European integration in our contemporary history created interesting developments in the field of international political relations. To the common person, this integration has breached the traditional idea that a political territory is a steadfast boundary for policies, governance, economy, and even culture. Indeed, practical improvements and experiences in nation-state relations also developed its theoretical underpinnings. Likewise, with the development of the theories, more likely will practice be the same.
This paper centers on the role of the theories, and development, of functionalism and neo-functionalism in the creation of the European Union and the processes it went through. First, this paper shall define the key theories involved in the analysis for the integration of Europe: functionalism and neo-functionalism. The former, we shall try to define as a social theory – how it was used for the traditional concept of the nation-state and the relation it brings to the individual. The latter will be dealt with contemporary handling as it is widely accepted among the international political science circle that this is the primordial theory utilized in the creation of the European Union.
Functionalism is a theory that bases itself in the idea that a social system is similar to that of a biological organism, such that an organism, or society for that matter, is made up of several components that are interrelated and contributes to the maintenance of the whole. Order is achieved because of the interrelation of the parts and the specification of forces that bring cohesion, integration, and equilibrium. (Mc Lean, 1996: 196-197)
Because of this basic theorem, functionalism is viewed as positivistic. In a more precise way, functionalism presented four basic institutions in the social realm: economics, social control, education, and political organization. The society has the capability to politically integrate its members through socialization, and that the society has the ability to sanction its members who may be doing “dysfunctional” things. (Anderson, M. and Taylor, F., 2005: 18)
Governments, therefore, have the function to maintain the order and balance in the society. In western societies, functionalism was used to justify economic systems and policies for the maintenance of balance. Criticisms to functionalism actually stem from this emphasis of order and equilibrium. It failed to admit the dynamic system of society as it merely described the systems and not ascribed their role for social changes. As such, various authors described functionalism as a static theory of society.
Neo-functionalism meanwhile, while ascribed largely for European integration, is a theory which was developed in the mid-twentieth century by American and western Europeans scholars in the view of a supranational body that is necessary for regional integration. This theory must not be confused with functionalism because the two are mutually different of each other, despite the fact that, in much sense, neo-functionalism builds on the former. In fact, neo-functionalism has been ascribed as a theory of integration.
As a process – integration – as defined in the theory, would achieve a gradual withering of the power of nation-states, as functions of government directly pertinent to the welfare of Europeans came more and more to be performed by the international agencies. European institutions, for that matter, would foster a governing elite free of national ties, and become the focus for interest groups and popular loyalties. (Mc Lean, 1996: 340) On the most basic sense, Mitrany (1943), cited by Ray, J.L., said that the integration of independent states could best be achieved by first creating a central organization with authority over technical economic tasks. (1998: 370)
Therefore, governments who would undergo the process of integration have to start at the level of economic integration. This is essential because the proponents of European integration also played with the idea of federalism in the process of integration. Discussion of this will be detailed in the succeeding paragraphs.
THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
After the World War II, many countries thought of a way of acquiescing with one another for the reason more of security and political stability. Faced with the threat of Soviet invasion and the blockade of West Berlin, Europe (and particularly Western Europe) sought alliances with the United States and among themselves. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created as a power counter-balance to the threat of the Soviets, but we must take note that the NATO is a political alliance mainly concerned with the tide of international politics and security.
Meanwhile, Western European countries called for integration in several attempts. Winston Churchill even went on to call for a “United States of Europe” in 1949 where thirteen Western European nations assembled to form the Council of Europe. This concept of the United States of Europe is a good example of the federalist philosophy of integration espoused by the French premier Rene Pleven in 1950. The concept, however, is far more encompassing than the Council of Europe earlier organized. (Ray, 1998: 369)
As stated, Premier Pleven proposed for the creation of an all-European army. This plan would allow the Europeans both to thwart any aggressive designs the Soviets might have and to rearm the Germans without giving them control of weapons of troops. Five out of the six states involved in the plan to create the integrated European army approved it, but in 1954, the French parliament voted to defer the discussion of the idea and so it died a natural death. (Ray, 1998)
Here enters the neo-functionalist approach in the integration of Europe. Although the functionalists were only concerned with having loosely-knit organizations that may interact across the countries, neo-functionalists pointed the need for supranational institutions with power superior to that of the governments of the member nations. (Ray, 1998) In this view the nation state is transferring its powers and sovereignty upwards to the European level in political, sectoral and geographical terms. This transfer takes place from the nation state to a supranational set of authoritative institutions. (Schmitter, 1996: 2)
To concretize these terms, we shall now venture into the birthmarks of the European Union. James Lee Ray (1998) reports that the ideas were practiced through the Schuman plan in 1950. The plan called for the creation of a common market in Europe for coal and steel industries. In 1951, France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg signed the Treaty of Paris, launching the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). (Ray, 1998:370)
The ECSC became a successful endeavor and soon, more negotiations between the nations went underway. In 1957, the same six states signed the Treaty of Rome and this created two new organizations: the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The three organizations stated here and in the last paragraph formed the core of what became known in 1967 as the European Community (EC). When the Treaty of Maastricht came into effect in November 1993, the organization officially adopted the name, the European Union (EU). (Ray, 1998: 370-371)
The supranational body of the European Union also has it own executive, legislative, and judicial supranational institutions. The European Parliament performs legislative functions as it reviews and approves decisions made by the Commission. Executive functions are shared by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Council. While judicial function is given to the European Court of Justice, whose function is similar to that of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Aside from these institutions, the ambitious Maastricht Treaty established three pillars for the European Union: a common currency (the Euro), a common foreign and security policy, and a common justice and internal policy. (Ray, 375-376) In a sense, the EU accomplished a feat like that of a nation-state.
