Neofunctionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism A · PDF fileNeofunctionalism vs....

Neofunctionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism

A comparison of regional integration theories and

their connectedness with the European Parliament

Regional Integration and the EU

Final Exam

CBS – IBP 2nd semester

Hand-In Date: 11th June 2013

STU counts: 22.247

Pages: 14 total; 10 for assignment

Assignment No. 2

CPR Nr

Daniel Justin Kleinschmidt

Signature:

Daniel J. Kleinschmidt Final Exam June 2013

2

Table of Content

I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..3

II. Regional Integration Theories

II.I Background of Regional Integration in the EU……………………..4

II.II Neofunctionalism……………………………………………………4-5

II.III Intergovernmentalism………………………………………………5-6

II.IV Comparison of the two integration theories………………….……6-7

III. The European Parliament (EP)

III.I History and Characteristics of the EP……………………………….8

III.II The Increasing Role of the EP…………………………………….9-10

IV. Support by the increasing role of the EP for the integration theories………….11-12

V. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….......12

VI. Bibliography…………………………………………………..……………………13-14


3

I. Introduction

The European Union is a unique phenomenon of state-conflation in the history, which has no close

cases it could be compared to. Even though the system is relatively young, it has achieved much

and developed intensively. The early start of the European Union as it is called today, and its

ongoing development has been focus of many different theorists trying to find a possible

explanation for this never seen before process of regional cooperation. Those competing approaches

are gathered under the regional integration theories, and include among others the Neofunctionalism

theory from Ernst B. Haas and the Intergovernmentalism integration theory created by Stanley

Hoffman. Both theories try to give reasons for the EU integration and seek to explain this

integration process.

The development of what started as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) over the last

six decades has had different natures, successes and failures and managed to evolve its own system.

One of the system’s institutions is the European Parliament, which started as more superficial and

representative institution with little power, but developed over the years, especially over the last

two decades, to one of the leading forces of the European political system. But what does explain

the increasing role of the European Parliament, and does this new role support one integration

theory?

This paper seeks to give an explanation to the strong development of the European Parliament and

provides an argumentation on the connectedness of the increasing role of the European Parliament

to the two integration theories of Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism. At first a short

background about the EU integration is illustrated, whereupon Neofunctionalism and

Intergovernmentalism are being defined and some critic points of those theories are presented.

Rounding up the first section of this paper with a comparison of the two theories. Secondly there is

given an overview over the most important historical steps in the development of the European

Parliament combined with an introduction of its functions. The third part then provides an

argumentation for whether the increased role gives support to one of those theories, by applying the

characteristics of the two theories to the development of the European Parliament. Lastly a

conclusion is drawn based on the before given comparison of the two integration theories and the

argumentation for support by the increased role of the European Parliament for one of the theories.


4

II.I Background of Regional Integration

Regional integration in general describes the process of states entering into a regional agreement, in

order to achieve specific, agreement-dependent goals through enhancing regional cooperation. In

history there has not been another equal strong case of regional integration as the European Union

(EU) (Council on Foreign Relations: September 2010). Because of the EUs historical predominance

in regional integration, most theories of regional integration are specified to European integration.

The process of European integration began in the early 1950’s with the foundation of the ECSC and

the signing of the Treaty of Paris in early 1951 by the six founding states Belgium, France,

Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (Finn Laursen: 2008). Since then the integration

process has been ongoing and migrated from common energy agreements to among others,

common agricultural policies in 1962, cooperating for foreign policies from 1970, starting a

European Monetary system in 1979, launching of the single market program in 1987 and the

admittance of further 21 states (Simon Hix in Daniele Caramani: 2011), making it a unique case of

regional integration. Due to this singularity many theories have been created with the objective to

explain the process of integration and its characteristics. The first works put mainly focus on the

objective of achieving world peace by cooperating on a regional level, rather than on integration

itself. From this approach other theories developed to describe why economies of different states

were managed in common, by giving up some national sovereignty to create pooled sovereignty.

Two of the main theories are Neofunctionalism that was developed by Haas in the 1960s and

Intergovernmentalism from the 1960s, pioneered by Hoffmann (Ian Bache: 2011).

