Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Integration Theories

No description
by

V J

on 19 April 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Integration Theories

Federalism
motif: cause of war = nationalism
Neofunctionalism
Ernst Haas in his book 'The Uniting of Europe' in 1958.
? how does cooperation in specific economic policy sectors lead to greater economic integration in Europe and then to wider political integration?

1. functional
spillover
is used to explain the way in which integration in one policy area, for example coal and steel, creates pressure for integration in further areas, such as currency exchange rates.
2. political
spillover
is used to explain the importance of supranational and subnational actors in the integration process, as they create further pressure for more integration to pursue their interests.
European integration
= self-sustaining process which will culminate in the creation of a new polity˙.
Main
theories:

Neo-functionalism




Liberal
integovermentalism
Questions?
Integration Theories
Why to study IT (integration theories)
Gives a better understanding of the institutions
Can enlighten normative issues such as legitimacy and democracy ...
Provides tools for further understanding & conceptualization ...
Theoretical pluralism as an ideal or norm … !?
Historical institutionalism
Rational choice institutionalism
Federalism

Functionalism
Realism

Integovernmentalism
Social constructivism / Europeanization
Functionalism
Altiero Spinelli

Ventotene Manifesto (1941) calling
for abolition of national states

European Union of Federalists

Use war to make a new start

Main goal: European Federation with a federal constitution
David Mitrany

opposed federalism

create a dense network between states to make them interdependent

main goal: creation of separate international functional agencies
How is the movie related to the main ideas of Neofunctionalism?
Where do you see "spill-over" effects?
What is the basis of "integration" among the characters?
What do the actors have in common, where do they differ?
Which expectations do the actors have? Make four groups: long/short-term ; positive/negative
Where do you see differences between the movie and the theory?
Realism
core assumption of state-centrism and the behaviour of states as utility-maximizing rational actors
Liberal integovernmentalism
Andrew Moravcsik in his 1998 book 'The Choice for Europe'.
? why national states express will to integrate ?

1. the
economic interests
within nation’s interior,
2.
conflicting interests
were resolved within the council of ministers.

Movaravcsik arrived at the conclusion that national interests were concurrent to economic interests, ignoring any political bias and that any choices in favour of Europe came from the national governments, not supranational governments.

Critique: politics and economics cannot be divorced
Questions?
Intergovermentalism
Kenneth Waltz

one of the dominant IR theories

Anarchy describes how politics is organized globally, which requires states to focus on security, power, and relative gains
Stanley Hoffmann, Alan Milward

marking the beginning of an intergovernmentalist school of integration theory

emphasis on the idea that decision-making reflects the continuing primacy of the nation state, determined to retain control over the EU
How is the movie related to the main ideas of Liberal Intergovernmentalism?
What interests guide the behavior of the characters in the movie?
Are there some values competing money?
The history of the money - is is the primary need? Problem of commodification?
What is the level of trust between the characters in the movie?
Where do you see differences between the movie and the theory?
“’
spillover
’ refers to a situation in which a given action, related to a specific goal, creates a situation in which the original goal can be assured only by taking further actions, which in turn create a further condition and a need for more action, and so forth.”
Lindberg 1963: 10

Political integration
is the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalities, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose institutions posses or demand jurisdiction over pre-existing national states.”
Haas 1958: 16
“The ‘good Europeans’ are not the main creators of the regional community that is growing up; the process of
community formation
is dominated by nationally constituted groups with specific interests and aims, willing and able to adjust their aspirations by turning to supranational means when this course appears profitable.”
Haas 1958: xiv
“The
spill-over
may make a political community of Europe in fact even before the end of the transitional period.”
Haas 1948: 311
basic assumption:
interdependence matters (economic, legal ...)

