EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
PROF . PETER B URSENS (2021 – 2022)
, THEORIES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
THREE ‘GENERATIONS’ OF EU STUDIES
1/ Bottom-up: theories from International Relations try to explain why sovereign states integrate
(such as (Neo-)Functionalism, (Liberal) Intergovernmentalism, …).
2/ Within: theories from Comparative Politics try to understand the functioning and the output
(governance) of the European Union as a political system (such as Political Analysis,
Institutionalism, …).
3/ Top-down: Europeanization tries to explain how and to what extent the EU integration process
has got impact on the member states.
THE INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND: ACADEMIC
David Mitrany and Functionalism – ‘A Working Peace System’ (1943):
He was not a theorist of European integration: his concern was with building A Working Peace System.
For Mitrany, the root cause of war was nationalism. The failure of the League of Nations to prevent
aggression prompted debate about a new type of international system even before the outbreak of the
Second World War. Mitrany’s response was that the League of Nations had not gone far enough:
henceforth, nations should be tied more closely together [in other words: eliminate nationalism by
making states work together.
Mitrany proposed the creation of a whole series of separate international functional agencies, each
having authority over one specific area of human life. His scheme was to take individual technical tasks
out of the control of governments and to hand them over to these functional agencies. He believed that
governments would be able to appreciate the advantages of such tasks being performed at the regional
level or world level. As more and more areas of control were surrendered, states would become less
capable of independent action.
He opposed the idea of a single world government because he believed that it would pose a threat to
individual freedom. He also opposed the creation of regional federations, believing that this would
simply reproduce national rivalries on a larger scale.
These international agencies would operate at different levels depending on the function that they were
performing. Not only would the dependence of states on these agencies for their day-to-day functioning
make it difficult for governments to break with them, but the experience of the operation of the
agencies would also socialize politicians, civil servants, and the general public into adopting less
nationalistic attitudes and outlook.
In sum: First, bureaucratic/technocratic process. Then, political process. DEPOLITICIZATION of the
power transfer.
2
,THE INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND: POLITICAL
Altiero Spinelli and Federalism – The European Union of Federalists (EUF):
Whereas Mitrany aimed explicitly to depoliticize the process of the transfer of power away from
national governments, federalists sought a clear transfer of political authority.
Spinelli produced the Ventotene Manifesto (1941), calling for a ‘European Federation’. The Manifesto
called for the abolition of the division of Europe into national, sovereign states. It urged action to push
for the creation of a federal European state.
The EUF aimed for a complete break from the old order of nation states, and to create a federal
constitution for Europe. Their Congress took place in The Hague in May 1948. By that time, however,
the national political system had been re-established, and what emerged from the Congress was an
intergovernmental organization, the Council of Europe, not the new federal constitutional order for
which the federalists had hoped.
In sum: A political project: an explicit aim of a transfer of political authority by the abolishment of the
sovereign nation-states and the creation of a European Federation.
THE INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND: POLITICAL/BUREAUCRATIC
Jean Monnet and Functional-Federalism:
The plan for the ECSC was known as the ‘Schuman Plan’ because it was made public by the French
Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, but it is generally accepted that it was drawn up within the French
Economic Planning Commission (Commissariat du Plan), which was headed by the technocrat Jean
Monnet. It was the task of the Planning Commission to guide the post-war reconstruction and
modernization of the French economy. Monnet saw the need to create a ‘large and dynamic common
market’. Monnet can be considered as the ‘Founder of the EU today’.
He placed his faith in the development of supranational institutions as the basis for building a genuine
economic community that would adopt common economic policies and rational planning procedures
[to make states mutually dependent. Coal and steel were only intended as starting points. The aim was
to extend integration to all aspects of the Western European economy – but such a scheme would have
been too ambitious to gain acceptance all at once.
Context:
o Economic reconstruction of France [That is, to restore all the damages caused by the war. However,
this cannot be done alone. Other countries, especially Germany, need to reconstruct their
economies as well., and
o the need to control German economic reconstruction [Because of French distrust about Germany
that potentially could become economically strong again, and to prevent Germany from using their
economic wealth for military purposes..
3
, Monnet adopted a solution similar to that of Mitrany: remove control of the strategically crucial
industries – coal and steel – from the governments and put it in the hands of a free-standing agency.
This was the High Authority of the ECSC.
In sum: Ultimate aim is a political union by starting with economic integration: start with strategic sectors
and add other sectors later [SPILL-OVER. Emphasis on the need for incrementalism.
IR THEORIES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
The following theories derive from realism and liberalism (which are the 2 core theories of International
Relations):
o Neofunctionalism (Ernst Haas 1958, Leon Lindberg 1963/1968): Critique on the dominant thinking
of realism.
Neofunctionalism was a pluralist theory: it did not assume that a state was a single unified actor, nor did
it assume that states were the only actors on the international stage. Neofunctionalists argued that the
international activities of states were the outcome of a pluralistic political process in which government
decisions were influenced by pressures from various interest groups and bureaucratic actors.
Using the concepts of ‘transnationalism’ and ‘transgovernmentalism’, neofunctionalists expected
nationally based interest groups to make contact with similar groups in other countries
(transnationalism), and government departments to forge links with their counterparts in other states,
unsupervised by their respective foreign offices (transgovernmentalism). A particular form of
transnationalism was the emergence of multilateral corporations – often US ones, such as Ford. They
helped neofunctionalists illustrate their argument that non-state actors are important in international
politics. However, the European Commission was the most important non-state international actor: it
was in a unique position to manipulate both domestic and international pressures on national
governments to advance the process of European integration (even where governments might be
reluctant).
Types of spill-over:
(a) Functional spill-over argued that modern industrial economies were made up of
interconnected parts. As such, it was not possible to isolate one sector from others: if member
states integrated one functional sector of their economies, the interconnectedness between
this sector and others would lead to a ‘spill-over’ into other sectors. Technical pressures would
prompt integration in those related sectors, and the integration of one sector would only work
if other functionally related sector were also integrated.
(b) Political spill-over involved the build-up of political pressures in favour of further integration
within the states involved. Once one sector of the economy was integrated, the interest groups
operating in that sector would have to exert pressure at the supranational level, on the
organization charged with running their sector [ex.: regarding the ECSC: relevant trade unions
and consumer groups switching a part of their political lobbying from national governments to
the High Authority.
4