At present, the European Union is composed of twenty-five member nations. There were five original members in 1957. They are: Belgium, Germany (the east would become part in 1991), France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. By 1993, the number was already twelve with: Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU on January 1, 1995. The latest additions to the EU were Cyprus (Greek part), the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004.
THEORETICAL CHALLENGES TO THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
It seems that the neo-functionalist approach for economic, political and cultural integration for Europe worked well as seen in the influx of membership in the EU. In fact, neo-functionalists predicted this “spillover” of integral growth because it is one of the central features of the theory. However, because of the dynamics of changing economic and political interests and environment, the theory is put to the test or, to put it more aptly, the theory and practice evolves.
To discuss the challenges to the European integration, there is a need to go back to the fundamentals of neo-functionalism according to E.B. Haas (1958). First of the features is that neo-functionalism focuses on the process. Haas posits:
“…integration is the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states…’ (1958:16)
Bear in mind that integration is not only concerned with the institutional and structural aspects of the society, but also the integration of values, “loyalties”, and “expectations.” The question now is, in the light of disparities of economic conditions and political loyalties still existing within the member-states of EU, how can the Union maintain itself without sacrificing sovereignty in the still-independent states?
Second, on the question of centrality of supranational institutions, Haas proposed that integral to the European integration is: 1. a central government which stood apart from those of the member states –i.e. supranational institutions, and 2. the development of a European consciousness. (Haas, 1958: 29) There seems to be not much of a problem here except that as in any political organization, the leadership is always critical. Because of the existence of several supranational institutions, the balancing act of sticking to functions and with the interest groups remains. Some sort of conflict, though by experience not antagonistic, between the governments of the nation members and the central government of the European Union. Major policy changes, such as adoption of uniform tariffs, and reduction of trade barriers across states are testing grounds for the elasticity and flexibility of the existing policies in the member-states.
Third, Haas recognizes the weaving of values and dispersing it from the national to the regional level. He said that,
“As the process of integration proceeds, it is assumed that values will undergo change, that interests will be redefined in terms of regional rather than purely national orientation and that the erstwhile set of separate national group values will gradually be superseded by a new and geographically larger set of beliefs.” (Haas, 1958: 13)
Close cultural and historical ties within Europe made it possible for the EU to surpass this obstacle with less effort. Nevertheless, as stated earlier in this section, values are not static. In fact, it includes the “expectations” of the group and of the members inside each group (or country). Thereby, it complicates the citizens of the EU to grasp the magnitude of responsibilities they have because of their integration. Moreover, because the ties of culture are tightened, then we may expect policies in politics and economics to do the same.
Lastly, neo-functional integration in Europe presupposed spillovers in political, economical and geographical aspects. We have seen how this has worked in the formation of the EU – from cooperation in the aspects of coal and steel industry to the formation of the European Economic Community. Also, this caused the decisions of states to join the EU in its subsequent enlargements in 1995 and 2004. We tend to believe that these spillovers are automatic processes for the expansion of the community. This positivistic notion simplifies the effort needed to explain the integration process. However, this is the same facet in functionalism and neo-functionalism that draws ire of most political scientists.
Neo-functionalism shares with functionalism the criticism that it is weak to explain developments in the society and in the adaptations of the European Union to changes. In short, the theory is inadequate as far as the reality is concerned. In the 1960s to the 1970s, international observers questioned the relevance of neo-functionalism to European integration because it lagged behind the events. Joanna Apap (2002) explains that the theory has lost its explanatory power because of the “alleged stagnation in the (European) Community due to international events, and because of some spectacular clashes between sovereign states arising from their diverging national interests.” (Apap, 2002: 64) As a normative social theory, neo-functionalism was utilized for the integration of nations in Europe, but it does not prelude the things to come in the process.
SUMMARY
We have seen developments in international politics in our history – how nations united and formed coalitions, alliances and even integrated. The European Union’s model of economic and political integration provides us a lesson for nations uniting not just for mere partnerships, but also in the aspects of political and cultural values.
We may view that despite the theoretical underpinnings of the European integration to neo-functionalism, problems still occur because the theory cannot cope up with the social changes and dynamics of interaction between and among the sovereign member states and the supranational institutions. The challenge now for Europe is to adapt to changes and to balance the interests within and around their Union.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Andersen, M. and Taylor, H.F. Sociology: the Essentials, 3rd ed., Thomson Wadsworth, 2005
Apap, J. The Rights of Immigrant Workers in the European Union: an evaluation of the EU public policy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002.
Haas, E.B. The Uniting of Europe. Stanford University Press, 1958.
Mc Lean, I. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Ray, James L. Global Politics, 7th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.
Schmitter, P.C. ‘Examining the Present Euro-Polity with the Help of Past Theories’ in Governance in the European Union, ed. G. Marks et al. (London: Sage, 1996).
Theories: Functionalism, neo-functionalism, federalism and the reaction against it, http://www.ihis.aau.dk/internationalaffairs/EUP/Slides/TheoriesEupInt_WZ_F06_Lecture1.pdf
Edwards, Jessica and Neutzling Kimberley, Functionalism, http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/function.htm.
