chapter 24 and 25 - conceptualising and theorising

Question 1

difficulties in conceptualising the EU
What are the EU’s core organisational features and what type of political system is it?

Answer 1

hard to answer bc:

1. EU has never sought to describe or define its political character in a clear manner (it did define values + that it is an ever closer union among peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen)
2. the EU is in constant transition (deepening and widening) -> character changes
3. EU is a highly complex and multifaceted system (-> diff definitions dependent on where the focus lies)
4. in important respects the EU is unique
   -> the EU is a sui generis (the only one of its kind)

Question 2

sui generis

Answer 2

the only one of its kind

Question 3

sovereignty

Answer 3

= legal capacity of national decision-makers to take decisions without being subject to external restraints

• emotive word associated with notions of: power, authority, independence and the exercise of will

Question 4

intergovernmentalism

Answer 4

= arrangements whereby nation states, in situations and conditions they can control and operating mainly through their governments, cooperate with one another on matters of common interest

national sovereignty is not directly undermined bc of the notion of control

Question 5

supranationalism

Answer 5

= states working with one another in a manner that does not allow them to retain complete control over developments

• states may be obliged to do things against their preferences and will

takes inter-state relations beyond cooperation into integration -> some loss of sovereignty

Question 6

the intergov./supranational balance in the EU

Answer 6

60s = intergovernmentalism

• 5/6 states was open for integration and supranationalism
• France (De Gaulle) wasn’t -> withdrew from key decisionmaking forums
• 1966 Luxembourg Compromise -> intergovernmentalism

70s = reinforced intergovernmentalism

• first enlargement 1973 brought in 2 countries sceptical about supranationalism (Denmark and UK)
• economic uncertainties and recessions -> countries searched for national solutions + cautions transfering power to the Community -> intergovernmentalism

still: dev. supranationalism

• treaties increased interdependence
• mid-80s: states more open attitude towards supranational dev.
  bc ineffectiveness intergov.

!whilst relative importance of the two has varied, both remain important for the EU
- most visible in the role of the Commission, which is both supranational and intergov. (as it is constrained by preferences MS)

(idea of integration paradox: integration at unprecedented rate, but MS resisting transfers of power = not what the book argues)

Question 7

principle intergov. characteristics EU

Answer 7

1. many of the major areas of public policy decisions are still mainly taken at the national level (it does consult and coordinate, but ultimately the state decides)
   - incl. foreign affairs, defense, fiscal policy, social welfare, education, health and criminal law
2. virtually all major decisions on general direction and policy priorities of the EU are taken in the European Council (rarely decide with majority, mostly consensus)
3. Commission and EP are restricted in decision-making powers + can’t impose policies that representatives of MS don’t want

Question 8

important supranational characteristics of the EU

Answer 8

1. Commission does much to frame the EU policy agenda + important decision-maker in own right when it comes to secondary and regulatory decision-making
2. QMV is now common in the Council
3. influence of EP on EU decision-making is considerable (has been enhanced over the years)
4. many EU decisions have binding force, have legal status

Question 9

a pooling and sharing of sovereignty?

Answer 9

EU is quite unique in the extent to which it involves states engaging in joint action to formulate common policies and make binding decisions

-> EU states more and more intermeshed and interdependent

• tying effect: it is hard for EU decisionmaking to be reversed without creating major constitutional, legal, political and economic difficulties at EU and national level

!member states have voluntarily surrendered some of their national sovereignty and independence to the EU, but the EU does not only cause a decline in sovereignty, it is also a result of it:

• EU membership has enhanced countries ability to achieve certain objectives
• EU is an attempt of MS to increase their control, strength and influence in a rapidly changing world

-> loss of sovereignty that arises from supranationalism is counterbalanced by the collective strength of the EU as a whole

• can be argued that the only way in which EU states can retain significant control of their operating environments is by pooling and sharing their power and their sovereignty => all MS have experienced loss of sovereignty irrespective of loss bco EU membership

Question 10

Conceptualisations of the EU’s political System

Answer 10

• states and IGOs
• federalism
• state-centrism and consociationalism
• multilevel governance

Question 11

key characteristics of ‘the state’

