Gal Hazor 1

Theories of European Integration Final Assignment

1. Culture is a policy field not often debated within the European Union, at least not as often as
other areas having to do more directly with economic or security concerns. Integration in this
field has been codified in a later stage of the development of the European Community, and
was not initially seen as one of the primary goals of a unity between European countries.
However, since the late 1980's, cultural policy has been gradually incorporated into the whole
of the integration process and given its fair share of importance, mostly in the eyes of the EU
institutions themselves but also from the points of view of other actors. The European
Commission, for instance, highlights the relevance of a common cultural policy, and
audiovisual policy in particular, in an official publication claiming culture to be "a strategic
factor of political, social and economic importance contributing to external policy objectives"
(EC 2014: 4). Cultural and audiovisual policy is perceived as another strand of the common
European market, but is also given a specific place in the integration project since "[c]ulture
shapes our identities, aspirations [] the places and landscapes where we live and the
lifestyles we lead" (EC 3). Culture is thus a unique, although not quite central, policy field of
the EU, which I would like to analyze. I would review the policy using the constructivist and
neo-functionalist theories of integration.
The close and rather inevitable link between culture and identity, which the European
Commission acknowledges in its publication, makes cultural policy suitable for a
constructivist analysis. Thomas Risse (2009) suggests that the basic ontology of
constructivism stresses the submergence of human agents in "their social environment and its
collectively shared systems of meanings ('culture' in a broad sense)" (160). This broad sense
of culture shapes the identities individuals in a given society, which in turn change that very
society through everyday practices (Risse 161). In the specific case of European integration,
Risse claims that the EU itself is part of the identity or "social furniture" of its Member States,
which are defined in part by their membership (163-164). The part of EU membership in the
identity of Member States implies a certain tension between their national and supranational
identities, a tension evident in the case of cultural policy.
Cultural diversity is one of the main goals of the shared cultural policy, as explained
by the Commission; indeed, the working title for the publication is Celebrating Europe's
Cultural Diversity. Yet the Commission itself admits that the multicultural landscape of the
region of the EU poses a certain problem, mainly of an economic nature: "[L]inguistic and
cultural differences lead to market fragmentation" (3). This disadvantage of diversity is also
mentioned by Gillian Doyle (2012), specifically in relation to the audiovisual part of the EU

Gal Hazor 1
cultural policy. Doyle gives cultural and linguistic variations across Europe as one reason for
the relative failure of the audiovisual industry to capitalize upon the economies of scale
created by the single market, along with multiple options for media distribution and
consumption brought about by new technologies (16). Furthermore, she describes the
somewhat conflicting aims of cultural policy, which wishes to protect and promote
culturally diverse products and indigenous production on the one hand, and
commercial viability of the European audiovisual industry as a competitor against the US on
the other hand (Doyle 19).
This conflict is accompanied by debates regarding the roles of the EU and the
individual Member States in shaping and implementing cultural policy measures, a debate
which exacerbates as digital media and new modes of consumption gain further prevalence
(Doyle 18). This also relates to the constructivist view of the EU, which tends to focus "on the
ongoing struggles, contestations, and discourses on how 'to build Europe' over the years"
(Risse 162). These struggles characterize the evolution of the EU cultural policy, and are
defined by a continuous discourse between different actors. The discussions held between the
main players in this field follow the logic of arguing, central to the constructivist approach.
Within this logic, the main goal of the parties "is not to attain one's fixed preferences, but to
seek a reasoned consensus" (Risse 165).
This type of logic may be exemplified by the account Doyle gives of the issue of state
aid for public service broadcasters (PSBs). Commercial broadcasters claimed in the 1990's
that PSBs are granted state aid, in breach of EU competition law, which led to a debate
resulting in the exclusion of PSBs from normal state aid legislation in the Treaty of
Amsterdam. The advent of new platforms, mainly the internet, gave rise to concerns that
PSBs use their funds to develop digital services, not included in the exemption given to them.
The Commission replied by revising the legislation and subjecting each new digital service by
a PSB to a test for positive public values and impact on the market, and this step generally
soothed criticisms of the exemption given to PSBs (Doyle 19-20). It can be seen that both the
Commission and the media suppliers were willing to reach a compromise. The Commission in
particular, despite its interest in diverse cultural production which is embodied to a certain
extent in national public broadcasters, was "open to be persuaded by the better argument"
(Risse 164) and thus revise its position as reflected by relevant legislation.
If identity is to be taken as a focal point of EU cultural policy, the main actors include
first and foremost the Commission, which is responsible for the development of the policy.
Private players such as media broadcasters and producers are also important given the media's
role "in supplying the ideas that shape our viewpoints, our cultures and how we vote" (Doyle