II. II Neofunctionalism

Neofunctionalism desired to explain the reason and process of state cooperation aimed at solving

conflicts between each other and gradually giving up on national sovereignty. The theory had its

base on the assumption that the role of nation states would decrease, and did not see the state as

single unified actor on the international stage (Ian Bache: 2011). This position is strengthened in the

key features, expressing that the concept of the state is more complex and that the activities of

interest groups and bureaucratic actors are not limited to the domestic political arena of the member

states. Rather it was argued that interest groups with familiar ideologies and goals, but from

different states would start to get together at a supranational level, which is called Transnationalism.

The same cooperation-factor, though for state departments was described as Transgovernmentalism.


5

Further the importance of non-state-actors in international politics is a key feature of

Neofunctionalism, referring to Multinational Corporations and the European Commission, which

has a particular role in EU integration that according to the Neofunctionalist theory gets advanced

through the process of spillover (Ian Bache: 2011).

The spillover-process described in the Neofunctionalism is the theory’s main point describing how

regional integration evolved: In order to fulfill and satisfy one goal of integration it is necessary to

take actions in another area, which then set other actions in motion. Within political spillover it is

meant that when one sector integrated, the interest groups usually lobbying on national level then

switch to the new integrated supranational agency, which then encourages other interest groups to

pressure their national access points to integrate as well. Cultivated spillover describes the

European Commission’s unique position to manipulate domestic and international pressures on

national governments through cultivating agreements with national interest groups to bring forward

the process of EU integration (Ian Bache: 2011).

Critique is pointed at the over-recognition of the spillover-process (Simon Hix: 2011). The theory

assumes that integration will develop from one sector to another, but the evolving of integration

from low politics to high politics, which is of great national interest, is highly unrealistic as national

governments would have to agree on a common interest, which in the eye of European diversity

seems to be unrealistic. Therefore the spillover function should be looked upon with limits to

different polity areas (Neil Fligstein: 2008).

II. III Intergovernmentalism

This theory has its foundation on between-government cooperation, and declares the member states

as the main actors in the EU. It is those states’ preferences and decisions that are primary and

important and decisive when deciding on polities. The governments have a strong and autonomous

position in this approach, and bargain intensively in order to get their interests followed in the

European policies (Simon Hix in Daniele Caramani: 2011).

Within the Intergovernmentalism the national governments control the pace and nature of EU

integration based on protecting and promoting their own national interests. When those national

interests are of similar kind a closer integration is supported, but generally limited to some areas, as

for example high sovereign sectors like national security and defense (Ian Bache: 2011).


6

Even though interest groups are able to preform influence on national government’s policy making

in low politics, like social and regional policies, they do not have the power to pressure

governments to integrate, as those governments are independent decision-makers because of their

legal sovereignty and political legitimacy. Further, national governments can with their decisions

that are domestic driven, give directions to powerful interest groups to follow, instead of being

pressured by those groups (Ian Bache: 2011).

One point of criticism questions the theory’s deposition that every country has fixed preferences on

the shape and nature of the EU and further questions the assumption that the division of functions

between the EU and the member states are in constant equilibrium, because it is argued that those

preferences can change as the states position in the world-order is unfixed and can vary due to

constant changes in the global context. Citizens, for example, demand further integration if it

benefits them, and they refuse it if it degenerates their conditions (Neil Fligstein: 2008). Another

point for further argumentation is the feature stating that governmental actions always follow

national interests. Governments are constraint to work in Brussels, and with a shift in a nation’s

regime after elections, the new government officials may have different political ideologies and

interests, but they are limited to follow the decisions the previous government has rendered, as they

not always can be undone. In such a case the following of national interests is impeded (Neil

Fligstein: 2008).

II. IV Comparison of the two integration theories

In the Intergovernmentalist approach the EU is described as political organization formed by

nation-states in appreciation of their economic interdependence (Neil Fligstein: 2008). The role of

the state is the main difference between the Neofunctionalism and the Intergovernmentalism: The

nation-states are much stronger in the Intergovernmentalist theory, they form the leading figures in

the EU integration process and are operating to bring their national interest to the supranational

European level (Simon Hix: 2011). Under the Neofunctionalist theory their role and influence is

decreasing as integration increases. Here the states are not the only players on the international

stage and they are willingly giving up more and more national sovereignty over time by not

restrictedly following only national interest, but actually cooperating to enhance the common

interests for the regional alliance (Ian Bache: 2011).