integration means:
gradual transfer of sovereignty; continuous process; spill-over

key actors:
elites; national and transnational actors; (commission, interest groups, ECB, ECJ) - mainly non-state actors

main author:
Ernst B. Haas
“[…] I employ a '
rationalist
framework' of international cooperation. […] The framework assumes, above all, that the primary political instrument by which individuals and groups in civil society seek to influence international negotiations is the
nation-state
, which acts externally as a unitary and rational actor on behalf of its constituents.”
(Moravcsik, 1998, p. 22)
First, negotiated agreements tend to be
Pareto-efficient
even without supranational intervention to provide new information and ideas. Second, distributional bias favors not supranational actors but preference intensities defined by unilateral and coalitional alternatives. Governments
gaining
the most from core agreement offer the most significant
compromises
or side-payments in order to achieve it, whereas those for which ratification is difficult are less forthcoming.”
(Moravcsik, 1998, p. 66)
“Governments are likely to accept pooling or delegation as a means to assure that other governments will accept agreed legislation and enforcement, to signal their own
credibility
, or to lock in future decisions against domestic opposition.”
(Moravcsik, 1998, p. 73)
basic assumption:
states and their cost-benefit calculations matter

integration means:
tripartite explanation:
national preference formation; intergovernmental EU-level bargaining; institutional choice securing credible commitments

key actors:
nation states as unitary and rational actors

main author:
Adrew Moravcsik
basic assumption:
states and their cost-benefit calculations matter

integration means:
tripartite explanation:
national preference formation; intergovernmental EU-level bargaining; institutional choice securing credible commitments

key actors:
nation states as unitary and rational actors
basic assumption:
interdependence matters (economis, legal ...)

integration means:
gradual transfer of sovereignty; continuous process; spill-over

key actors:
elites; national and transnational actors; (commission, interest groups, ECB, ECJ) - mainly non-state actors

Neofunctionalism
Liberal
intergovernmentalism
Historical institutionalism
is a social science method that uses institutions to find sequences of social, political, economic behavior and change across time.

focusing on the effects of institutions over time

reject 'functionalist' explanations for institutional design (designed by agents)

institutional choices taken in the past can persist

future behaviour is likely to be constrained by past choices
Three Phases In
Integration Theory

• Explaining 1960s
e.g.
realism

• Analysing 1980s
e.g.
governance

• Constructing 1990s
e.g.
social
constructivism
Questions?
How is the movie related to the main ideas of historical institutionalism?
Who is the main actor?
Where is the border between the agents and their enviroment?
Where do you see gaps between the interests of men & the actual functioning of the "machine"?
Can these gaps be closed?
Where do you see differences between the movie and the theory?

National preferences
are defined here as an ordered and weighted set of values placed on future substantive outcomes, often termed ‘states of the world,’ that might result from international political interaction. […] Preferences, unlike strategies and policies, are exogenous to a specific international political environment.”
(Moravcsik, 1998, p. 24)
“In short, I argue that a tripartite explanation of integration –
economic interest, relative power, credible commitments
– accounts for the form, substance, and timing of major steps toward European integration.”
(Moravcsik, in Nelsen, B.F. and Stubb, A, 2003, p. 243)
"Over time, EC organizations will seek to use grants of authority for their
own purposes
, especially to increase their
autonomy
."
Pierson 1996: 132
“As a number of critics have noted, choice- theoretic treatments of institutions often make an
intentionalist or functionalist fallacy
, arguing that the long-term effects of institutions explain
why
decision makers introduce them […]. Instead, long-term institutional consequences are often the by-products of actions taken for short-term political
reasons
.”
Pierson 1996: 136

Path dependence
has to mean, if it is to mean anything, that once a country or region has started down a track, the costs of reversal are very high. There will be other choice points, but the
entrenchments
of certain institutional arrangements obstruct an easy reversal of the initial choice.”
Levi 1997: 28
“The crucial claim I derive from historical institutionalism is that actors may be in a strong initial position, seek to maximize their interests, and nevertheless carry out
institutional and policy reforms
that fundamentally transform their own positions (or those of their successors) in ways that are unanticipated and/or undesired.”
Pierson 1996: 126
basic assumption:
states and their cost-benefit calculations matter

integration means:
process that unfolds over time; path dependency

key actors:
locked-in EU institutions (executive, legislative, judicial bodies at EU level)

