European integration and politics: history, analysis

Page 1

Chronological Overview

Council of Europe founded 1949

OEEC - set up 1948 in order to administer Marshall's plan

Benelux founded in 1944 in exile to form a customs union - upgraded to an economic union 1958

Western European Union (WEU) founded through the Brussels Treaty in 1948 - served as a gateway for Germany into NATO

European Community for Coal and Steel (ECSC) - Treaty of Paris 1951 (came into power 1952)

European Political (EPC) and Defence (EDC) Communities - rejected by the French Assembly 1954

1957 - Treaties of Rome: European Economic Community (EEC) and European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) (established 1958)

1962 - Regulations for CAP;

Common Assembly renamed European Parliament

1963 - Yaoundé convention;

De Gaulle vetoes UK application

1965 - merger treaty - single Commission and Council for all three Communities;

Empty chair crisis

1967 first common markets for CAP started

1968 customs union complete

1970 Werner report for coordination of economic and monetary policies; Treaty of Luxembourg - budgetary powers for EP

1971 European Social Fund (ESF)

1973 UK, Ireland and Denmark join (De Gaulle out of power 1969)

1979 launch of the European Monetary System (EMS)

First direct elections for EP

1981 Greece joins

1986 Single European Act

Portugal and Spain join

1990 First stage of EMU

1992 Treaty of Maastricht

1993 Copenhagen criteria established by European Council

1994 Second stage of EMU,

Poland and Hungary apply

1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden join

Rest of CEE applies

1973 oil crisis

1997 Treaty of Amsterdam

1998 Agreement on developing a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)

Establishment of European Central Bank

1999 Third stage of EMU

Introduction of euro

2001 Treaty of Nice

2004 eastern enlargement

2005 Dutch and French voters reject Constitutional Treaty

2007 Treaty of Lisbon -rejected by Ireland

Bulgaria and Romania join

2009 Irish voters approve ToL after additional safeguards

Treaty of Lisbon enters into force

Page 2

Analysing the EU - Theoretical Approaches

To explain/ analyse the EU one has to know what exactly they want to explain - "if we want to study the EU / understand what it is we first have to decide what we want to study and how we are going to do that"

Analysis of EU integration traditionally dominated by actor-centred approaches

Neo-functionalists and intergovernmentalists little regard for contextual factors

New institutionalism - theories of politics, paying more attention to the role of institutions and the contextual factors overlooked by the Integration Theories

Theories of Integration

1. Neo-functionalism - developed by Haas in the 1950s

Rooted in the pluralist school (dominant at that time in the US)

Consider politics to be a group-based activity and believe that all interests will eventually organize to affect decision-making

Haas on integration: "The process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, where institutions possess and demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states. The end result of a process of political integration is a new political community, superimposed on the pre-existing ones."

Politics a clash of different interests - the process of integration reflect the relative success of different groups in advancing their interests

In the case of European integration this means that groups are not restricted to the boundaries of their country but can forge transnational alliances

Deliberately focuses upon activities of political elites - claims that European integration was primarily an elite-driven process

4 steps driving the integration:

Motivation by economic gains drives cooperation/ integration in a specific policy area

Understanding that further economic gains can only be achieved through integration of adjacent sectors - functional spill-over

Creation of a new authority -> transnational interests -> additional pressure on national governments to further integration -> advanced by new supranational institutions (e.g. European Commission)

Increased complexity -> further institutionalisation at the supranational level

-> Spill-over

A major driver of integration - refers to the "way in which creation and deepening of integration in one economic sector creates pressures for further economic integration within and beyond that sector and greater authoritative capacity at the European level" (Rosamon, 2000: 60)

Functional spill-over - technical in nature,

E.g. Creation of single market: abolition of tariffs not enough -> stabilization of exchange rates -> single monetary policy -> single currency

Political spill-over - deliberate pressure exerted by national interests

E.g. The European Round Table of Industrialists - a lobby group of major industrial corporations - high stakes in the creation of a single market -> particularly active in lobbying for the single market and SEA and eastern enlargement (new markets)

Cultivated spill-over: supranational institutions not only administrative and implementing role but an active actor in fostering further integration

Either by formal powers or informal means - the Commission can act as a policy entrepreneur - garnered support for SEA by convincing industrial corporations in MSs to pressure national governments for a further liberalisation of the energy market -> breaking the resistance of the national energy conglomerates who still monopolized the energy markets

-> Criticism of neo-functionalism:

Sees integration as a linear and self-sustaining process

Neo-functionalist spin-off: the theory of supranational governance (Alec Stone Sweet and Wayne Sandholtz) - no across-the-board theory but recognizing that some policy sectors are more prone to integrative steps than others - esp. Those where there is a lot of trade between MSs

Claim that the MS can oversee integrative steps only so much - once it has been set off there's very little that the MS can do to halt it (e.g. Rulings by the Court of Justice in the patients rights)

2. Intergovernmentalism

Stanley Hoffmann: MS are fully in charge of cooperative steps and only collaborate with a view to their direct self-interest - rooted in realism

Disagree with neo-functionalist on the possibility of non-governmental actors being able to wield much influence