7

The powerful role of the national governments is the leading string throughout the whole concept of

the Intergovernmentalist theory as it gives the states the dominating power to decide upon the

process of EU integration. The states decide in behalf of the national interests whether integration

shall continue and involve further areas, or if the process should be stopped. According to the

Intergovernmentalist theory national governments create limitations as to which policy areas the

integration process may go, and thereby control and protect policy areas of special interest and

work to avoid the jeopardy of the electoral power the governing party owns (Ian Bache: 2011). On

the contrast the path of integration is described in the Neofunctionalist theory as state-independent

spillover-process. This process, distinguishing from the Intergovernmentalist explanation, extends

integration from one sector to another based on their connectedness and is stated to work like a

powerful, semi-automatic progress that forces the less-influential-becoming national governments

to follow the integration (Simon Hix: 2011; Ian Bache: 2011).

This spillover-process that decides on the nature of EU integration can be driven by the strong and

important role of non-state-actors, like interest groups, as they are described in the

Neofunctionalism theory. Those interest groups have the power to put pressure on the national

governments, influence government decisions, which outcome is reflected in the state’s

international activities and thereby strengthen the integration process caused by spillover (Ian

Bache: 2011). Agreements on the supranational level are reached by interactions between

international organizations and the constituencies the integration created, and all elite groups have

the same equal weight and could outnumber each other to reach a consensus (Neil Fligstein: 2008).

The Intergovernmentalist provides a somehow different image with far less powerful and less

influential interest groups. There it is the reversed situation where the governments decide the

directions for the interest groups, again positioning the nation-state as the main center, deciding on

the others (Ian Bache: 2011).

III. I The European Parliament (EP)

In 1951, the European Parliament (EP) was not an original plan when the ECSC had its beginning,

but to make the new community more democratic, the EP got introduced in the Treaty of Paris and


8

more developed in the later Treaties of Rome. Within the first years of the EP the national

governments decided upon the members and since it was only an indirectly elected body, it lacked

democratic legitimacy. In 1979 the first direct election to the EP was inducted and since then the EP

has used its stronger position to extract power from the member-states. Before 1979 the Council of

Ministers had to consult the EP before deciding on proposals by the Commission, but those

consultations were more superficial, as the Council was not bounded to take the EP’s opinion into

account (Ian Bache: 2011).

Through the last decades the EP gained more and more functions, and achieved great influence

possibilities in 1993, when the co-decision-procedure was introduced giving the EP the co-decision

right with the Council on legislative proposals (Julia De Clerck-Sachsse: 2009). The Amsterdam

Treaty from 1999 then enhanced the EP’s legislative role even more, giving it at least on paper

equal legislative power with the Council, and thereby placing it equal to the member states (Simon

Hix: 2011). With the EU enlargements of 2004 and 2007, the MEP gained new size. Nowadays the

EP counts 736 Members of Parliament (MEP), who are elected on a 5-year-basis and organize in

transnational political groups. The seats are divided proportionate to each state’s size of population,

but smaller states are little overrepresented, in order to strengthen their position. The EP meets 3-4

times in a month in Strasbourg to have plenum discussions and votes, but the main work is done in

the standing committees, who have different work fields. The EP represents now half of the

Europeans legislative authority, with the Council building the other half (Ian Bache: 2011; Simon

Hix: 2011).

Further the EP has a budgetary function, as it has to approve the annual EU budget in order for it to

go into force. The supervisory function includes the necessary approval of the president of the

Commission and the Commission’s team, and gives the EP the right to hold both the Commission

and the Council of Ministers to account. As the member states were continually giving up more

national sovereignty and power from the national parliament, the need for a EU institution that

provides democratic legitimacy was growing. The EP is the only EU institution that is directly

elected and used this fact as its main strength in order to gather more power and several functions

within it (Ian Bache: 2011; Simon Hix: 2011).