main author:
Paul Pierson; Kathleen Ann Thelen
Liberal Intergovernmentalism & Rational Choice Institutionalism
similar statist and rationalist assumptions, regarding member states as rational actors with clear preferences
European integration - a series of instances of preference
convergence among MSs
, striking bargains among themselves and establishing supranational organizations with limited powers in order to secure their commitments. Emphasis placed on history-making decisions
European integration - a
principal-agent
relationship between MSs and supranational actors. Emphasizing the importance of international
institutions
in shaping the interactions among states. Modeling the everyday workings of European institutions
European integration - a series of
institutional choices
taken in the past, that can
persist
or become locked-in, thereby shaping and constraining actors later in time
assume member-state primacy in decision-making, but place emphasis on how institutions impact on policy choices
European integration - a series of
institutional choices
taken for the efficient performance of specific functions (provision of policy-relevant information, adoption of expert and credible policies)
Historical Institutionalism & Rational Choice Institutionalism
assume member-state primacy in decision-making, but place emphasis on how institutions impact on policy choices
+ Principal agent dilemma

+ institutions:
1. assumes that the significant actors have a resolute
set of desires or tastes
, behave completely active so as to maximize the achievement of these preferences.
2. Rational choice institutionalism scholars tend to see political science as a sequence of
united action
problems. What avoids the players from taking a commonly – greater course of manners is the absence of conventional agreements that would guarantee matching conduct by others.
3. Highlight the role of
tactical interaction
in the resolution of state results. Following by that thinking actor’s action is likely to be managed, not by detached historical compels , but by a planned calculus and, that this calculus will be thoroughly pretended by the actor’s suppositions about how others are likely to act as well.
4. Difficulty of describing how organizations
emerge
.
Rational choice institutionalism
How is the movie related to the main ideas of Rational Choice Institutionalism?
Why did the characters in the movie create the “institution” and how is their behavior towards this “institution”?
How would you assess the development of this "institution"?
Is any principal-agent relationship identifiable in the movie?
Where do you see differences between the movie and the theory?
Questions:
Why integration?
How to explain (outcomes)?
What kind of political system ist the EU?
How can the political processes within
the EU be described?
How does the EU's regulatory policy work?
How and with which social and political consequences does integration develop?
How are integration and governance
conceptualized? How should they be?
“(R)ational choice theory explains institutional choices in terms of the
functions
a given institution is expected to perform and the
effects
on policy outcomes it is expected to produce, subject to the uncertainty inherent in any institutional design …”
(Pollack, in Nelsen, B.F. and Stubb, A, 2003, p. 258)
“There is almost always some
conflict between the interests
of those who delegate authority (principals) and the agents to whom they delegate it.
Agents behave opportunistically
, pursuing their own interests subject only to the constraints imposed by their relationship with the principal.”
(Kiewiet and McCubbins, quoted by Pollack, in Nelsen, B.F. and Stubb, A, 2003, p. 264)
“In any principal-agent relationship, the agent is likely to have more information about itself than others have,
making control
or even evaluation by the principal difficult[…] The principal, however, is not helpless in the face of these advantages. Rather, when delegating authority to an agent, principals can adopt various administrative and
oversight procedures
to limit the scope of agency activity and the possibility of agency shirking.”
(Pollack, in Nelsen, B.F. and Stubb, A, 2003, p. 264)
“Although agency
control mechanisms
can reduce agency losses, they are often costly (and therefore noncredible) and are never perfectly effective. Furthermore, the difficulties that principals encounter in threatening and imposing sanctions on an agent are compounded in settings like the EC, where the institutional hurdles to the
imposition of sanctions
[…] are particularly high.”
(Pollack, in Nelsen, B.F. and Stubb, A, 2003, p. 269)
“EC institutions, I suggest, neither run amok nor blindly follow the wishes of member governments but rather
pursue their own preferences
within the confines of member state
control mechanisms
whose efficacy and credibility vary from issue to issue and over time.”
(Pollack, in Nelsen, B.F. and Stubb, A, 2003, p. 266)
Definition of
joint-decision trap
:
“the fact that member governments are directly participating in central decisions, and that there is a de facto requirement of
unanimous
decisions, will systematically generate sub-optimal policy outcomes unless a ‘problem solving’ (as opposed to a ‘bargaining’) style of decision making can be maintained”
(Scharpf, 1988, p. 241)
basic assumption:
institutions might pursue their own preferences unless limited in their action by member state control mechanisms

integration means:
delegation of authority by more principals to more agents in order for specific functions to be fulfilled

key actors:
national governments on the one hand and EU institutions (executive, legislative, judicial bodies at EU level) on the other

main authors:
Mark A. Pollack, Gail McElroy,
Fabio Franchino, Lisa Conant
Social constructivism
12 angry men (1957, Lumet)
12 (2007, Michalkov)
Europeanization
Rational Choice
state actors acting rational
the interest in maximizing utility and minimizing costs guides actor's behavior

