European Union PDF

Lecture 1: Why study the European Union? It is an important topic of study. Despite the struggles and the failures of the European Union in recent years, it is still a prevalent player in the international arena. The EU impacts our lives, even in ways we may not necessarily realize or see. In t...

Lecture 1: Why study the European Union? It is an important topic of study. Despite the struggles and the failures of the European Union in recent years, it is still a prevalent player in the international arena. The EU impacts our lives, even in ways we may not necessarily realize or see. In the past 60 years, the EU has played a prominent role in preventing conflict and war (in Europe). Without studying the EU’s functioning, role and prevalence, we cannot fully comprehend the past years of political, social, economic crises. The EU is also the first successful voluntary transfer of sovereignty on a large scale. The union has generated a wholly new political form which challenges and challenged many existing theories and assumptions of politics. We study the EU with the scope of understanding what it is exactly, how it came to be, how it grows and changes, and whether it can or even should be reproduced elsewhere. How to study the EU?: There are analytical and theoretical approaches to understand the European integration Project. We must cover the empirical foundations, analyzing how the EU came to be, how it functions, and what it does. Historical narratives: European integration history is largely denoted by ‘big history moments’ (typically significant treaties). → Integration’s history can be known as diplomatic history Going off of this history, numerous instances/connecting narratives can be identified, and together can be used to make sense of and create a trajectory for numerous elements of the overall story. Sectoral integration: The history of integration is superbly a history of how a number of states have shared, pooled together or even given up entirely some competences supranationally in a growing number of policy areas. This began in the sector of Coal and Steel production, but integration has surpassed coal and steel and now the EU has a role in virtually every public policy sector. Progressive social interaction has played a key role in the theoretical aspect of EU studies, even inspiring another political theory, “Neo-functionalism”. Vertical integration: As integration has moved to comprise more and more sectors, it has done so also by incorporating increasingly more centralized institutions. The transfer of competences is not an “all or nothing” procedure, its processes take many forms which imply differing degrees of sovereignty transfer. In EU studies, we speak of “intergovernmentalism”, and “supranationalism”. Vertical integration has taken numerous forms in differing places and at differing speeds. Some theorists argue that the prevailing pattern of vertical integration has slowed down or even ended, following the Eurozone crisis (what about Covid?). Geographic expansion: The group of member states has not remained idle, from the 6 founding states, we have moved now to 28 nations comprising the union. (Newest nation being Croatia, joining in 2013). In 2020, for the first time ever, a nation LEFT the EU (United Kingdom), bringing the total down to 27 member states. Differentiation: As the EU has grown, and integrated in a higher number of areas, it has become growingly harder to obtain consensus and have all nations move at the same pace. In response, integration has become growingly differentiated. Terms such as, multi-speed EU, variable geometry or Europe à la carte all make reference to differentiated integration. Some posit that the only future for the EU following its crises, is more differentiation. Politicization: Integration has grown to more and especially more contentious areas, growing how these events have become politicized. Politicization can be defined as the extent to which integration is subject to (internal) political debates and conflicts. The EU’s recent crises have denoted more interest and therefore politicization of the integration project. Euroskepticism and Populism are important examples birthed from this politicization. Historical milestones: The idea of European integration precedes the second World War, but it gained much more traction following 1945. Some innovations were born from this integration, Benelux, Council of Europe, NATO etc. European integration began in 1951. The Schuman declaration and ECSC treaty introduced functional integration in coal and steel (enormous factors for warfare). The European Defence community was a failed attempt at integration, it highlights the weakness of a more directly political/federal approach to integration. 1957 Rome Treaties: European Economic Community (EEC) and Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community), added to the ECSC. This marks the beginning of integration as we know it today. The functional and ECONOMIC approach succeeds. Mid-1960’s: European Court of Justice (direct affect and primacy of European Law). 