9

III. II The Increasing Role of the EP

There is no doubt that the role of the EP has increased and that it developed from an inconspicuous

element to a strong and important part of the European legislature. One evidence that the EP’s role

within the legislative area is increasing can be shown in the use of the different legislative

procedures: As figure 1 shows, since the co-decision (COD) procedure was introduced in 1993 it

has been used increasingly, signifying the growth of importance of the EP. With the into force

going of the Treaty of Lisbon in the end of 2009, the use of the COD has been enhanced to further

political areas, which could indicate that its use has increased even further and strengthened the

position of the EP even more. Contrary, the formerly main legislative function of the EP, the

Consultation (CNS) procedure has been used on an overall decreasing rate, meaning that the EP’s

role is not just to consult anymore, but also to take equally part in the legislative process (Julia

DeClerck-Sachsse: 2009). Figure 1: Use of procedures in the European Parliament: Co-Decision Procedure (COD), Consultation (CNS) and

Assent (AVC).

Further evidence for the increasing importance of the EP is the part the EP took over during the

introduction of the Single Market. The EP got two readings of the major pieces of legislation and

thus gained influence in the creation of the Single Market (Simon Hix: 2011). In 1999 the EP

showed its muscles within the supervisory function, as the whole Sander Commission stepped

entirely down ahead of a Parliamentary vote on the motion to censure the Commission. This action

made the real power and eminence of the EP clear and solidified its supervisory function (Julia

DeClerck-Sachsse: 2009).

The budgetary function of the EP is not to be underestimated either, as the parliament on a regularly

basis has comments to the budget or actually blocks the budget if it does not get changed on the

base of the EP’s recommendations (Julia DeClerck-Sachsse: 2009). As for example the EP had just


10

recently, in March 2013, rejected the long-term draft budget and adopted a resolution that aims to

possible re-negotiations of the long-term draft budget (The News: 2013).

Overall it can be stated that the EP remained strong even after the European enlargements, having

the legislative and non-legislative outcome constant (Julia DeClerck-Sachsse: 2009).

Figure 2: Trust in European Institutions between September 2006 and September 2012

Figure 3: Trust in national Institutions / 2012

Ever since September 2006 European citizens have

tend to trust the EP more than the Commission and the

Council, thus being the most trusted European

legislative institution. An interesting image is drawn

when comparing the level of trust in the EP in 2012

with the trust in the national parliament of the EU27

citizens in 2012: While only 28% trust in their national

parliament, 40% tend to trust the EP, indicating

support for the EP and promoting its increasing role.


11

IV. Support by the increasing role of the EP for the integration theories

Neil Fligstein argues that most theories of EU integration are incomplete and lack the ability to

describe the changes the EU made over the last decades and the consequences and challenges that

arose of this development (Neil Fligstein: 2008). However it can be argued whether the increasing

role of the EP lends support to any integration theory, and in this context in particular the

Neofunctionalism or the Intergovernmentalism theories.

The Intergovernmentalism claims the state to be the most powerful actor in the EU, which was

originally backed up by the dominating power of the national governments through the Council

over the legislative, with the EP just having limited right to be consulted. But this has changed as

the EP has been equated to the Council in the legislature (Simon Hix: 2011). Further this theory

argues that the legitimacy of the European political structure is based on the democratically elected

national governments, and thus claims that the EU is under total control of the member states (Neil

Fligstein: 2008). This statement however cannot be arranged with the increasing role of the EP,

which due to its legislative power can approve decisions that can be in conflict with some of the

member states interests, and thus they are forced to approve and execute decisions they do not favor

(Ian Bache: 2011). As the main point of the Intergovernmentalist theory is the unique leading power

of the nation-states in the EU, this theory does not support the increasing role of the EP, because the

increase in power of the EP does mean it is a competitor for power within the EU, and has already

achieved to gather some power on it that was extracted from the national governments power area.

The Neofunctionalist theory however sees the non-state-actors as important in international politics

and allocates the nation-states decreasing national sovereignty and less power. According to this

theory the increase in power of the EP can be seen as movement to establish characteristics of a

national parliament for the EP (Julia DeClerck-Sachsse: 2009). The development of the EP has

further created a picture of bicameral EU legislature consisting of the EP and the Council, where the

states represent the regions of Europe and the EP represents the voters (Simon Hix: 2011). The

Neofunctionalist theory lends support to the increasing role of the EP over the last decades, as more

and more sovereignty is transferred to international EU organizations and institutions like the EP,

creating a supranational entity (Neil Fligstein: 2008). This argument can be supported by the

important role Multinational Corporations and other business groups play in the Neofunctionalism

and in the day-to-day Europe, where those groups lobby both the Commission and the EP, which


