VIDEO
An Imperfect Union: Understanding European Integration
Theories of integration
Three main theories have been presented to explain the process of integration.
- Functionalism
Functionalism is a theory in international relations formulated by David Mitrany (1888–1975) in the 1930s and 1940s.66
Functionalists believe that the state, as a form of social organisation, is obsolete and that world problems can only be solved through global integration entailing collective governance, that is, a world-government, and “material interdependence” between states. Such integration is difficult to achieve because it erodes a state’s sovereignty. However, states are willing to work together on relatively small “functional” issues and integrate in limited functional, technical, and/or economic areas. Once they do this, they not only learn how to co-operate but most importantly realize the benefits flowing from integration. This is likely to result in integration achieved in one narrow area spilling over into broader areas with a view to achieving global peace and prosperity.
2. Neofunctionalism
Neofunctionalists focus on regional integration and not on global integration. According to neofunctionalists states begin by co-operating in limited functional or economic areas, but integration in one economic sector or area creates pressure for further economic integration within and beyond that sector/area. Neofunctionalists consider that there are two kinds of “spillover”:
-Functional, which concerns integration in a specific economic sector or specific issue-area which it is hoped will spill over into other areas; and
-Political, which leads to the creation of a supranational structure, that is, a federation of states.
Jean Monnet hoped that by integrating a sector vital to national interests, that is, coal and steel, which after World War II were the means of production of armaments, the “spillover” effect would be set in motion. Once the participating states realised the benefits of having the coal and steel sectors integrated, they would want to extend integration to other areas, with the final result being the establishment of a federal system. This was one of the reasons why the United Kingdom (which did not wish to become part of a federation) was not initially interested in participating in the ECSC.
3. Multilevel governance (MLG)
Without going into a debate on neofunctionalism, it is important to note that economic integration does not necessarily lead to political integration, as the latter obviously requires political will. However, while neofuntionalism may be useful in explaining the process of integration in the first 30 years of existence of the Communities, it fails to take account of the peculiarities of European integration since the late 1980s. Since then the creation of the EU by the Treaty of Maastricht has placed the ideological debate on a different plane as the EU is now perceived as a system of multilevel or network governance.67 This theory, or as some call it, “an organizing metaphor”68 emphasizes special features of the EU in that the EU is multidimensional, the degree of integration varies depending on the policy area and the governance of the EU is composed of multiple coexisting policy models. According to this theory the decision-making process is taken “across multiple territorial levels” and thus instead of focusing on “integration” one should focus on how various authorities, i.e. national, European, regional and local, private and public, participate in the decision-making process in the EU. According to this theory authority has gradually moved from national governments and has been dispersed among various private and public agents.
However, there is fluidity between various levels of authority in that the authority may move between different levels and varies depending upon the policy area. Marks defined the MLG of the EU as “a set of overreaching, multi-level policy networks [where] . . . the structure of political control is variable, not constant across policy space”.69 This theory is rather confusing but as Rosamond stated it “gives us a chance of being confused in a reasonably sophisticated way”.70
66. D. Anderson, “David Mitrany (1888–1975): An Appreciation of His Life and Work”, (1998) 24 RIS, p 579.
67. M. Jachtenfuchs, “Theoretical Perspective on European Governance,” (1995) 1 ELJ, p 115, and “The Governance Approach to European Integration,” (2001) JCMS p 245.
68. B. Rosamond, “New Theories of European Integration”, in M. Cini, N. Pérez-Solórzano Borragán (eds), European Union Politics, 3rd edition, 2010, Oxford: OUP, p 117.
69. Ibid, 116.
70. Ibid, 121.