1965-66: Empty chair crisis and Luxembourg compromise. Intergovernmentalism is reaffirmed. Empty Chair Crisis (1965): The boycott of the EEC led by France and her president Charles De Gaul, wherein he did not present himself until his demands were met. The boycott stems from the EEC’s proposed policies which would reduce national veto power, and granting the EEC more power. Luxembourg compromise: The French led boycott was appeased by the reaffirming of a state’s veto rights in consideration for national interests affected by a policy. 1970’s Eurosclerosis: No major initiatives of vertical integration, but the first enlargement took place in 1973 which welcomed the UK, Ireland and Denmark to the Union. 1981 Second Enlargement: Greece welcomed. 1986 Third Enlargement: Spain, Portugal added. 1986 Single Europe Act: The first treaty following ToR, and launch of the single market project (to be completed by 1992). Expands majority voting in Council and introduces greater role for the European Parliament. 1991 Maastricht Theory: The EU is finally established, and her three pillars comprised of; 1. Justice and Home Affairs (now called the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) 2. CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) 3. Communities 1995 Fourth Enlargement: 1. Austria 2. Sweden 3. Finland 1996 Amsterdam Treaty: Expands community method, communitized the JHA, Creates the High Representative. 1991-01 Introduction of the Euro 2002 Nice Treaty: Reformed the European Commission’s composition to facilitate the next expansion, changes the voting system in Council. 2004-07 “Big Bang”: CEE added, Malta and Cyprus added. 2002-05 Constitutional treaty and its failure 2007 Lisbon treaty: The Current set-up for the EU. 2008/9 Eurozone crisis: Beginning of the Euro crisis :( 2012 “Whatever it takes” Various institutional reforms around this period. European Stability Mechanism (ESM), Fiscal compact, banking union etc. 2016-20: BREXIT!!!!!! 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic: EU introduces a number of important policy initiatives, such as, “Next-generation EU”. Where are we today?: Sectoral integration: Europe is more integrated than ever. Current discussion surrounds further steps in economic areas (e.g fiscal integration) and beyond (e.g military integration). Vertical integration: The jury is still out on the past couple of years. In some ways, the Eurozone crisis has introduced more intergovernmentalism, in other ways supranationalism has taken precedence. Likewise, Covid-19 has led to more intergovernmentalism but supranationalism has more prevalence in this regard. Geographic expansion: Brexit is still fresh in our memories, but it seems to have no started the domino effect which was feared. Conversely, there is a (growing) list of countries that want to join the EU. Differentiation: While differentiation seems to be the future of the EU (e.g. Eurozone budget), we must not forget moves for less differentiation (primarily Brexit). Politicization: Undoubtedly, at a historic high. Is that a bad thing? Lecture 2: What is the EU today?: Where has the historical evolution of European integration overviewed thus far left us from an institutional standpoint? The EU is denoted as a hybrid entity, (aka Sui Generis: One of a kind, in and of itself). Institutionally speaking, it is located between a traditional international organization and a federal state. It was created mostly as an international institution, and over time it has moved closer toward supranationalism. Studying EU institutions: The hybrid nature of the European Union makes it of particular interest to research to scholars, but this same nature can make it more difficult to research due to a lack of concrete empirical frames of reference. In addition, the EU has a complex and layered, sometimes counterintuitive, institutional architecture which is constantly evolving. An Analytical shortcut: To make sense of the EU’s institutional structure, it may help to begin by thinking about it in ‘federal’ terms. Starting from this reading of the EU (in federal perceptions), we can look at the prominent deviations from the federal model. This will give us an analytical framework and a conceptual ‘anchor’ from which to work our way into understanding the EU. Federal Analogy: The institutional core of a federal system is comprised of; 1. Legislative power (A chamber representing constituent units, a chamber representing the people) 2. Executive power (A federal government or executive) 3. Judicial power (A constitutional or supreme court) When applying this model to the EU, we model is as follows; 1. Legislative: Council system comprising the EU council and the European council, European Parliament. 2. Executive: European Commission. 