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 during the 1970’s
discussions were being made about revising neo-functionalism. The first
approach was made by Philippe Schmitter who was Haas student, in his article ”A Revised Theory of Regional Integration”. Schmitter acknowledged that there
was a “successful failure” with the theory due to easy misunderstandings and
inadequacy.
One of the central points of
(self)criticism was that little attention was
paid to specifying relations between “variables” of the process resulting in
different integration outcomes. Since a variable can have various values and be
defined in such a way that as Schmitter wrote one can tell by means of observations which value it has in a
particular occurrence. The recognition was that the theory needed to be
revised in order to provide understanding that the spillover and integration
process could have different results, outcomes or effects.
The revision of theory was based on including variables and hypothesis
about relationships between the variables. This was based on the argument that
despite variables inside of the regional integration context with different
levels of probability, the variables could have different outcomes in different
functional contexts of the integration process.
Among them was the aspect of “spill-back” and that the “consequences” of
decision-making process would influence on formation of position and interests
of national governments within the regional integration polity.
The focus or revision was to observe and understand the behaviour of
political actors (member states) within the context of regional integration
starting from decisions and strategies towards common objectives and resulting
into consequences and results influencing on the new decisions and strategies
of the actors.
Furthermore, Schmitter proposed a new model for predicting the outcomes
of integration process by concluding that there were seven possible
alternatives having the “zone of indifference” as status quo of the process and
the starting point of variables: retrenching, buildup, spillover, spill-around,
spill-back, muddle-about and to encapsulate.
The given actors were able to
act with different strategic options.
(1) Spillover was about increasing the scope and level of institutional
commitment.
(2) Spill-around was to only about increasing the scope while holding
the level of commitment more constant or in the zone of indifference.
(3) Buildup was about
increasing the decisional authority or capacity of institution but preventing
or denying its influence and powers in new issue areas.
(4) To retrench was to
increase the level of joint deliberation and also at the same time to withdraw
one or several institutions from certain areas.
(5) To muddle-about was
letting the regional level bureaucrats to debate and make proposals on
different issues but at the same time to decrease their capacities on
projecting values.
And (6) spillback was to
“retreat” on both dimensions and resulting into a status-quo situation while
(7) to encapsulate was a response to a
crisis situation by modifications seen as marginal within the zone of
indifference.
The revision also included aspects as the macro hypothesis such as
“externalization hypothesis”. It was recognized that the changes in national
structures and values become at least partially predictable as consequences of
regional decisions. Also, the global dependence of the member states and the
region itself as a whole could continue to be determined for a longer time
based on external factors.
Therefore, the integrating units were to find themselves increasingly
compelled regardless of original intentions, they had to adopt common policies
towards one or several third parties. It was about creating a sense of common
awareness, identity and positions towards actors and developments perceived as
external.
During the 1970´s some of the earliest steps towards formation later
EU:s foreign policy was being taken. Here, the new model proposed by Schmitter
was also about recognising the role of regional bureaucrats in their interests
and actions to shape regional identity, including on basis towards “outsiders”.
In 2003, more than 30 years
later, similar arguments were provided by Schmitter in the book European Integration Theory. Here it was once more emphasised that
(neo)-neo-functionalism had its focus that regional integration is primary
non-state actors from both top-down and bottom-up approach as “regional bureaucrats.”
or business actors. Another emphasis was that neo-functionalism has from
beginning been a reflexive theory, something that was different when comparing
to functionalism.
