Neofunctionalism_&_Regional_Integration

What is neofunctionalism' Neofunctionalism is a theory of international relations introduced by Ernst B. Haas in ‘The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950-1957’. His goals were to give an explanation to a regional integration of Europe after the World War Two. It became popular in the 1950s and 1960s, obsolete in the 1970s, and virtually disappeared in the 1980s and 1990s. Characteristics of neofunctionalism include: the ‘Spillover effect’ high and low politics. The spillover effect is the notion that integration between states in one economic sector will create strong incentives for integration in further sectors, in order to fully capture the perks of integration in the sector in which it started. And there are two types : functional and political. The term high politics covers all matters that are vital to the state’s survival: namely national and international security concerns while low politics is the opposite. (explain: for example US would have gone to war over a bomb threat, but would’ve ignored a boycott over the Olympic Games) Differences Between Neofunctionalism and Functionalism ‘Functionalism aims to form a social-psychological consensus at the popular level, neo-functionalism only wants to bring about elite socialisation. This gives neo-functionalism a more pluralist character as compared to functionalism because it still leaves some space for conflict. While functionalism wanted to achieve substantial community, neo-functionalism limited itself to a procedural consensus. This elite socialisation is achieved via a process of engrenage - bureaucratic interpenetration. This last term should however be defined in a broad sense, since it not only concerns the political bureaucratic elites, but also social and economic elites. And when speaking about a political elite, this only concerns political elites operating on a decentralised level. National political and administrative elites are no longer the principal agents of change30. Instead, the new elite is a local one: politicians, bureaucrats, businesspersons and societal groups directly facing the day-to-day problems’ (Taken from Steven Van de Walle) Neofunctionalism and Regional Integration The association of neofunctionalism with regional organizations is that it places major emphasis on the role of non-state actors – especially, the “secretariat” of the organization involved and those interest associations and social movements that form at the level of the region – in providing the dynamic for further integration. While Member states are still important actors in the process by setting the terms of the initial agreement, they do not completely determine the path and extent of ensuing change. Rather, regional bureaucrats in league with a shifting set of self-organized interests and passions seek to exploit the inevitable “spill-overs” and “unintended consequences” that occur when states agree to assign some degree of supra-national responsibility for accomplishing a limited task and then discover that satisfying that function has external effects upon other of their interdependent activities According to this theory, regional integration is a fundamentally irregular and conflictual process, but one in which, under conditions of democracy and pluralistic representation, national governments will find themselves increasingly entwined in regional pressures and end up resolving their conflicts by yielding a wider scale and devolving more authority to the regional organizations they have created. Sooner or later, their citizens will begin shifting more and more of their expectations to the region and satisfying them will increase the possibility that economic-social integration will “spill-over” into political integration. Neo-functionalism accounts for the migration of rule-making authority from national governments to the European Union. The EU’s capability to create, interpret, and enforce rules is refered to as “supranational governance”. Supranationality is defined as transferring a great degree of sovereignty from individual states to transnational institutions. In seeking to explain the development of the EU over time, Neo-functionalists locate the vital sources of the dynamism of integration in the EU’s organs and institutional configuration. Firstly Haas stated that “the interests and values” of an emerging transnational society” would be “defended by major groups involved in the process”. He focused on political elites, industry associations, and labor federations, also member-state governments. For integration to occur, these elites had to understand that certain pressing problems that could only be resolved productively through European policies. Secondly was the construction of supranational authority, organs of governance that would possess “the formal attributes necessary to make [them] an agent of integration”. Haas stated that integration would occur to the extent that transnational activity and economic interdependence proceeds, revealing both potential to reap joint gains and to deal with the negative externalities created by transnational activity; European elites (private actors, firms, and public officials) are led to seek regional – rather than national – solutions to shared problems; and supranational organs of governance supply rules (law, procedures for the ongoing production of rules and dispute resolution) that satisfied these needs. In other words, Haas predicted that, given certain necessary conditions, a new expansionary dynamic would drive integration forward as a process (Haas 1961) Critiques of Neofunctionalism. Intergovernmentalists criticize the neo functionalism for the continued dominance of the national state and of the national interests. Moreover they argue that state still plays an important role in the external policies. Cini argues that it is in the interests of the states to have national civil servants in commission and that their states are represented (2004; 89). There is also criticism over “spillover” from economical to political integration. It was said that it focuses too closely on the on internal dynamics of integration. Intergovernmentalists dispute that neo-functionalism ignores the wider concept of the integration and should take into account its international context as well. Wiener & Diez (2004; 51) stated that neo-functionalism does not provide a general theory of regional integration in all settings and of their origins. It has a representation that member countries are democratic and developed. Thus this model is not applicable to explain integration in other regions. According to Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, neo-functionalism also ignores the potentially divergence of political development at the domestic level, he argues that there are groups within the state who do not share the same political values of elites in other member states and they can get power into their hands (2006; 99). Neo-functionalism was also criticized for being very limited; Hansen stated that the concept of the “spillover” is only applicable to Europe and not the rest of the world and especially there is a difficulty applying to less developed countries. References Kaczorowska A., ‘European Union Law’, Taylor & Francis, 2008. Cini, M (2004) ‘European Union Politics’. OUP Wiener & Diez et al. (2004) ‘European Integration Theory’ OUP NEO-NEO-FUNCTIONALISM by Philippe C. Schmitter., European University Institute July2002 http://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/SPS/Profiles/Schmitter/NeoNeoFunctionalismRev.pdf Retrieved February 2011 Theories of Regional Integration: European Cooperation and Integration by Universität Konstanz, Dept. Politics and Management http://www.unikonstanz.de/FuF/Verwiss/GSchneider/lehre/EuCoopInteg06/europeancooperationandinteraeuro-session3.pd f Retrieved February 2011 http://testpolitics.pbworks.com/w/page/25795541/Neo%20-%20functionalism[Soft Break] The Neofunctionalists Were (almost) Right: Politicization and European Integration by By Liesbet Hooghe &Gary Marks http://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/the-neofunctionalists-were-almost-right-politicization-and-european-integration/ Retrieved February 2011