3. Judicial: Court of Justice of the EU. European Commission: The European Commission (EC) is the closest thing comparable to a European Federal Executive. It enforces and implements EU policies (with the crucial assistance of member states). It is the so-called ‘Guardian of Treaties’, monitoring compliance and adherence to treaties throughout EU territory. It initiates EU legislation (AND HAS A MONOPOLY ON SO). It provides strategic leadership for the Union (in conjunction/competition with the European Council). The European Council has one president, and 26 commissioners (among whom there are a few vice presidents). Each commissioner has a sectoral portfolio, much like ministers in national governments. These individuals all serve for 5 years. The European Council president is elected by the European Council, and approved by the European Parliament. (→ Rise and Possible fall of the Spitzenkandidaten ) Spitzenkandidaten: Individuals elected by political parties to represent them in the commission and eventually be elected as President, confirmed and approved by the Parliament and Council. Commissioners are chosen by member states, one commissioner per member state, in consultation with the President and with approval from the European Parliament (which can formally vote the commission down ONLY AS A WHOLE). Each commissioner spearheads one or more Directorates General (DG). These constitute the core of the EU’s administration. (Myth of the Pervasive European bureaucracy). COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT MANDATED TO REPRESENT MEMBER STATES, THEIR FUNCTION IS TO SERVE THE UNION AS A WHOLE!!!!! THIS MAKES THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION A DISTINCTLY SUPRANATIONAL ENTITY!!!!! Council of Ministers: The council of ministers of the EU is the main body that represents member states. This makes it the singularly more distinct intergovernmental European institution. In our federal analogy, it can be described as Europe’s ‘senate’. The Council is is composed of representatives (ministers) from the various Member States. It changes composition (and meeting frequency) depending on on the theme and urgency of said theme being discussed. General Affairs Council being among the most important configurations. The General Affairs Council meets on a monthly basis, involving ministers responsible for European affairs. The Council of Ministers are chaired on a 6-month-rotation basis by each assigning Member State. → Exception: The Foreign Affairs Council is always chaired by the High Representative of Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (also a member and vice-president of the Commission). Currently, this role is occupied by Josep Borrell. The council can decide by unanimity, or in an increasing manner, by qualified majority voting. (55% of Member States and 65% of population). However, it usually seeks consensus (states can be outvoted on occasion). The Council is supported by the Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives) and many specialized working groups. The Eurogroup: The Eurogroup is a subset of the Ecofin (Economic and Financial Affairs Council configuration), composed only of the Finance ministers of the 20 Eurozone nations. Although its role is informal, it is an extremely useful forum for (macro)economic policy. The Eurogroup elects its own chair. Current chair is occupied by Pascal Donohoe of Ireland. European Council The European Council is composed of the heads of government/state of the member states (including the EC president). It is, roughly speaking, the summit version of the Council of Ministers (but is a distinct entity/institution with its own set of rules). It is chaired by a permanent president (since Lisbon) serving for two years and a half. It meets at least 4 times a year, but this number can increase depending on need and emergency situations which might arise. The European Council makes high level (so-called history-making) decisions, including treaty revisions, (under the simplified procedure); it makes/participates in top EU appointments; it provides strategic leadership for the Union. Two Presidents: The co-existence of a Commission and a Council president has oftentimes generated ambiguities , inefficiencies, and even competition regarding who should lead and represent the Union. This debate has continued for years, and relates directly to the inherent tension between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the EU. Some recent proposals for reform have included the idea of merging the two presidential offices. Lecture 3: European Parliament: It is the body representing EU citizens, and the only one directly elected (since 1979). Its institutional and political role has progressively increased over time. Currently, it is composed of 720 members (MEPs), allocated unequally among member states. MEPs are elected for 5 years through proportional electoral systems. Latest election was in June 2024 The EP is chaired by a president (currently Roberta Metsola, of Malta), serving a two and a half year rotation. The EP participates in EU legislation and a budgetary process; ratifies international agreements; participates in top appointments; scrutinizes the EC (and other EU supranational bodies). As in national parliaments, much of the EP work is done in sectoral parliamentary committees. EP votes are usually divided along party (as opposed to national) lines. However, we