12

means they lobby on the supranational level as well not just on the national level anymore,

indicating the decreasing influence of national governments (Neil Fligstein: 2008). The growth of

cooperation in economic and social fields in the EU has enhanced the citizens’ awareness of the EU

and brought people in contact. The citizens are the strongest source of support for ongoing

European integration and cooperation, creating a European Society. This society can express their

opinions on the EU through direct elections to the EP, which is the only EU institution through

which they have direct access to the EU and by that the citizens can distinguish between their

national interests which they express in national elections and their European interests (Neil

Fligstein: 2008). The EP works in different committees dealing with different policy areas, and

through the increase in legislative power the spillover-process of integration is enhanced, as one

committee may pushes for more integration, which may require integration in another policy area

that is worked with in another committee, and through their connectedness it becomes easier to

communicate and even to cooperate (Neil Fligstein: 2008).

V. Conclusion

This paper set out to compare the integration theories of Neofunctionalism and

Intergovernmentalism and argues whether one of those theories is supported by the increasing role

of the EP. The research has shown that no theory is absolute as the integration process and the rapid

development of the EP is something never seen before in history. The Intergovernmentalism

supports the idea that the member states are ruling the EU, not creating an above-state level of

cooperation, rather a between-states cooperation level, and thus goes in a different direction than

the development of the EP, from which follows that the increasing role of the EP does not lend

support to this theory. The Neofunctionalism on the other hand shows some similarities to the

development of the EP: Namely the increasing role and power of the EP that is able to withstand the

power of the member states who have decreasing influence as some of their power had been

transferred to the EP. This process created a new level of cooperation with the EP – that partial

supports the Neofunctionalist theory. It is though not argued for that the EP has taken over all of the

states power, as they are still an important figure in the EU.

However this paper does not set to provide an argumentation for which integration theory is best

applicable to the EU integration process, it gives an comparison of two of the most known theories

and further gives reasons for the increasing role of the EP and emphasizes some similarities and

differences between the EP’s development and the integration theories.


13

VI. Bibliography

Bache, Ian, George, Stephen and Bulmer, Simon: “Politics in the European Union”; 3rd edition

(2011); Oxford University Press

Cameron, Fraser: “The European Union as a Model for Regional Integration”; September 2010;

Council on Foreign Relations; [WEBPAGE];

Link: http://www.cfr.org/eu/european-union-model-regional-integration/p22935

DeClerck-Sachsse, Julia and Maciej Kaczynski, Piotr: “The European Parliament – More powerful,

less legitimate? An outlook for the 7th term”; May 2009; CEPS Working Document

No. 314; [WEBPAGE];

Link: http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1846.pdf

Laursen, Finn: “Theory and Practice of Regional Integration”; February 2009; Jean Monnet/Robert

Schuman Paper Series Vol. 8, Nr.3; [WEBPAGE];

Link: http://aei.pitt.edu/8219/1/LaursenLongSympos08RegIntegedi.pdf

Hix, Simon (2011). The EU as a new political system, in Daniele Caramani (eds): “Comparative

Politics”; Oxford University Press; p. 429-450

Fligstein, Neil: “Euro-Clash”; 2008; Oxford University Press

Polskie Radio; “European Parliament rejects 2014-2020 draft budget”; 14.03.2013; [WEBPAGE];

Link: http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/129986,European-Parliament-rejects-

201420-draft-budget

Figures:

Figure 1: Use of procedures in the European Parliament: Co-Decision Procedure (COD),

Consultation (CNS) and Assent (AVC); Julia DeClerck-Sachsse and Piotr Maciej


14

Kaczynski, “The European Parliament – More powerful, less legitimate?”; May 2009;

CEPS Working Document No. 314; [WEBPAGE]

Link: http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1846.pdf

Figure 2: Trust in European Institutions between September 2006 and September 2012;

Eurobarometer 77, Spring 2012; [WEBPAGE];

Link: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb77/eb77_publ_en.pdf

Figure 3: Trust in national Institutions / 2012; Eurobarometer 77, Spring 2012; [WEBPAGE];

Link: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb77/eb77_publ_en.pdf

Neofunctionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism A · PDF fileNeofunctionalism vs....

Documents

Transcript of Neofunctionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism A · PDF fileNeofunctionalism vs....