Debatten om GAL-TAN 2014-2017

Källa: Henrik Oscarsson, SOM-institutet vid Göteborgs universitet


Jag har sedan hösten och vintern 2017 hållit på med att skriva en studie om GAL-TAN skalan. Idag publicerar jag dokumentet som finns att ladda ned via denna länk. 

Fokus för studien var att undersöka om hur GAL-TAN skalan presenterades i svenska medier under 2014-2017. Här kommer sammanfattningen från studien: 

1. GAL-TAN skalan handlar om icke-ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella frågor som invandring, narkotika och klimat. Det är en skala som grundas i hur politiska aktörer ser på samhället och människan.

2. Diskussionerna om GAL-TAN skalan i svenska medier under perioden 2014-2017 relaterade till diskussioner om högerpopulism och nationalism, valet 2014 och 2018, opinionsundersökningar och
väljarbeteenden, partiernas historia och utveckling, globalism och kosmopolitism, ekonomiska och icke-ekonomiska frågor.

3. I synen på GAL-TAN skalan framgick skillnaden mellan till exempel progressiva och konservativa aktörer. Medan progressiva aktörer är mer positiva till skalan är konservativa aktörer mer negativa.

4. Feministiskt Initiativ, Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Liberalerna och Centerpartiet ses i diskussionerna som GAL-partier medan Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna och Sverigedemokraterna ses som TAN-partier. Både Socialdemokraterna och Moderaterna är partier som ”delas itu” med högre grad av interna GAL-TAN skillnader.

Ruska LGBTQI istorija

Članak vezan za istoriju seksualizma u Rusiji, naročito za period prije 1917. 

"Kako se početkom XX veka pojavio sve veći broj liberalnih pokreta, sve se više govorilo o dekriminalizaciji homoseksualnosti, naročito u pravnim krugovima. Jedna od glavnih figura ovog pokreta bio je Vladimir Nabokov – otac  pisca Vladimira Nabokova, poznati advokat i osnivač Demokratske partije. On je ujedno i prvi ruski političar koji se javno zalagao za gej prava, te se bavio zakonskim položajem članova LGBTIQ zajednice u carskoj Rusiji, i borio za dekriminalizaciju. Posle revolucije 1905. godine, zakoni koji su sankcionisali homoseksualnost postali su jači nego ikada, a dolazili su od većinski homofobičnih političara" 


http://www.xxzmagazin.com/homofobija-je-srce-uvoza-i-izvoza 

Global Mobility Report 2017

The Global Mobility Report 2017 is the first-ever attempt to examine the performance of the transport sector, globally, and its contribution to a sustainable future. The report is also including aspects such as the 2030 Agenda and how transportation is relevant for Sustainable Development. The GMR is built around three components: 

1. Four global objectives that define “sustainable mobility” 

2. Quantitative and qualitative targets for those objectives, drawn from international agreements 

3. Indicators to track country-level progress towards those objectives. It covers all modes of transport, including road, air, waterborne and rail. 

Data for the report is based on statistics and other information from more than 180 countries.  
  

Little bit of history from Ogre

Last week I was in Riga and staying at my friend’s place in Ogre, which is around 40 minutes from the centre. During the week, I visited the local history and art museum. The museum used to be a bank building during the Soviet period. For more info about the museum, you can find here.

                                      USSR State Bank - Ogre Branch 

                                        Bank building from 1987 

                            Some kind of a mechanic counting machine 

        Body armour for the personnel working with money transfer 

                              Old school style counting 

                                       Before the renovation 

Office space from 1990 as the bank got privatised. Check out the computers. 

                 Train schedule between Riga and Ogre. 

                          Nivea cream old school mode 

                         Hipster bike before it was cool! 

  Part of the exhibition was about the WWI period and the German army. 

 

   
                         Equipment for trench warfare. 

            Ogre civilians as refugees during the war. 

Competition policy as example of the “slow” process

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.

In his study of the neo-functionalism’s applicability, Lee has analysed the competition policy, which is an example of supranational governance over the economy. He argues that Haas interpretation of regional integration process and EU:s development still holds analytical purchase, where neo-functionalism is a mid-range theory that applies to the dynamics and development of individual policy sectors and sectorial integration process. With its original focus and core around economic aspects, the neo-functionalism is based on two inter-related claims and predictive views. Firstly, that integration occurs when organised economic interests pressure governments to manage economic interdependence resulting in centralisation of policies and the creation of common institutions. Secondly, that any initial decisions to integrate the polity results in both economic and political spill-overs which push regional integration forward. Already starting with ECSC thus at a more limited degree, the decision-making process was later developed into the aspects relating to promoting competitive market structures, breaking up anti-competitive behaviour such as market-rigging, price-fixing cartels and abusive monopolies. This institutional process were performed by supranational governance. The Commission was selected by the national governments of EEC (European Economic Community) as the principal competition agent with exclusive powers of investigation into suspected violations of the competition rules.

Furthermore, the focus on the supranational development meant that the neo-functionalistic studies shifted the investigative attention from the national executives and the decision-making process. The focus was shifted to the aspects identified as institutions, technocratic elites, interest groups and politicians operating at supranational level. The original assumption of neo-functionalism was based on that these actors pursued their own interests and by doing so they provided the dynamics for further integration, including the argument that change of loyalties and political transformation was part of the regional integration process. The existence of such supranational activity was, as mentioned earlier, understood to unleash a self-reinforcing dynamic labelled as spill-over that culminated in further and “deeper.” integration. In the case of competition policy, it is an early example where national governments had established supranational process with its own personnel like administrators, experts and lawyers whose decisions came to influence and determine policy approaches at both national and EU-levels of governance.

Within the competition policy, the development of DG Competition throughout the 1960s and 1970s was a process of slow accumulation of experience and development of norms and values that have been spread within the Commission. It resulted in aspects such as the formation of EU competition law (anti-trust) with inspiration from the USA. Another example, during the time of SEA implementation process, was the institutional determination and interest of the Commission to push the notion of competition into the more “sensitive areas” for the states such as market liberalisation of public utility. There were also examples regarding the imposition of ever-higher financial levies for infringing the competition rules or encouraging whistleblowers to inform the Commission about cartel activity. These actions were performed with “limited resources” (for example, in 1990 DG Competition had a staff of only around 400 individuals). As Lee pointed out this process, being an example for the notion of the political spill-over is particularly applicable, as the supranational officials became informal political entrepreneurs, also resulting in member state governments to delegating further powers to the supranational level. 

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.

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.