You are on page 1of 23

Theories of European

Integration
Bergmann and Niemann (2015)

Objectives
To provide a comprehensive review of the application
of EIT to the domain of EFP
To determine the ways in which integration theories
have been applied to EFP
To argue the added value of taking EIT perspective on
EFP

Theoretical approach to EFP


Federalism

Neofunctionalism
Intergovernmentalism
The governance approach
Policy network analysis

FEDERALISM
Ultimate result of the European project:
A federal state of European federation as a sovereign state
in which central government incorporates regional units in its
decision-making procedure

FEDERALISM
BUT method differs among federalist scholars
CLASSICAL FEDERALISTS
Rapid constitutional approach integration as a
dramatic act of constitutional revolution, initiated by
political elites and decided through formal rules

FEDERALISM
BUT method differs among federalist scholars
Spinelli&Rossi (in Ventotene Manifesto):
integration should be cultivated as a popular movement
Monnet:
Incremental/functional federalism integration as a
gradual process (vs. radical) of forging functional links
between states in areas where national sovereignty was
not challenged

Claims of EFP scholars working in the


federalist tradition
EUs common foreign, security and defence policy constitutes
a fundamental goal for the federalist project
Failure of EDC
EPC via CFSP => CSDF ======= Federal Europe

The challenge is maintaining unity and diversity in both EU


policies and institutions; EU institutions to counterbalance
diversity
EU as a federal state in the making (Kampfer 2010)

Criticism

Excessive focus on the end product of integration without


sufficiently expanding on the means

NEOFUNCTIONALISM
1) integration processes evolve over time and
take on their own dynamics

2) characterized by multiple, diverse and


changing actors
3) decisions are taken by rational actors that are
capable of learning from cooperative dm and of
changing their preferences
4) incremental dm is given primacy over grand
designs (marginal adjustments are unintended
consequences of previous decisions)

NEOFUNCTIONALISM
Notion of change = spillover
Functional spillover

Integrative steps are taken to achieve the original goal


Political spillover

National elites shift expectations, political activities (and even


loyalties) to the new European centre
governmental elites and socialization processes
Cultivated spillover
supranational institutions become an agent of integration

Neofunctionalist tradition in EFP


Schmitter (1969): participants in the integration compelled to
adopt common policies vis--vis non-participant third parties
to increase the bargaining power of the Community
Externalization hypothesis

Niemann (2006): Exogenous spillover

Neofunctionalist tradition in EFP


Functional linkages between
Development policy and democracy promotion

Technology and environment and their foreign security policy


dimension

Neofunctionalism most frequently applied to pre-accession,


enlargement and neighborhood policy

INTERGOVERNMENTALISM
The development of European integration is determined by
states interest and the outcomes of EU bargaining

Moravcsik:
Governments only transfer sovereignty to institutions where
potential joint gains are large, but efforts to secure compliance
by other governments through decentralized means are likely to
be ineffective
Further integration is possible when the member states see their
interest best served by such undertaking

Intergovernmentalism in EFP
CLASSICAL INTERGOVERNMENTALISM
Skeptical about FP and security integration because of high politics
(national sovereignty at issue); convergence of interest in unlikely
Grosspolitik

Cold War Europe = states pursued different foreign policy interests


De Gaulle: challenge US hegemony;
others: afraid of losing US protective power

After the lift of the Iron Curtain = security and defence policy somewhat
converged

Intergovernmentalism in EFP
LIBERAL INTERGOVERNMENTALISM
Sector-specific welfare interests of dominant interests groups determine
member-governments utility function in terms of
cooperation/integration
Koenig-Archibugi (2004): member-governments cooperate in common
foreign policy because a realization of their preferences at EU level
provides them with support vis--vis national opposition and societal
groups

THE GOVERNANCE APPROACH


Analyze and explain the process of policy formation and
implementation in the EU

Multi-level governance (Marks et. al.),


external governance (Lavenex&Mschimmelfennig),
network governance (Kohler-Koch&Eising)
Europeanization (Tonra)

Share two common features

THE GOVERNANCE APPROACH


1) analytical focus: investigating the impact of the EUs
political system on the decision-making and policy-making
processes on the European and domestic levels.
*In classical; integration theory, governance is the dependent
variable, here, it is otherwise

2) agency-oriented perspective
*shifts away from state-centric view of European and international
politics; relationship of state and non-state actors are mutual, not
hierarchical

Governance approach in EFP


SECURITY GOVERNANCE
Heterarchy

Cooperation patterns within the


CSDP characterized by

interaction of multiple
actors

a modest level of heterarchy,

formal and informal


institutionalization

close interaction between


European and domestic politics

existence of collectively
held norms and ideas that
structure the relationships
between actors , and

Influence of interest groups and


think-tanks are marginal
compared to Brussels-based state
actors

collective purpose

POLICY NETWORK ANALYSIS


Shares GAs assumptions about the non-hierarchical and
polycentric nature of EUs political system
Network = non-hierarchical formation of actors which serves as a
platform for the exchange of information and decision-making in a
particular policy area
Claim: policy-making outcomes cannot be fully explained by
referring to the constellation of states preferences, but by pointing
to the internal structure of those policy networks

PNA in EFP
Decision within networks is determined by the ability of utility-maximizing
actors to change the preferences of their counterparts
All stages of policy cycle in the CFSP (agenda-setting => decision-making
=> implementation) experts from a wide range of institutions shaped the
decision-making (Winn&Lord 2001)

Conclusion
Intergovernmentalism has been the most dominant in EFP from the
1960s/70s until mid/late 90s but was taken over by governance approach
and institutionalist theories
Reason?

Added value of EIT to EFP:

1) provide substantial insights in explaining the evolution of


European foreign policy cooperation over time

Conclusion
2) Contribute to our understanding of what actors drive
integration processes in the foreign policy domain and through
what channels and mechanisms they do so
3) TEI has the potential to explain European foreign policy nondecisions and inactions
sovereignty consciousness
domestic constraints
Can explain status-quo or disintegrative outcomes

Recommendation
EIT could be more explicitly drawn to explaining policy developments in EFP
fields such as
Development policy
External economic policy
Migration or security policy