have no such thing as (mass) Europarties yet. Currently, there are 8 political groups in parliament, the EPP and S&D remain the largest ones albeit facing a historic decline. European Parliament Elections: The EP is the EU’s most democratic institution. Yet, its election is usually seen as ‘second-order’ (essentially, less important than national elections). Turnout is is historically low, 51% being the highest obtained ever (past two years boast this fact), but is still growing albeit slowly. EP elections are managed nationally, campaigns are run by national parties, and national politics has a strong influence on results. It remains to be determined if the spitzenkandidaten procedure can increase transnational politicization. Ordinary Legislative Procedure: EU legislation comes mostly in the form of regulations and directives, and it is adopted by (mostly) through the so-called ordinary legislative procedure (OLP). The OLP (previously known as the Co-Decision), has expanded to more and more policy areas over time, increasing the role of the EP and therefore supranationalism. The OLP is an example of symmetrical bicameralism: Both legislate chambers (EP and European Council) must agree in order for a motion to be passed. This aims to guarantee that both interests of the people and member states are taken into account. The Court of Justice: The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is the ‘constitutional court’ of the Union. It is located in Luxembourg. The CJEU is composed of the European Court of Justice and the General Court. They have respectively 27 and 54 judges appointed by member states for a renewable six-year term, but highly independent in their functions. → Similar to the Commission. Competence of the CJEU: Works as the apex of a decentralized court system vis-a-vis EU law: The latter must be applied and upheld by all member state courts. However, the CJEU’s competence only extends to areas covered by EU law. Where only national law is concerned, the CJEU is not competent. CJEU =/= Supreme court of appeal. CJEU actions:  Much of the CJEU’s work consists of preliminary rulings, with which the Court provides national courts with its authoritative interpretation of EU rulings. Preliminary rulings are indirect actions, because in these cases the CJEU is not the first court to be engaged. The court can also directly , mostly in infringement proceedings (against MSs) and judicial review (annulment actions). The CJEU and integration: Through its actions, Court has played a crucial role in the development of EU institutions, in particular in the direction of greater integration and supranationalism, e.g; Van Gend en Loos (1962) on ‘direct effect’. Costa v ENEL (1964) on the supremacy of EU law. However, more recently there have been some signals of a reversal of the Court’s ‘judicial activism’ (e.g. with the 2014 Dano and the 2016 Garcia-Neto judgments). Week 4: The EU’s political economy Political economy as a term refers to the intersection/interactions between the political and economic spheres. European integration, in synthesis, more advanced and prevalent in economic areas. This renders political economy an integral study in EU studies. This lecture assesses 2 key areas of the EU’s political economy: 1. The Single Market 2. The Economic and Monetary union (EMU). In assessing these 2, we will continue to become more familiarized with the development and work of the European Union. We will get acquainted with some key concepts and ideas that pertain to these 2 policy areas. We will look at some important recent debates in European integration and politics. Positive vs. Negative integration: These 2 terms refer to different ways in which European societies have been and can be integrated; Negative integration proceeds by subtraction, namely by removing barriers between societies and political systems. Positive integration proceeds by addition, namely by building shared institutions and competences. NOTA BENE: The 2 terms don’t have a normative meaning, negative =/= bad, and positive =/= good. The Single Market: The single market is one of the defining achievements of the EU, and possibly the one policy area that can be seen as imperative for European integration. Every single EU state participates in the single market, but some non-EU countries are also included (namely Switzerland). —> External differentiation (non-EU members participating in EU policies, markets, or institutions. Typically enacted by countries that wish to retain sovereignty.) The single market contains both positive and negative integration indicators. What is a single market?: A single market is an integrated economic area where a multitude of countries (or regions) agree to remove barriers to trade and other economic activities, permitting the free movements of goods, people, services, capital and people uninhibitedly. Single markets look to create seamless environments for the movement of the aforementioned entities and products. The single market process: The construction of the single market started practically with the beginning of the