The Study of the EC - the Challenge to Comparative Politics by Simon Hix - Article Example

Article review The study of the EC: the challenge to comparative politics by Simon Hix (Institution) (Name) (Course) (Module) (Instructor) 13th March 2010 The article The study of the EC: the challenge to comparative politics by Simon Hix is written on the backdrop on increased political and economic power gained by the European Community over the recent past, more so after the introduction of a common currency, the Euro. He thus seeks to analyze the relationship that governs these individual countries by using comparative politics approaches as opposed the traditional international relations approaches that have been previously used to study the EC. He supports his choice of approach by indicating that the EC has transformed to become more than an international organization comprised of sovereign countries to that of semi-sovereign countries that have an internal political structure worth study. He makes one basic assumption that the EC exists both as a political system and as an international organization depending on the approach of analysis used. Accordingly, he thus makes a very solid thesis statement in attempting to analyze the EC by comparing and contrasting comparative politics and international relations theories to explain the functions and existence of the European Community. Hix adapts a complex theoretical framework model to make his point in this study. He explains that the EC exists as a different entity depending on the approach and perspective used. He says that it may appear as a political outfit using comparative politics approach or it may appear as an international organization when approached from an internal relations perspective. This is very different from past research as he mentions it in that, other authors have relied only on the international relations approach and totally ignoring other perspectives. He thus places his work in a very significant position in terms of adding to the knowledge or study of international politics. He creates a basis through which other organizations such as the African Union maybe addressed. The most important point he raises is the fact that the EC is not restricted to cultural or trade relations among the members such as in multilateral and bilateral relations. He uses previous research by a number of authors to develop a basis on which he develops his argument. He uses past research by March and Olsen, Charlesworth and Almond to argue for his case. However, he ends up using contributions of these authors to develop an improvised categorization that utilizes both methodological and ontological aspects. Other forms of categorization he establishes are based on structure and agents which result into four categories that are applied on the two approaches; comparative politics and international relations in studying the EC. The author adopts a theoretical framework drawing his ideas from existing theories proposed by a number of authors. Nevertheless, he sparingly introduces a conceptual framework by indicating the new developments in the EC that warrant a deeper research and development of theories that explain the higher level integration being witnessed that includes politics which the conventional international relations theories tend to ignore in the context of the EC. Hix assumes that past authors have ignored the development of the EC to more than an ‘international organization.’ He provides no clarification on his perception of the EC as more than just an international organization that warrants another “rigorous investigation” on the organization. Customarily, the author should present the EC as more than an international organization with supporting evidence, for instance he says that the EC was initially formed of sovereign states which he assumes are not as of the time of writing the article. There has been no pronounced political activities and ideologies that have bound the members together. Although Hix fails to justify his claim that the EC is more than just an international organization, empirical evidence in studying the organization shows that a lot more goes on as compared to other organizations. The EC has been the first in developing a solid common market through the adoption of a common currency for instance. Other international organizations such as the Commonwealth have been slow in adopting such significant policies due to a number of factors chief among them protecting their domestic currencies. From his pluralist approach, he argues that the mass sharing of interests by members of different communities among the different nations involved determine the rate of integration into a larger supranational political community. He says that increased communication and interaction between nations permits the transition from a national community to a supranational community. Communication in this contest refers to different levels of interaction such as trade. This theory however adds little explanation on how it plays its role on the international level though it is more valid when applied on a smaller scale. This theory tends to ignore the complications and many opportunities for bad relationship between two or more parties occasioned by higher level interaction. The paper seeks to show that the EC has developed to more than just an international organization which is contradicted by the views that Hix presents in arguing realist approach. From a preference convergence approach, he claims that the current EC policies, either economic or political have not been established by the parties involved out of the sheer need to create a more homogenous body but rather it is an independent convergence of interests by coincidence. He says that various members of the EC have developed policies independently for the benefit of their own governments and by coincidence these policies converge. The policies might have different names and roles though they complement each others efforts in creating a stronger organization. He cites the case of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policies on the need to deregulate the larger European market for the economic gain of Britain alone. This policy according to Hix also coincided with French presidents’ economic policy and that of Germany’s economic policy of which both were meant to strengthen their economies. Therefore, Britain’s suggestion of deregulation of the market received backing from the other two major European powers. Through this, Hix demonstrates that the organization is a product of coincidence and active participation of the member states. Hix uses Marxist ideologies to explain the existence and functioning of the EC as based on class conflict synonymous with capitalism and competition between the nations. Conventional Marxist ideologies argue that competition among individuals and states creates chaos and disorganization. In the contest of the EC, there are numerous players whose economic orientation in one way or another might be similar but still the members have managed to create some order in enabling a mutually beneficial market for their economies