theory describes integration as a particular result of development that pushes nations to cooperate with international institutions while at the same time imposing more functions on the individual states. The intergovernmentalism approach views the government as the principal player in streamlining the integration process. The central difference separating the two theories is the role of the nation. The intergovernmentalism theory views the nation-states as much stronger and hence forms leading roles in the European Union integration process (Pollack 2001, p. 240). The member states strive to bring their national interests to the supranational European level. The neo-functionalism theory conversely sees the role and influence of the member states as decreasing as the integration level increases. The states, therefore, are not the key players on the international level. The states give up more sovereignty over time by not following their national interest. The states cooperate among themselves to enhance the common interests for regional assimilation (Bache, George & Bulmer 2011, p. 56). The neo-functionalism theory, however, faces a number of cynical criticisms first because the pioneer Haas later abandoned his theory. The spill-over theory set forth by the theorist Haas as the fundamental driver of integration suffers criticism from the logic of diversity. The spill-over theory is flawed as it assumes that integration in low politics sectors such as economic sectors will soon lead to integration in the higher politic sectors (Franklin & Jeremy 2005, p. 231). Logically, issues of higher politics involve only the national government thus integration becomes possible only if they account for issues of national interests. Neo-functionalists believe that areas of high politics can be incorporated in the integration process. On the contrary, the intergovernmentalists believe that the fate of the member states is subject to the decisions of other member states in the union. The spill-over concept assumes the integration process as automatic, which is not always the case (Pollack 2001, p. 233). It assumes that once the integration process starts it will be self-sufficient, and no external forces are required to keep it forward moving. The neo-functionalism theory, therefore, is a slow process that requires longer periods to qualify as an explanation for the integration process. The neo-functionalism proposed a requirement for building a Community Europe through the process of the spill-over concept. However, the intergovermentalists questions the necessity of this new entity. The belief that the spill-over will in the end lead to a completely integrated Europe does not prove to be true as the European Union integration continually becomes a long and complicated process (Franklin & Jeremy 2005, p. 239). Because is not easy to integrate together all the different policies, economies and people support the point further. However, eventually this would be the result as is already currently visible. The theory’s primary strength is ability to explain the eventual result of the integration process and to allow for the achievement and realization of both political and economic objectives. Intergovernmentalists believe that the national government must take conscious decisive actions to drive the economic development of a particular state (Franklin 2005, p. 241). The intergovernmentalists, however, do not rule out the effect of extensive cooperation in the economic development. They believe that such cooperation have the ability to benefit all the stakeholders if it corresponds to and enhances mutual interests. In this respect, politics will always drive integration while the motive may be economic aimed at solving a crisis or making a profit (Schimmelfenning & Ritteberger 2005, p. 88). The key decision of the core players, in this case, would exclusively be political. The neo-functionalism is an example of a liberal theory of integration focusing mainly on the human welfare requirements and not political conflict and law. The theory’s focus is on the individual’s aggregate interests forming interest groups as the main actors in the integration process (Franklin 2005, p. 227). He focus is, therefore, on low politics. The areas of integration in the European Union are a reflection of the assumption. The result is a much more progress in the economic development than in the creation of a common currency and security policy (Schimmelfenning & Ritteberger 2005, p. 89). Conversely, intergovernmentalism assumes the member states as the core actors in the economic development. Upon logical reasoning, it is difficult to deny this claim since evidently, nation-states govern most economic boundaries and policies. Intergovernmentalists believe that the logic of diversity prevails in the high politics areas such as security and at the same time denying the logic of integration in low politics. Integration in low politics asserts that integration is automatically possible when interests coincide (Moravcsik 2002, p. 622). Intergovernmentalism rejects the idealist objective of transforming the regional systems into better orders. The theory claims that what qualifies to better is subject to individual’s opinions. The logic of