Answer 11

1. territoriality - state is geographically based and bound
2. sovereignty - state stands above all other associations and groups within its territory and its jurisdiction extends to the whole population of the territory
3. legitimacy - authority of the state is widely recognised, both internally and externally
4. monopoly of governance - institutions of the state monopolise public decision-making and enforcement

Question 12

key characteristics intergovernmental organisations

Answer 12

• IGOs are based on treaties between states, in which representatives come together to cooperate on a voluntary basis for mutual benefit. they offer a way for states to work together without formally conceding national sov.
• IGOs have no (or very little) organisational autonomy + decisions usually by consensus
• IGOs have few instruments to enforce their wil on reluctant members (but there are strong pressures for states to comply: otherwise membership is in question)
• IGOs vary in focus, purpose and geographical reach

Question 13

states and intergovernmental organisations

Answer 13

The EU is less than a state, but more than an IGO

states

all 4 key characteristics of states are present in the EU, but only in partial ways

• territoriality: EU territory is sum total of MS territory
  but: enlargements mean it is constantly shifting + its not the EU’s ‘‘own’’ territory
• sovereignty: EU jurisdiction applies to the whole EU population
  but: reach of sovereignty is confined to certain policy areas
• legitimacy: little internal legitimacy, but firmly established external legitimacy
• monopoly of governance: only a in very few policy areas

! -> EU is far from being a state, but: traditional statehood has been breaking down -> EU seems more and more state-like

IGOs
EU more sophisticated and dev. than other IGOs

Magnette: EU is a set of institutions and rules designed to strengthen MS by encouraging cooperation

striking differences EU and IGOs:

• EU more developed and complex structure than IGOs
• no IGO has anything like EU policy responsibilities
• EU has progressed far beyond intergov. nature of IGOs

Question 14

regulatory state conceptualisation

Answer 14

• Giandomenico Majone

Functions EU =
EU not involved in distributive/redistributive policies, but in regulating areas as competition, env., product quality, health and safety at work

Institutional structure EU = range of regulatory and non-majoritarian institutions (ICJ, Commission, regulatory agencies) that collectively constitute virtually an independent fourth branch of gov.

*other conceptualization = Vivien Schmidt’s = EU as a regional state

Question 15

Federalism

Answer 15

pre-1991 Maastricht summit = UK embroiled in clash with other govs. about whether or not to include in TEU the EU as evolving in a federal direction’ (eventually became ‘ever closing union …’
- clash mostly bc: diff ideas definition federalism

EU federal traits:

• power is divided between central and regional decision-making institutions (EU vs MS)
• nature of division is specified in constitutional-like docs
• both levels do have important powers and responsibilities for public policy

EU falls short of the federal level:

• some responsibilities at the center (EU) are heavily dependent on acquiescense of regional units (states), e.g. unanimity in the Council
• policy balance is still tilted towards MS (apart from market-related policies)
• policy spheres that in federal systems usually belong in the center, in the EU they belong to the regional (e.g. foreign affairs, citizenship rights, defence)
  *currency control as exception to this
• central authorities: not able to use legitimate violence in ‘EU territory’

-> EU embodies federal principle of combining in a territorial and contractual sharing of power a degree of unit on the one hand with a respect for the interests and partial autonomy of regions on the other
+ movement in federal direction

=> EU can be conceptualised as quasi-federal system, or a special confederation (balance tilted to the regional level)

Question 16

key characteristics federal political systems

Answer 16

• power divided between central and regional decision-making institutions
• nature division of power is specified in and protected by constitutional docs.
• division of power in practice can’t be over-rigid: some policy responsibilities overlap and intertwine
• some policy areas are primarily responsibility of central level (e.g. foreign affairs, security and defense, management currency)

Question 17

key features of consociational political systems

Answer 17

• societal segmentation + politically significant lines of division
• various segments are represented in decision-making forums on a proportional basis (minorities often over-represented)
• political elites of segments dominate decision-making
• decisions on basis compromise and consensus
• interactions between segments can be positive and negative with regards to promoting solidarity
  *negative: over-emphasise distinctiveness
  *positive: links established and community-wide attitudes can be fostered

e.g. consociational system = Belgium

Question 18

state-centrism

Answer 18

EU:

• system rests primarily on states that cooperate for certain purposes
• main channels of communication between MS are national gov.
• no gov./states obliged to accept decisions on major issues to which they are opposed
• supranational actors don’t have significant power on their own right (function as agents and facilitators of the collective will of MS)

this is the shared core, there are diff state-centric models, e.g.

