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.
When it comes to the development of the spillover effects, the
neo-functionalism has been based on the prediction that interaction between sectoral
spillovers would lead to the political spillover resulting in the new methods
of governance. When looking on the development from European Coal and Steel
Community to EU the neo-functionalism have in several ways “predicted” the
integration process. Not only when it
comes to economic governance but also to the geographical aspects. Haas also argued
that cooperation between one group of member states would lead to other states
“joining the club”.[1]
For the neo-functionalism this was confirmed during the beginning of 70’s
when the UK, Denmark and Ireland
became member states of the European Economic Community.
However, during the earlier Cold War period, the neo-functionalism became
questioned during several occasions. One example has manifested in the
political behaviour of the French president Charles de Gaulle, who on two
occasions vetoed UK
application for the membership (1963 and 1967). During 1965 there was a case of
“the empty chair crisis”, with France
not being officially represented in Council’s meetings, marked by de Gaulle’s
intergovernmentalist approach and resistance towards supranationalism.
Basically, France
was absent from the meetings within the Council of Ministers as a protest to
what was perceived as a centralised majority voting system. The “crisis” was solved by the so-called “Luxembourg
compromise” which meant more intergovernmentalist form of governance.
Institutional powers of the Council were increased but with unanimity as basis
for decision-making process. The member states were also given veto rights to be able to veto proposals from the commission. This development also
leads to the idea of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) not being developed as a supranational one and instead being developed into intergovernmental one.
The 70’s marked the end of Europe’s
“Golden Age” period of economic development starting from the middle of the 1950’s.[2]
Namely, during the economic, financial and social developments in the 70’s,
such as the oil crisis in 1973 and Bretton Woods, the financial system was
dismantled, and protectionist measures and temptations became more politically
popular in the community. The period from the middle 1970s until the first
part of 1980s became later famous as the “Euroclesoris”. The community’s
development was often regarded as stagnating but not as disintegrating. Among
the problems for the neo-functionalist theory were the “deadlocks” of the
Council meetings and institutional relations with the UK as well as
that the political development of the community was often based on the
political disagreements.[3]
It was during this period and “spirit of the time” that the
intergovernmentalist theoretical approach started to be developed and gain
popularity.
Stanley Hoffmann, through his intergovernmentalist critique of the
neo-functionalism approach, emphasised the importance of the national
governments and their political roles in shaping the community’s structure,
governance and decision-making process.[4]
One of Hoffman’s arguments was that national governments would always endorse
their interests within the polity. He also argued that the logic of political
diversity limited the spillover effects, implicating that the neo-functionalism
had its limitations. Hoffmann also highlighted the dichotomy between low politics and high politics. In low politics, such as economy, the national
governments were more interested in transferring sovereignty to a supranational
institutional, while in high politics, for an example foreign policy, the
development was the opposite one.
For the neo-functionalism, this became visible when it comes to the
aspects of political behaviour of the governments of the new member states as Ireland, Denmark
and the UK,
as the states were more interested in persevering sovereignty over what they
regarded as “vital” interests. At the same time, during the 70’s, the
neo-functionalism was marked by the formation of the European Council which had
impact of further integration process and of the European Political Cooperation
framework, the predecessor of Common Foreign and Security Policy.[5]
[1] Moga
p.799
[2]
More information and explanation of the
term ”Golden age” can be found in Economic
Growth in Europe Since 1945 by Nicholas Crafts, Gianni Toniolo (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1996)
[3] Moga
p.800
[4] Sandholtz, Wayne & Sweet, Stone Alec. Neofunctionalism and
Supranational Governance
(unabridged version). Downloaded: 2017-02-24.
Publication date: 2012-01-01. Website: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5636&context=fss_papers p.3. Hoffman presented that ”classical
concerns” of European politics such as political worry for sovereignty and
rivalry between the states, even in Western Europe, could be part of European
level governance and decision-making process.
[5] Moga p.800
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar