Vote totals:
Yes:
0%
No:
100%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
Explanation of cause of integration
Spillover is the concept that to enjoy the full benefits of integration of the first sector you need to integrate the related sectors. An example of this is the ECSC evolving into other energy sectors and forming Eurotom. There are three types of spillover: firstly, functional spillover, which regards spillover in an economic context. For example, this might involve integrating coal and steel, then integrating transport systems so that coal and steel are moved around more easily. Secondly, there is Political spillover, where political actors shift their allegiance to a new centre, for example from the national parliament to Brussels. Thirdly, there is cultivated spillover, which is the idea that institutions drive further integration by being in practice; for example the European Commission’s growing autonomy
The counter theory to spillover is the logic of diversity. Neo-functionalism is flawed as it assumes that integration in low politics (economic) will lead to integration in areas of high politics. This is not possible as issues of high politics are integral to the national interest; so integration will only be possible when national interests coincide, which is possible but unlikely. Neo-functionalism believes areas of high politics can be cultivated into integration, whereas intergovernmentalism believes that the fate of the nation-state should never be subject to the decisions of others.
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
Neofunctionalism proposes a purpose to EU integration.
Neofunctionalism proposed building a community Europe, through the concept of spillover the theory proposes economic determinism. That spillover will eventually lead to a completely integrated Europe with a strong central government. This has not yet been proved true, as EU integration has become a long and difficult process but it could be an eventual end. This is one of the theory’s strengths as it predicts the outcome of integration and an eventual conclusion to the process, allowing for political and economic aims to be made and realised. For example ‘Larger companies have been acting on the assumption that the internal market will eventually be established’ (Mikkelsen, 1991: Journal of internation studies P14).
Neo-functionalism believed in building a community Europe, but then the question is raised, what is the purpose of this new entity? There is no common outlook and getting the major powers of Europe to agree what this should be sounds near impossible. Intergovernmentalists would also argue that economic determinism regarding integration is wrong. As they believe national governments have to consciously make these decisions and will not be economically driven alone, ‘Extensive cooperation is not at all ruled out: on the contrary, such cooperation will benefit all participants as long as it corresponds to and enhances mutual interests’ (Hoffmann, 1966: P896).
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
Liberal theory of regional integration
Neofunctionalism is an example of a liberal theory of regional integration. Its focus is on human welfare needs, not political conflict and law. Its focus is on individuals aggregated into interest groups as the main actors in integration. It also accepts the independent role of international organisations and that the transformation of the international regional system towards a better order is feasible
Intergovernmentalism assumes states to be the core actors, this is difficult to deny as most economic boundaries and policies are administered by the nation state. It believes that the logic of diversity will prevail in areas of high politics (e.g. security), however it does accept the logic of integration in low politics, that when interests coincide integration is possible (when their is consensus among elites, similar external situations and domestic politics situations). Intergovernmentalism does not allow for the idealist aim of transforming the regional system to a ‘better’ order as what qualifies as ‘better’? The logic of diversity denies the possibility of states agreeing on what is ‘better’.
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
Neofunctionalism provides a good starting point for EU analysis.
Neofunctionalism is an accessible theory which provides a good starting point for analysis. As a theory it has the advantages of being able to predict the outcome of integration and clearly explains which actors must be studied in order to explain integration.
Neo-functionalism is too simple, it does not account for external forces well, as some states have better defined their international position more towards US hegemony than towards each other. Intergovernmentalism rejects economic determinism and therefore rejects Neo-functionalism’s ability to predict. Neo-functionalism may provide a starting point for analysis but it requires much more to be able to explain other pressures of integration.
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
Supranational Entrepreneurs
The role of supranational entrepreneurs within the development of integration within Europe has been crucial. Characters such as Jean Monnet envisaged and worked continuously towards uniting Europe. Later a similar role was played by Jacques Delors with the creation of the Single European Act (SEA) and the all important 1992 project that would see the single market and eventually fully Economic and Monetary Union complete. These characters act in support of integration within Europe and represent an empirical example of cultivated spillover. Unmitigated pressure from Delors in pushing for the single market ensured that it became a reality in the time it did.
The role of elites acting in their national interest better explains the logic behind integration. Key players such as Charles De Gaulle and his untiring opposition to British membership and QMV in the Council of Ministers and his success in gaining what he set out to achieve through the Luxembourg compromise demonstrates that the true power actually lay with him and the state. Another example to contradict the role Delors played was that of Margeret Thatcher. Her relentless demand for a British rebate (1979) and general demeanour in the European Council demonstrated a powerful state elite getting her way. The single market came about because Thatcher wanted it more than most and was thus willing to compromise on certain areas of the SEA (i.e. on QMV in the Council of Ministers). It is because of this that the role of individual elites is far superior to that of supranational entrepreneurs.
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
The assumption of the automaticity of Spillover is wrong.
Ernst B.Haas was the founder of Neo-functionalism in 1951, Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen identified the 3 types of spillover within the theory. However neither author placed a time limit on how long the integration process would take. The revival of European integration in 1985 shows it may be many years between instances when Neo-functionalism is an adequate theory for explaining integration. The Political Spillover concept makes account for the fact that national elites ‘will undergo a learning process, developing the perception that their interests will be better served by seeking supranational than national solutions’ (Mikkelsen, 1991: P5).
Spillover being the main driving force behind continuing integration assumed the automaticity of integration. That once integration has started it will be a self-continuing force that will eventually integrate the whole of Euorpe, this is clearly wrong. Supranational functionalism ‘assumed first, that national sovereignty, already devalued by events, could be chewed up leaf by leaf like an artichoke’ (Hoffmann, 1966: P883). The functional method of spillover is very limited, its success in the relatively painless area in which it works relatively well lifts the participants to the level of issues to which it does not apply well any more. For example no common defense or foreign policy within the community project has been successful (failure of EDC).
WITH REGARD TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION, WHICH IS THE MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT, THE LOGIC OF SPILLOVER (NEOFUNCTIONALISM) OR THE LOGIC OF DIVERSITY (INTERGOVERNMENTALISM)?
The Founder of Neofunctionalism abandoned his own Theory (Haas).
Intergovernmentalism too proved ‘out of date’. It fails to pay enough attention to supranational institutions, its focus is too exclusively on big treaty negotiations and fails to understand to increasing importance of economic issues. Intergovernmentalism as a theory collapses in the view of actual integration taking place: revival of integration from mid-1980s onwards. In the 1990s Intergovernmentalism was supplanted by ‘Liberal Intergovernmentalism’ from the scholar Andrew Moravcsik in his work ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’ (1993).
The Founder of Neo-functionalist theory Ernst B. Haas later abandoned his own theory; the theory proved a success in the economic realm but proved a fiasco in high politics. Neo-functionalism remained a partial theory, good at explaining particular parts of integration but required supplanting by other theories to keep it relevant.