Neo-functionalism and federalism

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.

The presentation of  the neo-functionalism has been mostly limited to Europe as a region being “unified.” by the regional integration process and the question about a need for a “general theory” regarding the regional integration ( regardless if it is about EU, another regional or a supranational polity ) has been discussed. The theory of federalism is often seen either as an “ideological theory” of action, to promote European integration, or as a theory to explain the organisation of federations. The federalism theory can, therefore, be about both the states and supranational union of states. Within the school of federalism, it has also been argued that the federalism has its limitation. Federalism itself is not enough for a general theory to comprehend the understanding of all of the regional integration processes. Neo-functionalism is therefore seen as a complementary theory that can explain the “organic” or “slowly” process of regional integration.

From a federalist point of view, it has been argued that the principles of federalism are based on the combination of “self-rule and shared rule” principles. Making a difference from the unitary states, with usually one level of government, the federations are consisting of two or more levels of government. Federations may be organised very differently, for example by being more peripheral, where the state levels (subnational) are “strong” and with many competencies or by being more centralised, where the federal government has the predominant influence and power. Within the federalism theory, the regional integration is seen as the process leading or attempting to lead to a supranational federation by a normative approach with emphasis on aspects as “shared values”. 

Another important aspect of federalism is the view of the institutions. Except for the shared values or ”common culture” as the set of values, ideas and behaviour, it has been argued that the vital institutions are necessary. This is to prevent the federation from dissolving by having individual institutions as “guardians” of the treaties, constitutionalism and the federal idea. In this way, federalism and neo-functionalism have several similarities in interpreting the regional integration as a process of creation of stronger units than the individual states, including the importance of driving interests and shared values such as democracy.

Haas theoretical reasoning has stressed the original background conditions for the regional integration, where the entities should possess pluralistic social structures, have substantial economic and industrial development, and a common ideological pattern among participating units.  In 1964, together with Schmitter, Haas tried to loosen the theory’s close binding to the European integration idea to give the neo-functionalism general applicability. The result was a model with background conditions such as size of the unit, rate of transactions and degree of pluralism. It also regarded conditions at the time for formation of economic union as governmental purpose, powers and functions of the new institutions. In addition “cultural considerations” were written as a part of the framework, especially when it comes to the concepts of ‘pluralism’ and ‘style of decision making’ as important. 

The central concept of the analysis was the spill-over leading to political integration that would, according to Haas, take place to secure the “full benefit” of the integration process. The political pluralism was seen as a process connected to the “full.” political integration. The spillover effect meant that integration was an intrinsically sporadic and conflicted process. Under the conditions of democracy and pluralistic representation, national governments wound find themselves increasingly entangled in a regional pressure. Resulting in the process of national governments resolving their conflicts by conceding a wider political scope and developing more authority to the regional organisations they have created, the supranational authority. Part of the view was also that eventually, the citizens of individual member states would begin shifting more and more of their expectations and sense of loyalty to the region, making the process of political integration easier.

The similarities between federalism and neo-functionalism are, therefore visible. Dosenrode also explained neo-functionalism as a “supplement” of federalist theoretical approach. The federalism can explain the so-called ‘big bang’ integration based on a process of political voluntarism as in USA, Australia, and Canada. What federalism cannot explain similarly is the slow, ‘organic’ integration process of regional integrations, something that neo-functionalism in its newer version can do. Dosenrode also claims that these two approaches should be seen as complementary and they are, jointly, a frame that captures the processes of regional integration.