Abandoning neo-functionalism

In this series of texts, I am writing about my research regarding the contemporary debate when it comes to the neo-functionalism regional integration theory


Abandoning neo-functionalism?

The “abandonment” of neo-functionalist theory by beginning of 1980’s, decreased support and impact of the theory was reflecting the writings of Haas’s in the Obsolescence of Regional IntegrationTheory from 1975.[1] One of his comments was that regional integration theories are obsolete in Western Europe. Sandholtz and Sweet argue that a statement as this one do not really express the entire idea of Haas, as he offered the evidence that the scope of the community’s competences to govern had increased since community’s formation.[2]Haas stated that the overall level of political integration was unchanged by the development based on increased integration in some areas while declining in the others and made recommendations for the new scientific efforts to be directed toward devising new theories for new problems. In Haas latest research the “new development” has been presented by the following two aspects: the intensifying global interdependence (a process that later would be called globalization)and the rise of the post-industrial problems in the wealthier countries, such as computerization and service sector development(a process that later would be called the information society).[3]

The actions of Haas were also reflecting arguments from another group of theorists active during the 1970’s that were called the “interdependency theorists”.[4] The critique of neo-functionalism was based on the argument about teleological (linear) development of regional integration and Europe. While sharing certain elements with neo-functionalism such as arguments regarding the interdependency between the member states of EEC there was a difference regarding global development. Interdependence theorists argued that interdependency was a global phenomenon and therefore not able to be limited to regional boundaries. Also, interdependency was interpreted as a condition and not as a process, meaning that no predictions about integration or cooperation could be made.[5]The global perspective was therefore about integration the regional integration theory into a general international relations theory.[6]In Haas reasoning the notion of global interdependency and post-industrialism have been mostly viewed as a huge change for regional integration. The importance of the supranational governance at regional level would according to Haas decrease. The institutional development of the EC would become more fragmented and the “original logic” of the European integration would change. Haas estimation was that due to global interdependency the integration process and supranational governance would shift more from regional to global level in order to deal with global issues. Therefore, the globalization would reduce the drive for European integration in favour of global integration.[7]

Revising neo-functionalism

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”.[8]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.[9]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.[10]

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 in consequences and results influencing on the new decisions and strategies of the actors.[11]

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.[12] 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 it 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”.[13] 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 recognizing the role of regional bureaucrats in their interests and actions to shape regional identity, including on basis towards “outsiders”.[14] In 2003, more than 30 years later, similar arguments were provided by Schmitter in the book European Integration Theory.[15]Here it was once more emphasized 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.[16]

---

[1]Haas, B. Ernst. Obsolescence of Regional IntegrationTheory (Berkley, University of California Press, 1975)

[2]Sandholtz and Sweet p.3

[3]Sandholtz and Sweet p.3-4

[4]Tranholm-Mikkelsen p.8

[5]Ibid p.9

[6] Ibid

[7] Haas, Obsolescence of Regional IntegrationTheory  p.4-5

[8]Schmitter C. Philippe. ”A Revised Theory of Regional Integration”. International Organization, Vol 24, No 4, Regional Integration Theory and Research (Autmun 1970). Publication date: Unknown. Download: 2017-04-03. Website: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706154

[9] Ibid p.837

[10] Ibid p.873-838.

[11] Ibid p.841

[12] Ibid p.845-846

[13] Ibid p.848

[14] Ibid p.864

[15] Wiener, Antje and Thomas Diez, eds. European Integration Theory. (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2003)

[16]Ibid p.46-49