European Communities. However, the technical and political intricacies of this subject has caused it to move at differing speeds. The single most important juncture for the development of the single market act was the 1986 Single European Act, and then the connected 1992 program. Over time, the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) has also been integral in promoting and advancing the single market via its rulings (judicial activism). The Single Market Process: The process is ongoing, the single market is far from being complete. In fact, its targets keep changing due to, e.g. changes in production and consumption technology. Digitalization poses a difficulty, for example. The Four Freedoms: 4 freedoms are central to the EU’s single market project. They are; 1. Goods 2. Services 3. Capital 4. Labor Goods + Services = outcomes of production. Capital + Labor = factors of production. Each of the 4 has and continues to present difficulties in specific societal and political areas. These make the single market often highly contentious, despite its (typically) highly technical appearance. The EU as a NeoLiberal Order?: In principle, the single market does not pre-determine the EU’s economic model and variety of capitalism. The project, especially often depicted by critics as a neoliberal one, is known as a market where market forces should shape economic outcomes. This, however, is an open debate. The neoliberal characterization clashes with many exceptions, and with the more generally held view of Europe as a social market economy. Compensatory Measures: The “social” aspect of the social market economy is still done for the most part at the member state level. Welfare states are at the national level (local), not the supranational one. The EU has taken an increasingly large role in interterritorial redistribution via regional (aka structural) and cohesion policies. The rationale for this is partly to compensate the “losers” of the single market. This includes regions, countries or people which are benefitted less or are WORSE OFF due to the way the economy is structured. Regional and cohesion policies include money going towards infrastructure, the creation of jobs and new industries, the training and therefore benefitting of workers. Economic and Monetary Union: The single market is mostly about microeconomic policies, namely about regulating the economic activities of private actors like households and firms. With the EMU, we enter the sphere of macroeconomic policies. This includes tools used by governments to affect the economy broadly. Governments have two main tools at their disposal; 1. Fiscal policies 2. Monetary policies Fiscal policy relates to the levels of taxation and public spending (and the differences between the 2, budget surplus or deficit). Monetary policy concerns the supply and regulation of money in the economic system. The EU operates in both areas, in a very uneven fashion. NOTA BENE: Monetary integration is far more advanced than fiscal regulation. European Monetary Integration: Like other areas, the process of monetary integration in the European Union has unfolded over a number of years. The beginning of this integration can be first seen in the late ‘60’s and the early ‘70’s. An integral turning point was the Maastricht Treaty which created a strategy and timeline surrounding the introduction of a common currency in the EU. This culminated in the EU introducing the Euro from 1999-2002. Unlike the single market, the monetary union is an area of internally differentiated integration: only 20 out of the 27 member states are in the eurozone. Only Denmark is allowed a formal opt-out!!!! The rest are required to join, eventually. European Central Bank: Monetary policy is also distinctive because it is in the hands of a European Central Bank (ECB), located in Frankfurt. The ECB is HIGHLY independent (thus, undemocratic). It is bound by a mandate of price stability → 2% target inflation. In recent years, the ECB has become more proactive in its dealings and monetary interventions (notably under Mario Draghi who implemented Outright Monetary Transactions, and Quantitative Easing). Greater activism during the euro crisis led to more questions regarding the ECB, surrounding its legitimacy, accountability, and even the politicization of the ECB. Fiscal Policy in the EU: Usually, monetary and a large amount of fiscal policy are conducted at the same governmental scale because they strongly affect one another. → This foreshadows the notion of spillover! (The impact one member state’s economic and fiscal decisions can have on other member states, e.g. taxation, governmental spending etc). The introduction of the Euro changed the scale of monetary policy from a national level, to a supranational level. What about fiscal policy? Taxation and public spending in the EU typically remain at the national level. The EU, compared to member states at a national level, has a much smaller budget. Only 1% of the EU’s GDP is the budget for the EU. To mitigate this institutional imbalance, the EU has a stability and growth pact (SGP) which aims to impose limits on national levels of deficits and public levels of debt. By tying the hands of member states, the SGP was unwittingly creating another problem. This hand tying inhibits nation states from enacting certain policies and fiscal means of tackling asymmetrical shocks (i.e. problems plaguing only some parts of the eurozone). These economic stumbles of the SGP are further exacerbated by its political struggles, such as inconsistency etc. The limits of the SGP: The “one-size-fits-all” balanced budget approach of the SGP is indicative of an ordoliberal macroeconomic policy, less so than a Keynesian one. Ordoliberal, opposed to Keynesian, promotes regulating the market through rules to retain competition but without active state intervention in economic cycles. Keynesian policies tend to support active governmental intervention in economic cycles. The ordoliberal policies proved ineffective when the eurozone crisis came about (2009-2012) where austerity measures and policies ended up devastating economies (e.g. Greece), as well as the bailouts necessary to keep economies afloat. Whither European Fiscal Policy?: → The Covid-19 pandemic marked a distinct departure from the ordoliberal model: Suspension of the SGP, which permitted countries to spend more on welfare systems and measures. Introduction of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) package, and also issuing EU-level public debt. → Still unclear the effects of these measures, too soon to tell. New SGP was introduced in 2024, offering more flexibility and tailoring itself to the specific issues being posed in a member-state and to their needs. Draghi report: a plea for more and more common joint borrowing to finance investments. Lecture 5: The Social Side of Integration: How does society relate to and affect politico-institutional integration from a bottom-up perspective? The EU and Public Opinion: → European integration was long seen as an elitist project. → Permissive Consensus: Member states’ populations were generally uninvolved in European matters, which left policymakers great latitude (freedom/flexibility)to push integration Following the 1990’s: Growing salience and societal awareness of EU affairs, coupled with a growing level of politicization resulting from; EU’s growing involvement in policy areas. EU’s growing involvement in more tangible and politically prevalent areas. A growing effort from the EU to gain more visibility among citizens. The Politicization of the EU: Politicization in the sense of more discourse and controversiality surrounding EU politics. Politicization is not necessarily a negative trait, it can sometimes lead to positive improvements which are more in line with the desires of the people. However, it has more prevalently been utilized by Eurosceptics in a negative lens toward the EU and in regard to less or more integration. There exists a difference between hard and soft Eurokcepticism; Hard= More radical and skeptical toward EU, positing either heavy reform of the EU or wholly withdrawing from it. Moreover, advocating for much less or NO integration. Soft= Much less extreme, does not oppose the EU in its entirety, but critiques specific policies, directions or manifestations of governance. Soft Eurosceptics generally support membership in the EU, but argue for reforms/modifications to certain areas. As a result, politicization is often seen as resulting in restraining dissensus, 2005 referenda and 2016 are tangible examples of such. 2005 & 2016 Referenda: 2005 - Referenda to approve or reject proposed European Constitution which aimed to streamline decision-making processes. 2016 - Brexit referenda Measuring Support for the EU: Peoples support for the EU and integration is a key variable to be considered in determining EU-wide public opinion and satisfaction. This common opinion does not equate to backing for polities, it is assumed and taken as a given. Therefore, measuring support is very important for European institutions and policy-makers, but also for researchers to aid them in understanding some of the dynamics of the European Union, a notably complex and novel political institution. Voting helps to represent public opinion, although it is rough and often infrequent measure. Surveys are the most used ways to glean public opinion, a notable one is the Eurobarometer. People’s image of the EU: The constraining dissensus is more prevalent and more visible in vis-a-vis further integration. Image of the EU by member states: There is a lot of diversity within the EU in regard to opinions held surrounding the EU. Age and Support for the EU: Typically, the younger someone is the more they support the EU, whereas the inverse is true for older generations. Explaining Support for the EU: Support for the EU is a result of multiple factors, some of which overlap with one another. → Monocausality is unlikely. Interest-Based Explanations: Points toward (material) benefits obtained by individuals and groups via EU membership. Countries → Net contributors to Net receivers. Economic sectors → Competitive vs non-competitive. Workers → Skilled (and mobile) vs. Unskilled. Ideas-Based Explanations: Looks at ideas and opinions on the EU that are independent of material benefits. Ideas can affect support for the EU in varying ways, such as; 1. Technocratic vs. Democratic statues of the EU. 2. The legitimacy of supranational institutions. 