In this series of texts, I am writing about my research regarding the contemporary debate when it comes to the neo-functionalist regional integration theory
Already from the beginning, within the framework of functional
federalism, an idea that later could be labelled as “constitutional design”,
existed.[1]
Haas viewed the “Monnet method” as technocratic and functionalist being “rooted
in preferences and hardnosed self-interest among policy actors in Europe ”.[2]
For Haas, who developed his works in the middle of
1950’s, the argumentation has been based on the idea that when economic cooperation reaches a certain level it will transform into the process of
political integration in order to solve
political and economic issues caused by the economic integration. [3]
The early
neo-functionalism was based on perspectives of the importance of political
support for the economy, including setting the aims and objectives, the scope
of operations, the definition of functions and the establishment of power structures,
the consensus in the decision-making process and also relevant institutions and
processes for the external relations.[4]
In addition, there is a similarity to the
presentation of Monnet’s “functional” or “gradual” federalism.[5]
The view of functional federalism involves the idea of “Europe ”
or “community” that, over the course of time, becomes more politically
integrated and unified. The notion of functional federalism also stresses its
relevance when it comes to governance, policymaking and decision-making
process. Since the polity that is governed is regarded as ”a transnational
society”, it also includes the argument that the polity needs governance where
the authority of decision-making is performed by a supranational institution.[6]
This is opposite to intergovernmentalist views which present the EU as a kind
of political experiment of sharing and pooling sovereignty, and without
institutional transferring from states into a single supranational polity. As
Moga points out, both neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism are the
macro-level theories of international relations, designed to describe, clarify
and predict the European integration process.[7]
For the neo-functionalism the process of further and closer integration
is theoretically based on different “spillover effects”, meaning that
integration in one political sector such as economy, leads to integration in
other sectors as well. The original neo-functionalist view was based on and
explained by the institutional development of European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC) and establishment of the following institutions:[8]
- Special Council of Ministers (predecessor of the
Council of Ministers)
- High
Authority (prototype of the European Commission)
- Common
Assembly (78 members, later developed into the European Parliament)
- Consultative
Committee (corporatist, later became the Economic and Social Committee)
- Court
of Justice for settlement of disputes. (later European Court of Justice,
nowadays the Court of Justice of European Union)
Over the course of time, the performance of these institutions produced
spillovers, according to neo-functionalist and functional federalist views.
There are three main different types of spillovers:
1. Sectoral (or
functional), meaning the spillover process from one policy sector to another,
such as from agricultural policy to harmonization of transport policy or from
customs union to monetary union.
2. Political
spillover, meaning an increased level or process of “politicization” of the
sector itself, such as for example transformation from coordination of monetary
policies to a central authority as European Central Bank.
3. Geographical,
which has not always been recognized in research as one of the main types. Geographical
spillover consists of the enlargement process of a regional polity as the EU is
getting more integrated and enlarged by the new states.
[1]
Rosamond, Ben. Theories of European
Integration. (New York , St.
Martin ’s Press, 2000) p.50-51
[2] Ibid
[3] Moga p. 797-798.
[4] Chen, J. Robin, Chin, M. Joseph
& Tang, Chih-Min. “Globalization, Regional Organizations, and the Facets of
Higher Education: Taiwan
[5] Moga. p.797-798.
[6] Ibid
p.798.
[7] Ibid
p.797
[8]
Ibid p.798
