Neo-functionalism and later, liberal intergovernmentalism

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. 

Starting from the middle of the 1980’s period of Euroclesoris, the economic crisis was seen as ending and it became a “reviving period” for the neo-functionalism being able to confirm new developments. Hoffman’s theory was criticised by the new neo-functionalist contributors such as Sandholtz, who argued that, during the development of the Single European Act (SEA) in 1987 (later resulting in creation of the internal market) the European Commission played a crucial leadership role by acting as a “policy entrepreneur”. From the late 80’s supranational governance has been viewed as performing at a higher level, having ambitions for economic and political integration of the community developing into the EU.

However, within the academic debate during the same period, the neo-functionalism was once more under criticism. The theory of liberal intergovernmentalism developed by Andrew Moravcsik argued that the institutional accomplishment of SEA was neither a result of supranational spillovers in the first place nor at a higher degree as the neo-functionalists were arguing. Moravcsik’s view was that SEA was representing the “turning point” in the development of the community,  since the process was based on “intergovernmental bargain” between UK, France and Germany as the three most politically powerful member states.

“Bargain” is one of the keywords within the liberal intergovernmentalism. The integration process was “reflection of the will” of the national governments. The SEA was achieved because the three main pillar states within the community had convergent national interest. Moravscik has also argued that neo-functionalism is not a theory presenting it as a framework of “unrelated claims”, too ambitious and by having a plausibility that was severely undermined empirically when events in the 1960s and 1970s did not follow the projected.

Also according to Moravcsik, the member states have always “guarded” their national interests and placed the strict limits on any future transfer of sovereignty to the Commission. The political behaviour was instead more about preferring to work through the Council of Ministers. The bargaining process, according to the liberal intergovernmentalism, can be spotted in other institutions, including also the supranational institution such as the European Commission. The bargaining process may take place within a Directorate-General (DG, partly reminds of state ministries), between DG:s or between commissioners themselves.

What supports the intergovernmentalist argument is the formulation that EU is a “social contract between the governments” rather than a single polity. This is also presented in the formulation that EU is “in the first place” what the national governments have decided it to be, including the “lives” of the institutions with their performance and development. According to the intergovernmentalist argument, institutions exercise and achieve what has been decided by the national governments during the bargaining process.

In favour of the neo-functionalism view, it has been argued that an integration and institutional process is taking place because EU-institutions have “their own lives”. The Court of Justice of the European Union is often presented as an institution with “constitutional” and “federal” characteristics. Arguments among neo-functionalists are therefore based on that EU has also been developed by supranational intuitions that have been achieving political impact and development beyond the bargaining process of the national governments, which also leads to further integration and development of the union.

During the early 90’s there was also, one more approach to argue in favour of neo-functionalism. JeppeTranholm-Mikkelsen provided arguments based that the process of SEA was confirming earlier neo-functionalist expectations. His article was about re-opening the debate and calling for renewed research. Tranholm-Mikkelsen argued that the “new dynamism” process in European Community revealed the important elements of neo-functional logic. At the same time, he acknowledged its limitation stating that neo-functionalism was a partial theory and under criticism. Part of the criticism about neo-functionalism was that it was developed as a theory with emphasis to describe, explain and predict but also about Haas personal sympathy with the “project of European unification”. Because of that, according to Tranholm-Mikkelsen neo-functionalism could be regarded even as “prescriptive”.

As earlier writers, Tranholm-Mikkelsen wrote about the logic of spillovers, where he introduced the term “cultivated spillover”. This version of spillover was focusing on the role of the Commission comparing to functional (economy, trade, sectors) and political (state governments, political parties). Haas argued that the Commission’s and other institutions’ role could have a central meaning during the “bargain process”. Since diplomatic negotiations “rarely move beyond minimum common denominator”, there was both space and role to be performed by Commission, also in order to develop itself. By its role of institutional relation toward negotiating actors (national governments) Commission could as an “autonomous and institutionalized mediator” redefine the subject of the conflict and be engaged in the process of “upgrading of the common interest”.

 From Commission’s point of view it also meant, and still means, “improving” or transforming aspects that have been decided. By its function, the Commission was able to influence the outcome of the integration process and also of its own institutional mandate and development. The reasoning around the cultivated spillover was not completely new. However, Tranholm-Mikkelsen’s conclusion was that the process of cultivated spillover based on the role of the Commission constituted a voluntaristic element “in an otherwise rather deterministic theory”.

In contrary to the arguments of Moravcsik, the process of SEA was seen as reflecting the “logic of spillover. The SEA process was also including the “countervailing forces” and limitations of neo-functionalism based on factors as different views on sovereignty among the member states and also their political, economic and social differences. Tranholm-Mikkelsen’s argument was that neo-functionalism was a theory about “dynamics of integration” referring to different periods sin 1950’s with slower and faster processes of negative or positive integration.

The debate between the (later) intergovernmentalists and the neo-functionalists is also regarded as the part of the Europeanization concept itself. In political science, this is accepted also as a term, which, by its definition, presents the interaction between the European and the state level of governance recognizing both the intergovernmentalist and the neo-functionalism views. Integration is, on the one hand, a result of the member states no longer having supremacy over all other authorities within their “traditional” territory, which “ got lost”  in favour to the EU’s institutions as a result of shared sovereignty. On the other hand, the process of EU: s development is also based on the compromises between the supranational institutions and the member states as well as between the member state themselves. 

The Europeanization process is based on understanding the interconnectivity between the European and state level. This means that differences between these “grand theories” are between the top-down approach of the neo-functionalism and the bottom-up of intergovernmentalism.