Revising neo-functionalism

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.