diversity which the intergovernmentalism theory relies on what the different states would agree to as better. The neo-functionalists claim that their theory is the best as a starting point in the analysis of the European Union integration process. The theory has its advantages in predicting the outcomes of the integration process while neglecting the external forces that define the individual member states’ positions in the international ranking ( Hix& Hyland 2011, p. 560). The theory thus becomes too simple for use as a tool for analyzing EU integration. Haas and Lindberg’s primary thesis was that the integration per sector was inherently extensive as integration in other areas would eventually spill-over. The theory suffers criticism since it requires more explanations to take advantage of the external pressures of integration. However, the approach may provide a starting point for analyzing integration process. Lastly, the supranational entrepreneur’s role in the assimilation process is crucial. Major role players such as Jean Monnet worked continuously towards uniting Europe. Monnet authored the Schuman plan to create the European coal and steel community (ECSC) while serving as the chief of France’s General Planning Commission (Mazey & Richardson 2005, p. 257). Later on, Jacques declares created the Single European Act (SEA) of 1992. He then pioneered a project that saw the single market and the economic and monetary union complete. The two characters show an empirical example of the spill-over concept as seen by the neo-functionalists. The characters act in support of integration within Europe. The intergovernmentalists conversely believe that the elites acted in their national interests. Margaret Thatcher contradicted the role played by Delors in integration when she relentlessly demanded the British rebate (1979). A later general demeanor in the European Council demonstrated Thatcher’s rise to power. She brought about the single market while compromising on certain areas of the Single European Act. Thatcher’s role further explains why the role of individual elites is more superior to the supranational entrepreneurs in realizing the EU integration (Mazey & Richardson 2005, p. 263). The intergovernmentalism theory, just like the neo-functionalism theory proves out of date as it focuses mainly on the big treaty negotiations while assuming the role of the supranational institutions. Intergovernmentalism theory fails to view the actual integration taking place during its revival from mid-1980s onwards (Hix & Hyland 2011, p. 560). Neo-functionalism remains a partial theory in explaining particular parts of the integration but further requires support from other theories to keep it relevant. The empty chair crisis of the 1965 may be a speed bump in the spill-over theory. However many will presume that national governments are all powerful. Later studies reveal that Haas never abandoned his theory but modified it to accept the view of complex interdependence (Moravcsik 2002, p. 610). Conclusion The intergovenmentalism approach proves to be the most relevant theory in analyzing the process of European integration. The neo-functionalism theory is subject to criticism from many angles as compared to the intergovernmentalism theory. The latter theory takes into account the external factors that promote or inhibit the integration process while the former does not. The neo-functionalism approach has many assumptions while simplifying the integration process to as dependent primarily on the spill-over effects. The intergovernmentalism theory derives its explanations from logic and does not contain as many assumptions as the neo-functionalism theory. Furthermore, the neo-functionalism pioneer later rejected his theory claiming it is obsolete. Bibliography Bache, I, George, S, and Bulmer, S. (2011), Politics in the European Union, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chapters 1-4 Franklin, M, and Jeremy R, (2005), European Elections and the European Voter, 3RD ed, Routledge, London, pp. 227-246. Franklin, M. (2005), European Union, 3rd ed, Routledge, London, Pp.227-246. Hix, S, and Follesdal, A, (2006), Why there is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik, Journal of Common Market Studies, Oxford. 44: 3, 533-62 Hix, S, and Hyland, B, (2011), The Political System of the European Union, 3rd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Chapter 1 Mazey S, and Richardson, J, (2005), Interest Groups and EU Policy-Making: Organisational Logic and Venue Shopping, in Jeremy Richardson, ed, Routledge, European Union, London. pp.247-268 Moravcsik, A, (2002), 'In Defence of the 'Democratic Deficit': Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union', Journal of Common Market Studies, London. 40: 4, pp. 603-24 Pollack, M, (2001), International Relations Theory and European Integration, Journal of Common Market Studies, London. 39:2, pp. 221-44 Schimmelfenning, F, and Ritteberger, B, (2005), Integration Theories of European Integration: Assumptions and Hypothesis, in Jeremy Richardson, 3rd Ed. Routledge, London, pp.73-96 Wallace, H, Pollack, M, and Young, A, (2010), Policy-Making in the European Union, 6th Ed , Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 45-68 Read More