INTBUS 6 Lecture Notes - Lecture 30: Stanley Hoffmann, Transnationalism, Robert Schuman
25 Sep 2020
School
Department
Course
Professor
Week 5.2
Wed 3 Oct
Task 9: theories of European Integration
PS: what are the theories of European integration?
1. What are the main assumptions of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism ?
Neofunctionalism critiqued realism and led to a counter-theory from within a broadly state-
centered perspective, known as intergovernmentalism.
Neofunctionalism (Ernst Haas 1958, Leon Lindberg 1963 and Philippe Schmitter
1970)
• It was a pluralist theory of international politics – in contrast to the realist theories, 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 → it anticipated later writings on global
interdependence
• In the first period of European integration it appeared to win the theoretical debate –
neofunctionalism sought to explain ‘how and why states voluntarily mingle, merge and
mix with their neighbors so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty while
acquiring new techniques for resolving conflict between themselves
• There were four key parts to neofunctionalism:
o The concept of the state is more complex that realists suggested
o The activities of interest groups and bureaucratic actors are not confined to the
domestic political arena
o Non-state actors are important to international politics
o European integration is advanced through ‘spillover’ pressures
• In contrast to the realists, 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
• The concepts of transnationalism and transgovernmentalism predicted that nationally
based interest groups would make contact with similar groups in other countries
(transnationalism), and departments of state to forge links with their counterparts in
other states, unregulated by their respective foreign offices (transgovernmentalism)
• Neofunctionalists pointed to the activities of multinational corporations to illustrate
their argument that non-state actors are important to international politics
• However, they believed that the European Commission was the most important non-
state international actor → it was believed to be unique in its power to manipulate
both domestic and international pressures on national governments to advance the
process of European integration
They used the concept of spillover to explain how, once national governments took the initial
steps towards integration, the process took a life on its own and swept governments along
further than they anticipated going – two types of spillover were important to early
neofunctionalist writers:
• Functional: it argued that modern industrial economies were made up of
interconnected parts – as such, it was impossible to isolate one sector from the others
Week 5.2
Wed 3 Oct
→ functionalists argued that if member states integrated one functional sector of their
economies, the interconnectedness between this sector and others would lead to a
spillover into other sectors (technical pressures would prompt integration in those
related sectors)
• Political: this involved the build-up of political pressures in favor 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
o The creation of the ECSC would lead to the representatives of the coal and steel
industries in all member states switching at least a part of their political
lobbying from national governments to the new supranational agency
o It was argued that once these interest groups had switched the focus of their
activity to the European level, they would rapidly come to appreciate the
benefits available to them as a result of the integration of their sector
o They would also come to understand the barriers that prevented these benefits
from being fully realized – as the main barriers would be that integration in one
sector could not be effective without the integration of other sectors, these
interest groups would become advocates of further integration → they would
also form a barrier against governments retreating from the level of integration
that had already been achieved – this retreat would be the only way in which
pressures caused by functional spillover could be resolved
• Cultivated: Neofunctionalists looked for spillover pressures to be encouraged and
manipulated by the Commission – it was expected to foster the emergence of EC-wide
pressure groups and to cultivate contacts behind the scenes with national interest
groups and with bureaucrats in the civil services of the member states (who were
another group of potential allies against national governments)
• Exogenous
• Geographical spillover
Intergovernmentalism (Stanley Hoffman -1966)
It was a counter argument to the neofunctionalist analysis of European integration. It drew on
realist assumptions about the role of states. There were three parts to Hoffman’s criticism of
neofunctionalism:
• 1) European integration had to be viewed in a global context – regional integration was
only a part of the development of the global international system. The
neofunctionalists predicted an inexorable progress to further integration (but it was
all based on internal dynamics and assumed that the international background
conditions would remain fixed)
• 2) national governments were uniquely powerful actors in the process of European
integration: they controlled the nature and pace of integration guided by their concern
to protect and promote national interest
• 3) although, where national interests coincided, governments might accept closer
integration in the technical functional sectors, the integration process would not
spread to areas of ‘high politics’ such as national security and defense
• Underestimates the power of states
Document Summary
Neofunctionalism critiqued realism and led to a counter-theory from within a broadly state- centered perspective, known as intergovernmentalism. Neofunctionalism (ernst haas 1958, leon lindberg 1963 and philippe schmitter. It was a counter argument to the neofunctionalist analysis of european integration. It drew on realist assumptions about the role of states. There were three parts to hoffman"s criticism of neofunctionalism: 1) european integration had to be viewed in a global context regional integration was only a part of the development of the global international system. Neofunctionalism (ernst haas 1958, leon lindberg 1963 and philippe schmitter 1970) . Monnet had a functional approach to integration idea of eurotom. This view came from the debate between neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism it was an approach that drew on transactionalism of karl deutsch and on new institutionalism as applied to the eu (although the authors linked the approach to neofunctionalism).