a situation the Marxist school of thought would consider impossible. The EC as an ‘arena of competition’ from a Marxist approach would seemingly create lack of cohesion among member nations and competing policies. As earlier observed this is not the case given that Hix also roots for the existence and functioning of the EC as a political and economic outfit supported by coincidence of a number of policies from member countries. Institutional approach as the last form of international relations approaches borrows heavily from functionalism which suggests that each member country in the EC has a definite role towards the EC thereby helping to function well as an individual unit. This theory works best to explain the relationship in the EC based on trade while it ignores political connections. This is an important point in achieving what Hix aimed at in writing the paper to show that international relations theories are inadequate in explaining the function and existence of the EC. Again, this theory assumes that there are no conflicting ideas among the member nations. However, treaties and agreements more pertaining to trade are placed in order to eliminate and limit avenues of conflict among member states. If the same pace is to be maintained, it would be expected that military and security issues may be incorporated in the EC thereby elevating it to a higher level. It is in anticipation of such developments that Hix argues that there is need to more research in developing theories to explain the relationship among the EC members. Federalism is another theory utilized by this institutional approach which scores poorly in explaining international relations. Federalism functions best under comparative politics as Hix admits. However, his use of federalism under international relations assumes that states are loyal to the EC as a way of showing their commitment to national policies which seek to benefit from the larger body. In this respect, taking for instance Germany as a significant player in the EC implies that the country only subscribes to EC policies because they are beneficial to the country but not for the benefit of other members or for strengthening the EC as an international organization. This would imply that the EC only and will only exist as long as members can perceive certain benefits such as a deregulated market. A pluralist approach under the comparative politics paradigm is different from the international relations paradigm though similar in that they both assume that political outcomes in an organization such as the EC emanate from competition in economic and social interests. He asserts that under comparative politics paradigm, the EC has different levels formed by special interest groups that enhance communication between member states as opposed to the international relations case where the pluralist approach assumes the state to function as a unitary entity in communicating with other member states. Though this proposition that Hix uses seems valid, he utilizes poor examples from the functioning of the EC. He says that the EC secretariat organs are ill funded and understaffed to facilitate effective communication by the special interest groups. This is somehow confusing in the sense that the special interest groups would be expected to work towards strengthening the EC but not the EC working towards strengthening its organs in order to boost the activities and communication of such groups. Hix compares the rational approach in comparative paradigm to realist approach under international relations. Realist approach basically assumes that pace of integration depends on perceived benefits of integration by the individual governments thereby leaving non-government actors out of the larger picture. This is different in the rational approach under comparative politics paradigm where the government makes no calculated considerations on the perceived benefits of integration either by the government of by non-government actors. In essence, he implies that under this approach the EC members base their decision on rationality. Hix here fails to make his point more clear in that he should argue that integration is a natural process in man only that in states and government its happens on large scale. Conventional wisdom would suggest that, under normal circumstances, man makes no plans for developing friendship with another man but the communication between the two parties has the potential to create friendship by default. By extension then, communication among EC members is by default and hence the existence and functioning of the EC is not founded on the perceived benefits by the particular governments. However, this would be more feasible under non-government communication such as cultural and social interactions. The sociological approach as contrasted against the structuralism approach seeks to define the EC as more than an international organization. This definition differs with the explanation offered by structuralism which borrows from Marxism and says that the EC exists in two dimensions; groups and grids. He argues that these grids are caused by functional differences while the groups are caused by territorial-cultural differences. Ideally, there is competition for loyalty between EC interests and national interests. For instance, there is need to preserve each country’s sovereignty while there are other forces more so perceived benefits that root for a united Europe. Hix also introduces the issue of social economic differences among members of the EC. He says that some socioeconomic considerations create differences in opinion and contributions towards some agreed EC policies such as market regulation and deregulation. The fact that the European community has surpassed its purpose as a simple international organization requires a definition of the organization as whole. While its functioning cannot be compared to that of the US, it offers a valid example on how integration of sovereign states can be carried out in the modern times of post industrialization era. This analysis recognizes that the organization was established through a treaty binding member countries to a number of policies mostly on trade. However, with time, the organization has transformed to be a political outfit that serves different purposes and poses new challenges to the individual states. In this respect, the international relations theories are not obsolete in discussing the EC only that there is need for advancing the present theory to cater for increased roles played by the EC. At the moment structuralism suggests that the EC is an integration of European countries in an attempt to adapt to changing global economic, cultural and social issues. However, there has been little consideration of cultural interaction with more emphasis being placed on economic issues. International relations theories in their entirety ignore the politics element in analyzing the relationship that bond the EC. References Hix, S. The study of the EC: the challenge to comparative politics Mattli, & Slaughter. Law and politics in the European Union. International Organization. 49. 1995.183-190 Read More