1. two-level game (Putnam): state-centrism combined with domestic politics approach
   - gov. MS are involved in EU policy-making in two ways: domestic (political actors seek to influence positions gov.), intergov. (gov. negotiate in EU forums) levels
2. consociationalism

Question 19

consociationalism

Answer 19

(in general: Lijphart)
(EU specific: Taylor)

Taylor emphasizes:

• symbiosis / mutual dependence between the participating segments of the consociation (the MS) and the collectivity of the consociation (EU structures and frameworks)
• costs of fragmentation are overcome + preserving/strengthening power and authority of segments and collectivity

Chryssochoou and Costa and Magnette emphasise:

• also emphasise retention of fundamental sovereignty (just like Taylor)
• Chryssochoou: EU as confederal consociation : merging states in some form of union without losing national identity or resigning sovereignty

Question 20

the multilevel governance model of the EU

Answer 20

a conceptualisation of EU as sui generis
+ set against the state-centric view (is too simple)

• decisionmaking competencies exercised by national gov + institutions and actors at higher and lower levels
• collective decision-making at EU level involves a significant loss of sovereignty and control
  intergov. model rejected: lowest common denominator outcomes are available only in a subset of EU decisions
• political arenas are interconnected rather than nested
  different levels of gov. are interconnected: supranational, national and subnational

-> EU as a polity (or polity in the making) in which power and influence are exercised at multiple levels of gov.
-> states as important actors, but not semi-monopolistic position

based on ‘the new governance’: government includes actors and processes beyond the state, relationships between states and other actors less hierarchical and more interactive + essential business gov. more regulation public activities rather than redistribution of resources
- multilevel governance is a strand of the new governance

Question 21

conclusion: conceptualisation EU

Answer 21

conceptualisations of the ‘wholly adequate’ are not possible given the the EUs multifaceted nature
- they seek to draw attention to core aspects

conceptualisations can be mutually complementary

• e.g. Fabbrini: EU best seen as ‘supranational union’ in respect of making regulatory rules, but as an ‘intergovernmental union’ in respect of the making of strategic decisions on matters of high domestic political salience

Question 22

theorising European Integration: Grand Theory

Answer 22

= theory which explains the main features of the integration process as a whole

two (foundational) theories: neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism
- + interdependency theory (not per se focused on EU integration, but often used to help reason)

future of grand theory

• grand theories are valuable to understand integration: offer particular insights, partial explanations + promote further work and thought
• new theorising: more nuanced, complex and sophisticated + attempt to bring together key features of traditional theories and link them
  e.g. Keohane and Nye argued that interg. + neof. + interd. all contribute to understanding relaunch integration process

limitations old models -> synthesising approach -> theory of integration must include findings state behavior + EU institutions + domestic politics

Question 23

neofunctionalism

Answer 23

*theory of grand theory
late 50s, 60s US, Haas and Lindberg

spillover suggested progressive dev. integration

• functional spillover: interconnected nature modern econ. -> integration in one sector produces pressure to also integrate in other sectors
• political spillover: national elites focus on supranational -> supranational more powerful + increasing imp. integration -> pressures/demands political control and acc. at supran.

but: 1965-66 crisis in EC -> integration slowed down
+ integration did not look like neof. described

late 80s = re-assessment/comeback neofunctionalism as integration picked up again (often combined with new elements)

• Sandholtz and Sweet: neofuntionalist base + globalisation and transactionalism: glob.->growth econ. transactions and comm.->pressure for removal border barriers->EU policies and policy arenas with supranational institutions

criticism neofunctionalism:

• undervaluing the gov.-determined frameworks within which supranational actors operate
• not paying attention to MS resistance to aspects of integration
• being implicitly deterministic

still: it has explanatory usefulness

Question 24

intergovernmentalism

Answer 24

*theory of grand theory / origins in IR/realism
proponent: Hoffmann, later Moravcsik

main diff with neof. = not much importance infl. supran. and non-gov. actors (within states)

explains direction/pace integration by reference to decisions/actions taken by gov. Euro states
->Hoffmann: logic of diversity rather than logic of integration

Moravscik: liberal intergov.