3. The political economy of the EU. 4. More generally, institutional trust. The relevance of communication in shaping ideas, and discursive effectiveness of populist/Euroskeptic messages. The EU and Identity: → A deeper ideational level exists within the question of identity itself. To what extent do member state populations identify with the EU? → Integration takes place in countries with strong and longstanding national identities, often determined and defines in terms of religion, culture or language. The question for European identity is not whether or not it can replace national identity (it never can), but whether if and how it can coexist with national identity in a multi-layered identity construction within Europe itself. What is a European identity?: (Judeo)Christianity is the most prevalent building block of European identity from a cultural standpoint. However; How does this identity sit with increasingly multicultural societies (muslims, sikhs, hindus, buddhists)? What are the implications for non-EU member states with a Christian tradition? What are the implications for non-Christian European countries? Albania, Bosnia, Türkiye? A superior option for the European identity might be to define it in civic terms. i.e. link to common values underpinning the integration project. Some examples are; liberal-democracy, peace, tolerance, rule of law. A civid European identity is also the one favored by European institutions, e.g. via discourse, symbolism, discourse, EU citizenship among others. The Role of Media: → The media has a crucial role in the political processes of free countries/open societies. This is due to it being the primary carrier of public information. The media plays important roles in all three causal pathways; 1. It transmits information. 2. It carries ideas and frames, discourses. 3. It generates “imagined communities”. Language barriers impose fragmentations in the European media space. The Internet and social media have debatable roles, they MAY help overcome fragmentation but also reinforce divisional and anti-European sentiments. Week 6: Theories of Integration: Integration theory is a distinct field within political science which aims to decode the puzzle behind integration among-nation states, and its transformations. Integration theory has always been tightly connected to the empirical phenomenon of the EC/EU. As a result, theoretical debates and evolution have been strongly impacted by developments on the ground. The evolution of integration theory, has related not only to the success of specific theories, but also broader shifts between the sub-fields of international relations and comparative politics. Federalism: European federalism was a political school of thought devised around WW2 by anti-fascists, intellectuals and architects of a post-War Europe. Most prevalent example: Ventotene manifesto: Written by Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi. Called for a Europe-wide federation in the hopes of inhibiting war, oppression, and exploitation. Traits commonly seen in (capitalist) nation-states. Federalism is less of an explanatory theory than it is a normative theory, as well as a political manifesto. Federalism, however, is imperative; Contains important assumptions about the functioning of European politics (institutional, and ideational). Provides an institutional end for teleological theories such as neo-functionalism. The Europe it envisions is an important (either positive or negative) frame of reference for debates regarding integration. The Failures of Federalism: Federalism finds strong roots in the historical space following WW2. Following the failure of the EDC (essentially, Europe’s militaries under one governance) in 1954, Federalism began to fade as a school of thought. Opposing the ‘big bang’ approach advocated by federalism, European integration ensued in a thoughtful, sectoral, and economic approach displayed by the three original communities (ECSC,EEC,Euratom). Neo-Functionalism: Is the first theory of (European) integration in this specific social-scientific meaning. NF was primarily developed by a number of political scien tists in the United States. Notably, Ernst Haas, Leon Lindberg, Philippe Schmitter. In the beginning, NF had comparative ambitions though they were soon abandoned to focus on Europe alone. 2 core tenets of NF: Institutional Functionalism: institutions can be explained by the functions they perform. Materialist worldview: An approach that emphasizes pragmatic, material interests—especially economic, security, and social welfare concerns—as the driving forces behind European integration Common arrangements and institutions are created to satisfy the demands of economic and other societal actors (e.g. producers who gain from a common regulatory framework) Sectoral integration brings 2 effects; 1. it generates pressures to integration in adjacent areas (spillover effect). 