Gal Hazor 1
20). Finally, Member States can be seen to have a central place in the implementation of
cultural policy. In fact, the Commission acknowledges its own role as complementary to
national cultural and audiovisual issues (EC 3). In relation to the Audiovisual Media Services
Directive, the Members have a large amount of discretion regarding video-on-demand
services, where the latter must comply solely with the laws of their countries of origin.
Neo-functionalism may serve to highlight other, though not entirely disparate, aspects
of EU cultural policy and its development. Neo-functionalism is concerned mainly with
economic interests, at least as incentives for further integration. Carsten Strby Jensen (2013)
introduces the predicted course of European integration according to neo-functionalists.
Along this course, economic integration leads to political integration, shaped in part by
supranational institutions and benefiting all States involved (62). The economic incentive for
a common cultural policy is emphasized by the Commission in its publication. Although
fragmented and multilingual, the cultural sector is said to be "more resilient than other sectors
in times of economic downturn" (EC 3), which makes investment in this realm more rational.
The role of supranational institutions and organizations is evident in the central role of
the Commission, but also in the formation of interest groups. These hold discussions with the
Commission on a regular basis, and are also gathered in supranational structures such as
Europa Nostra dedicated to preserving cultural heritage (EC 4). The prevalence of nongovernmental organizations fits the neo-functionalist view that "[a]s economic and political
integration [] develops, interest groups will try to match this development by reorganizing
at the supranational level" (Jensen 65). This gives way to a form of political spillover, in
which national interest groups of the Member States "focus more on European than on
national solutions and tend to shift their loyalty toward the supranational level", alongside
cultivated spillover on the part of the Commission (Jensen 63).
Spillover in this case is less from culture to other policy areas than it is toward cultural
policy integration. Doyle mentions that the conflicting political and economic aims of the
cultural policy reflect, to a certain extent, the motivations behind European integration as a
whole (16). It also follows the logic of competition policy, and for instance "liberalization is
seen as the best means to foster growth, employment and commercial success in the European
audiovisual industry" (Doyle 18). However, it is a highly supervised policy field, mainly in
order to regulate European production quotas but also to prevent monopolies in the media
sector (Doyle, ibid.). The threat of established companies misusing their dominant market
positions is evident in the cultural and audiovisual realms as much as in any other, and this
prompted the European Parliament several times to call on the Commission to fight emerging
monopolies (Doyle 20). The Parliament is, along with the Commission, an important example

Gal Hazor 1
of a supranational institution influencing European integration; its composition on a political
rather than national basis renders it a "natural ally" for the Commission (Jensen 62). In the
case of media monopolies, the Parliament's address to the Commission exemplifies its
preference for supranational solutions. Yet the Parliament's stance is opposed to the will of
cultural producers and suppliers for more liberalization, as well as the fact that media
pluralism is to be dealt with on a national level (Doyle 21). Thus, the potential role of the
Parliament in shaping EU cultural policy is not yet fulfilled to its fullest.

2. Neither constructivism nor neo-functionalism can completely explain the nature and
evolution of EU cultural policy. Nor is it expected of them to do so. Jensen remarks that
proponents of neo-functionalism today do not view it as a "grand theory" for European
integration in its entirety, but rather as a "wide-ranging, but partial, theory" that can
appropriated by the researcher (68). Similarly, Risse notes that although constructivist
analysis might be useful in examining integration, "to expect a full-fledged constructivist
theory of regional integration is probably not on the cards" (174). Both theories are partially
helpful for analysis of the cultural policy, yet in my opinion constructivism is more efficient
for this matter. This is first because of the emphasis this theory puts on notions of culture and
identity, obviously relevant to this policy field. It also allows for a consideration of the role of
Member States, which neo-functionalism usually does not. These two points are related, since
as I have mentioned earlier, one conflict in the heart of cultural policy is between national and
supranational identity. Today, when cultural consumption is much less confined by borders
not to mention composed of mostly US products this notion of national identity might seem
rather obsolete. Yet, given the central role of Member States in legislation and enforcement of
their own cultural policy steps, as well as those dictated at an EU level, the impact of national
entities cannot be underestimated
3. I believe that in the case of EU cultural policy, constructivism and neo-functionalism are
not contradictory but rather complementary theories. The cultural and political incentives for
developing this policy are perhaps the major factors influencing its evolution, yet they are
indelibly linked with economic motives. These causes for integration are highlighted,
respectively, by constructivism and neo-functionalism, and they all have a role in shaping the
course of integration in the field of cultural policy. There is also some level of overlap
between the two approaches, especially related to the central role of the Commission in

Gal Hazor 1
setting the EU cultural agenda. Regarding the other players, the two theories offer different
perspective, with neo-functionalism noting the influence of supranational institutions and
interest groups, and constructivism acknowledging the importance of Member States. In my
opinion, the two enrich each other and assist the process of making sense out of EU cultural
policy. Furthermore, a viewpoint combining these approaches might be useful for future
assessments of European culture, particularly in the realm of media and audiovisual
industries. The role of the public would probably increase in this field, either through content
selection or participation in production; this role is only in recent years being realized by the
other main players, the Commission in particular. It is likely that audiences are and will be
influenced by socio-political as well as economic motives, expressed respectively in
constructivism and neo-functionalism.

Bibliography
Doyle, Gillian. "Audiovisual Economics: Audiovisual Markets in the European Union".
Quaderns del CAC 15.38 (2012): 15-23.
European Commission. Culture and Audiovisual: Celebrating Europe's Cultural
Diversity. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014.
Jensen, Carsten Strby. "Neo-functionalism". European Union Politics. Ed. Michelle Cini
and Nieves Prez-Solrzano Borragn. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford U P, 2013. 59-70.
Risse, Thomas. "Social Constructivism and European Integration". European Integration
Theory. Ed. Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford U P, 2009.
159-176.

Gal Hazor
201026457
14.6.2015