"
logic of consequentialism
"
Constructivism
individuals and their interaction
identities, values and norms guide the actor's behavior

"
logic of appropriateness
"
Rational Choice Approaches & Constructivist Approaches

(March and Olsen, 1998)
How is the movie related to the main
ideas of Social Constructivism
?
What influences the
actor's arguments
?
Why do the actors change their vote?
Which role does the "
institution
" play?
Where do you see
differences
between the movie and the theory?
Questions:
"Therefore, it is probably most useful to describe constructivism as
based on social ontology
which insists that human agents do not exist independently from their social environment and its collectively
shared system of meanings
(culture in a broad sense). This is in
contrast to the methodological individualism of rational choice
according to which '[t]he elementary unit of social life is the
individual human action
(Elster 1989: 13)."
Risse in Diez/Wiener 2009: 145
“Argumentative rationality means that the participants in a discourse are open to be
persuaded by the better argument
and that relationships of power and social hierarchies recede in the background.”
Risse in Diez/Wiener 2009: 149
“[…] actors try to ‘
do the right thing
’ rather than maximizing or optimizing their given preferences.”
Risse in Diez/Wiener 2009: 148
Process of norm development:
- Well-placed individuals who can turn their individual beliefs into broader,
shared understandings
-
open policy windows
: the group faces a problem that has no clear answer
-
Social learning
and socialization; group has to internalize the new norms
Checkel 1999: 552
"Thus, a constructivist history of the EU would insist
against liberal intergovernmentalism
in particular, that we cannot even start explaining the coming about of the major constitutional treaties of the union without
taking the feedback effects of previous institutional decisions
on the identities and interests of the member states' governments into account."
Risse in Diez/Wiener 2009: 146
basic assumption
: social reality is constructed by human agents

key actors
: human beings in interaction

means
: european integration involves dynamics of learning and socialization whereby actors acquire new preferences

main authors
: Thomas Risse; Jeffrey T. Checkel; Thomas Christiansen
How is the movie related to the main ideas of Europeanization?
With which
European state
would you associate the community the main characters in the movie come from?
What is the
goal
the main characters pursue?
Who and in which way establishes the
standards
the main characters have to meet?
Where do you see differences between the movie and the theory?

Questions?
Policies:
standards
instruments
problem-solving
approaches
policy narratives and
discourses

Europeanization

Processes, policies, and institutions
Politics
:
processes of
interest formation
interest aggregation
interest representation
public discourses
Polity:
political institutions
intergovernmental relations
judicial structures
public administration
state traditions
economic institutions
state-society
“EU policy towards the CEECs is generally described as predominantly a policy of
conditionality
[…] The dominant logic underpinning EU conditionality is a bargaining strategy of reinforcement by reward, under which the EU provides external incentives for a target government to comply with its conditions.”
(Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier, 2004, p. 670)
"Europeanization consists of processes of
a)construction, b) diffusion and c)institutionalisation
of formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the EU policy process and then
incorporated
in the logic of domestic (national and subnational) discourse, political structures and public policies."
(Radaelli, 2005, p. 4)
basic assumptio
n: an understanding of how the EU impacts its member states at the domestic level is needed in order to fully capture how EU matters

process of integration
: the development at European level of institutions, which subsequently have an impact upon the member states, at the domestic level EU integration

key actors:
European institutions on the one hand and on the other hand various domestic actors in member states, accession states and near neighbors

main authors
: Tanja Börzel, Thomas Risse, Frank Schimmelfennig, Ulrich Sedelmeier, Claudio Radaelli, Milada Vachudova
1978 Andrew V. McLaglen
1984 Wolfgang Petersen
(most expensive geman movie upto that time)
1973 George Roy Hill
1967 Scrooge McDuck and Money
Full transcript