2. it creates common institutions, which have an interest to further integration and therefore, lobby for that. As integration proceeds, it eventually touches on more controversial areas. This shift from ‘low politics’ to ‘high politics’ leads political contestation and related interactions to also reach the supranational levels. European integration will be FULLY POLITICIZED when both political dynamics, loyalties and interest representation will be moved up to the supranational level. Neo-functionalism is a teleological theory (explanation by purpose or goal, more than cause), mapping the transformational trajectory toward supranational federalism. It is an intuitive theory containing a number of original and valuable propositions, notably the idea of functional spillover. CONVERSELY it has been criticized for depicting integration as an overly smooth process. Empirically, NF’s performance is inconsistent. It is capable of explaining some aspects and phases of integration but struggles accounting for other variables such as the very origins of integration (ECSC). NF faltered in the 60’s and the ‘70’s, but made a resurgence in the ‘90’s, due to the Maastricht treaty and adoption of the Euro. Today it remains an important theory of integration, which provides us with important “pieces of the puzzle”, in the context of a broader eclectic turn in European integration. Intergovernmentalism: The slowing down of integration in the 1960’s and 1970’s punctuated by the EMPTY CHAIR CRISIS as well as the notion of Eurosclerosis (slow economic growth and high unemployment in Europe due to rigid labor market regulations) which led to increasing sentiments aligned with Euroskepticism toward NeoFunctionalism. This paved the road for the rise of intergovernmentalism as a viable alternative paradigm of integration. This put forth a state-centric view of European politics wherein the state is a self-interested and self-preserving actor!!!!!! To intergovernmentalists integration and cooperation must ALWAYS stem from and be led by the states, always to serve their interests. International institutions, therefore, are simply there to facilitate the inter-state cooperation. They are never able to challenge a state’s vital interests, nor deprive them of their sovereignty. Intergovernmentalists view international politics cyclically, as opposed of teleologically. Types of intergovernmentalism: 1. Classical (CI) 2. Liberal (LI) CI is closely linked to classical realism in IR. It sees the state as a unitary actor driven by national interests, defined primarily in security and power. For CI, the end of the cold-war played a firm role in the origins and progress of European integration. Liberal is a more recent, and now mainstream, version of intergovernmentalism developed primarily by Andrew Moravcsik. In regard to inter-state relations, LI is similar to CI. It sees the state as they key actor in whose actions, even integration, are driven by self-interest and self-preservation. Compared to CI, LI tends to have a more rationalistic approach to interpreting state-behavior, where institutions are seen as regimes that reduce transaction costs and add credibility to commitments. Not much space for interests beyond material ones. The most important departure from CI is in the definition of state interests and preferences. While CI lies on the notion of a single and relatively stable national interest, within LI there is no such thing. STATE INTERACTIONS ARE ALWAYS DEFINED BY DOMESTIC POLITICAL INTERACTIONS. LI boasts a pluralist view of domestic policies, wherein the state acts mostly as a mediator between competing actors and interests. The balance of power among the latter defines the preferences thenceforth furthered by the state in its relationships with other counterparts. In synthesis, integration is always the result of strategic interaction played on the international and domestic level. Similar to NF, lib intergovernmentalism contains imperative observations about European integration, as well as some other debatable positions. Mostly the same applies to its empirical performance, strong in some areas of integration, weak in others. Liberal Intergovernmentalism remains a key player in current scholarly debate around the EU. RECAP: Neofunctionalism and (Liberal) intergovernmentalism are comprehensive theories (aka paradigms) of European integration. ›They differ in their assumptions about the drivers of (European) politics, their identification of key actors, and their interpretation of the very nature of the EC/EU. ›Their theoretical breadth makes, at the same time, empirically vulnerable (because the more a theory covers, the higher the chances to encounter disconfirming evidence), but also more difficult to falsify. ›Today, both NF and intergovernmentalism tend to be interpreted less comprehensively, as analytical tools that can explain certain aspects of European integration without necessarily providing covering laws for the whole of it.