1. assumes rational state behavior
2. liberal theory of national preference formation (domestic politics)
3. intergov. interpretation inter-state relations: key roles gov.s

4 criticisms liberal intergov.:

1. Moravcsik to selective with empirical references to demonstrate validity of the framework in EU context + focus on historic/treaty decisions rather than more routine decisions
2. concentrates too much on formal and final stages of decision-making
3. too little attention to the ‘black box’ of the state + disaggregating diff. parts of gov. -> inadequate acc how gov. choose policy options (often more ideological than logical)
4. understating influence supranational actors and transnational actors

Question 25

interdependency

Answer 25

*theory used by grand theory
Keohane and Nye

= puts integration in the wider context of growing international interdependence (rather than focusing on internal dynamics like intergov. and neof. do)

rapid changes international system: increasingly multilayered and interconnected

differences with neof. and intergov.

• less rigoros and systematic (also bc it is less used in EU integration)
• integration explained by global factors

it is an approach/perspective rather than a theory : it lacks precision

Question 26

theorising the functioning of the EU: Middle-Range theory

Answer 26

= focus on particular parts integration process (rather than the whole) + focus on politics and policies of the EU

recent years: shift attention to this (rather than grand theory) bc:

1. grand theory inherently limited in what it can achieve (you can’t explain everything)
2. more scholars studying EU (no longer just IR subdiscipline)

!many diff theories, two important approaches: new institutionalism and policy networks
- approaches rather than theories: are still in dev. + more suitable for description than explanation

Question 27

new institutionalism

Answer 27

*approach middle-range theory
late 80s

= institutions matter in shaping actions pol. actors
- diff with old institutionalism: also focus on informal elements

three analytical approaches within new institutionalism:

1. historical institutionalism: taking of EU decisions at one point in time constrains behavior/options at future points of time (path dependency)
2. rational choice institutionalism: focus on motivations to integrate + conseq. EU decisions for actors’ behavior and influence
3. sociological institutionalism: cultural values/diff. shape actor choices and behavior (used less frequently than the other two)
   - logic of appropriateness

Question 28

policy networks

Answer 28

*middle-range theory
used to describe/analyse policy outcomes and processes

policy network = arena in which decision-makers and interests come together to mediate differences + search for solutions

policy networks differ in character according to:

1. relative (in) stability of network memberships
2. relative insularity/permeability of networks
3. relative strength/weakness of resource dependencies

EU policy-making is seen as based on a system of network governance

• policy community type networks (stable, insular, strong) = where EU policy is well established + where an organised ‘clientele exists + decision-makers benefit from cooperation of interests
  e.g. agriculture, R&D
• issue networks (instable, permeable, weakness): where EU policy isn’t well developed, policy debate is fluid/shifting and organised interests have few resources to exchange with decision-makers
  e.g. environment, social policy

Question 29

diff. theoretical approaches applied to enlargement

Answer 29

rationalism
= assumption policy actors are motivated by self-interest to maximise utility (interests derive from objective/given circumstances)
- logic of consequences: benefits must outweigh costs

post-1995 enlargements/negotiations:

• economic advantages from a larger internal market
• political and security advantages of EU neigboring states to be solid/stable liberal democracies + more membership -> more weight in IR

*for states that got Structural Fund support it was negative (as the Fund would be shared with new poorer countries), but acceding states have much weaker negotiating position to reduce cost enlargement EU states

constructivist explanations
rationalism can’t explain enlargement: some states would’ve voted against -> social explanations

• rhetorical entrapment reluctant states
• Sjursen: community-based European identity
• discourse of a EU identity characterised by a responsibility towards the CEECs

Question 30

theorising - concluding remarks

Answer 30

• all approaches/theories are criticised + their usefulness reserved
• not one theory explains everything, rather everything contributes to an understanding

future of theoretical work on EU integration and the EU: two newish dev. seem likely:

1. crises in the EU -> stimulate new thinking + new/moderated approaches
   *especially focus on nature EU, as the assumption of furthering integration becomes challenged
2. attention to/from approaches away from the theoretical mainstream (e.g. feminism, critical theory)