Nation-states 'a factor of non-integration' (Hoffmann 1966)

Distinction between 'low' and 'high' politics - ruled by a logic of integration and a logic of diversity, respectively

The former may lead to collaboration because of shared interests (e.g. Economics) the latter is diversified (territorial security, sovereignty)

In the latter the states prefer to rule their own affairs before the "uncontrolled uncertainty of the blending process" (i.e. Integration)

Rejects the idea that supranational actors can have much influence (through spill-over) because the integration process is ' like a grinder- comes to a halt as soon as national actors stop actively using it'

Spin-off: liberal intergovernmentalism

Moravcsik - analysed positions of Germany, France, Britain and the Commission in the major treaties 1952 -1992

Economic considerations > geopolitical considerations

Outcomes are the result of bargaining between MS, the Commission only minimal influence

Pays more attention to the role of domestic, economic influences - but still finds supranational actors to be largely powerless

Common points of both theories

MS states preferences and activities not fully autonomous but a result of domestic circumstances (DUH??!) most importantly interests groups' lobbying

Supranational institutions more than mere administrators (even intergovernmentalists admit that the Commission has acted as an entrepreneur in a couple of cases)

The roles and influence of actors depend upon the type of decision and the policy area studied

Theories of EU Politics

New Institutionalism - an umbrella term for several behaviour-focused theories as opposed to actor-centred

Multi-level governance

Stresses the EU's sui generis nature

Emerged at the beginning of the 1990s - rooted in the 1980s trend of emergence of a different mode of policy-making: governance

Mode of governing characterised by collaborative and networked forms of policy-making

Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks - analyses of EU cohesion policies - policies in this area developed in a highly fragmented and diverse manner and seriously challenged the dominance of the national governments

Decision-making dispersed over national, sub-national an supranational lvls

National lvl depends upon the resources of the other lvls to prepare and implement these policies

Subnational lvls no longer depended on the national ones in making cohesion policies

'inter-connected areas' - mutually depended multi-level polity, not a direct challenge to the national sovereignty

The traditional hierarchisation no longer present

Unique methods - Open Method of Coordination (OMC) - emerged as a 'softer' alternative to regulations and directives - voluntarily agree to cooperate using benchmarks, targets and mutual learning

Emergence of the new policy-making communities, e.g. Comitology committees - civil servants from MS ministries

Comparative Politics approach

Unlike MLG, CP stresses the similarities between the EU and nation-states

Legislative, executive and judicial functions; binding decisions similar to national democratic system

Using establish bodies of theories rather than describing the EU as a completely unique case

Well-developed methodological tools instead of starting from scratch

Easier to interpret and understand EU policies when there's something to compare them with

Asks the same questions about the EU as of any other political system - but does not expect the same answers

Three major approaches

Studying the EU polity: legislative, executive and judicial politics

Examines the three governmental functions of the EU looking at the role of the different institutions

Focus both on inter- and intra-functioning of the institutions

Legislative: passing the EU legislation - voting in the parliament, decision-making in the Council; legislative bargaining between different institutions - relative powers in OLP, EP influence

Executive: the role of the EC - room for discretion and manoeuvring in implementing policies from the Council and the EP; other executive actors like the European Central Bank

Judicial: adjudication of conflicts at the EU level through its judicial system - how the EC, MS and other actors invoke the EU law and their involvement in the legal procedures before the Court of Justice; the behaviour of the Court itself - do its ruling favour integration or side with the MS, are all MS treated in an equal manner etc.

Many of the studies employ rational choice institutionalism - each actor seeks to maximise its self-interest by pursuing prospectively successful strategies

Legislative bargaining interpreted as a strategic game

Studying EU politics: citizens, political parties and interest groups

Can be termed 'external actors and factors'

Starting point: their role will be similar to that in national politics unless one can identify clear differences

E.g. Interest groups: behaviour on the EU level follows roughly the same pattern as in national politics - try to lobby as early as possible in the political process (while legislation still being drafted) - in the national context they operate in the ministries, on the EU level in the EC

BUT there's also a difference - can lobby directly the EU as well as their national governments; forming alliances across borders -> highly varies set of strategies

By now also a rich set of comparative politics theories directly derived from studying the EU - e.g. the second-order elections concept - first developed by two EU scholars (Heinz-Reif and Schmitt) to explain people's voting behaviour in the EP elections - now widespread in analysing of non-national elections

Comparative federalism

Functioning of the EU compared to federal states like the US, Canada or India

Share 3 characteristics:

EU has a two-tier system in the federal conception - the MS form the constituent level and the supranational EU institutions the federal level

In federal systems the autonomy of the MS is constitutionally guaranteed via the explicit enumeration of competences - in the EU the Lisbon Treaty - distinguishes between exclusive competences for the EU and areas where MS and the EU share competencies, leaves all the rest (unnamed) areas to the MS

Judicial system on the federal level has a precedence over lower level legislation - the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy guarantee the EU law such status in those domains where the EU is competent

Economic federalism: optimal allocation of policy competences between two levels of governments e.g. regulatory, monetary or fiscal - the allocation in the EU compared to that of other federacies

Democratic representation: how different types of interests are represented at the two levels of government