Debating the neo-functionalist theory. From the period of coal and steel to the Eurozone crisis - Intro

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. 

Is neo-functionalism still relevant for understanding the EU:s development as a process of regional integration and function of a supranational polity? Even Ernst B. Haas, the “father” of the neo-functionalism has, during his research in the 1970’s, raised the question of its relevance.[1]  To understand the theory of neo-functionalism, it is vital to understand the theory of functionalism, which was developed during the 1940s and 1950s. Another vital aspect of
being considered is the relevance of neo-functionalism is the political work of Robert Schuman and Jean-Monnet, often presented in literature as the “founding fathers” of the European Union and of the “functional federalism”.[2]

The functionalist theory was for many years challenging the contemporary and dominating theoretical approach in the field of international relations - realism. The original realist scholars, as Hans Morgenthau were state-centric orientated and emphasised the notions of national interests.[3] They argued that, within the framework of international relations, states were the dominant actors with no-shared values between themselves. Also, they argued, and still do, that a political development outside of the state is equal to anarchy. The “father” of functionalism David Mitrany published his famous work on the theory of functionalism, A Working Peace System. An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization in 1943.[4] Mitrany projected his views as a universal solution for relations between states, something that opposed the ideas of realism. His arguments and findings have some similarities to the later ideas of Monnet and Schuman regarding the development of governance above the state level. The central theme of Mitrany’s work was “cooperation”, and also the formation of international cooperation was emphasising on universal (in modern term global), instead on a regional polity and governance.[5]

The main difference between functionalism and neo-functionalism is, therefore based on the degree and character of the institutional framework. While functionalism has been based on the cooperation between the states, the neo-functionalism turned to be based on the integration of the states into a larger administrative unit. In his book The Uniting of Europe (1958), Haas wrote about his ideas and the differences between the views of Mitrany and Haas can be easily identified already in the title of their publications.[6] While Mitrany was emphasising the cooperation and using the term “international organisation” Haas is emphasising the integration and “uniting” Europe in a political way, by the process of regional integration.[7] Mitrany argued that the design of functionalism was about focusing on promoting economic cooperation based on the premise of mitigating financial conflicts and pursuing shared interests among the states. Mitrany`s writings during and after WWII expressed his views that the political sensitivity of vital issues and continuous continue political integration would inevitably lead to wars. Therefore, the process of cooperation was preferred as the answer. Mitrany also referred to the notion of collaboration and functionalism as the process of “federation in instalments”. Also, there was a fear that attempts to achieve “European unity” would lead to problems of nationalism but on a larger scale.[8]

When it comes to the theories of European or regional integration, the neo-functionalism is the part of “the supranational family”, as opposed to the perceptions and arguments of functionalism that is theoretically closer to the intergovernmentalist views (cooperative). For Haas, regional integration in Europe has been viewed rather as a political process than a technical or functional one. In his book, he defines the process of integration as: “political integration is the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new center, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states”.[9] By such way, the neo-functionalist school also came to challenge the state-centric framework of realism. In their research Shen and Xu argued that the neo-functionalism developed the following directions of a “pluralist” theory, based on the critique of realism:[10]

1) The concept of the “state” is more complex than realists suggested.

2) The activities of interest groups and bureaucratic actors are not confined to the domestic political arena.

3) Non-state actors are important in international politics.

4) European integration is advance through “spillover” pressures

---

[1] Haas, B. Ernst. The Uniting of Europe. (Stanford, Stanford University Press,1958)

[2] Robert Schuman was French minister of Foreign Affairs while Jean-Monnet was a political economist and first president of European Coal and Steel Union High Authority responsible for the common market.

[3] Morgenthau, J. Hans. “The Six Principles of Political Realism”. Publishing date: Unknown. Downloaded: 2017-01-24. Website: http://www.imas.nccu.edu.tw/Syllabus/%E6%98%9F%E6%9C%9F%E5%9B%9B/34-38Six_principles_of_Political_Realism.pdf

[4] Mitrany, David. A Working Peace System. An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization. (Oxford, Oxford University Press,1943)

[5] Moga, Lucian Teodor. ”The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process”. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (2009) Vol 1, No 3. p. 797-798. Download: 2017-02-24. Publication date: Unknown. Website: http://www.japss.org/upload/14._mogaarticle.pdf

[6] Haas, B. Ernst. The Uniting of Europe. 

[7] Here, the meaning of ”region” is based on Europe as a continent.

[8] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe. “Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC”. Millennium - Journal of International Studies 1991 20:1. p.3

[9] Hass p.18

[10] Shen, Shiyong & Xu, Jing. ”IR Theories Debate of European Integration”. Open Journal of Political Science, 2014, 4. p. 217. Downloaded: 2017-02-27. Publication date: 2014-10-16. Website: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2014.44022