Can any theory fully explain the process of European integration? If not, why not?

Résumé du document

European integration is a process which began with the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community the 18th of April 1952. This process was at first essentially economical, but the necessary structures needed for an economic integration led also to a political integration. This process has meant that the economies of participating states, and subsequently other policy areas, have been increasingly managed in common. Over a range of matters, national governments have now to take decisions with other governments, which imply a turn from "national sovereignty" to "pooled sovereignty" . Even the definition of "European Integration" has created a debate between numerous scholars, a debate which opposed at first two main theories, neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism, attempting to explain this process, both of them inspired from the International relations theories. While the intergovernmentalists emphasize the action between sovereign member states to describe the process, the neo-functionalists, considers others such as societal groups or European institutions as very important actors to explain the process. Lindberg, a neo-functionalist theorist, gave this quite neutral definition of political integration , "the process whereby nations forego the desire and ability to conduct foreign the desire and ability to conduct foreign and key domestic policies independently, seeking instead to make joint decisions or to delegate the decision making process to new central organs; and the process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their expectations and political activities to a new centre."

Extraits

[...] They do not call for a return to the nation state, but a process of Europeanization from below. European integration has long been a top-down, elitist project. What happened with the Constitutional Treaty means that the evolution of European integration involves now pressures from below, among others, from social movement organisations[36]. Vertical integration created horizontal processes, which at the same time, legitimate European institutions by recognising them, but also politicise the European public sphere by contesting public decisions. Democracy emerges with the contestation of public decisions, in this respect; a contested public sphere is indeed the only path towards the creation of a supranational democracy2. [...]

[...] In the last part of this essay, I will try to discuss the future possibilities for European integration following the burial of the Constitutional treaty. The two leading approach of European Integration: Neofunctionalism and Intergovernmentalism Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism are known as “grand theories” of the process of European Integration. These two opposed theories are simultaneously positive, as they are both attempts to describe the process of European integration and also normative, as they have been used by politicians and other actors of the European scene to define what the process should be.[3] The Neo functionalist theory The foundation of Neofunctionalism were laid in the late 1950's and during the 1960's by a number of US academics, of whom the most prominent were Ernst Haas and Leon Lindberg. [...]

[...] The chances of achieving such a high degree of consensus are generally quite low. Pollack (1995b) even notes that: threat of treaty revision is essentially the ‘nuclear option'-exceedingly effective, but difficult to use- and is therefore a relatively ineffective and is therefore a relatively ineffective and non-credible means of member state control.”7 Last but not least, the sunk costs and the rising prices of exit to lock member-state in arrangements they would like to quit. Although member states remain free to tear up treaties and walk away at any time, the constantly increasing costs of exit in a densely integrated polity have rendered this option virtually unthinkable for EC member states. [...]

[...] These referenda were set in a context of political crises in both countries. Following controversial 2002 elections, Chirac's leadership has never managed to solve internal problems that put him to the head of the state, and Le Pen to the second ballot. By the time of the referendum, his Prime Minister, Jean Pierre Raffarin, who was one of the main supporters of the treaty, reached records of unpopularity. In spring 2004, the Eurobarometer survey showed that 83% of French people feared the social dumping of others member states countries of the Union and 68% of them also feared for the French social model towards the process of European Integration[30]. [...]

[...] This analyse point outs the fact that gaps between the institutional and policy preferences of member states and the functioning of EU institutions and policies occur, and once such gaps emerge, they cannot be reliably be closed. The factors that are likely to create considerable gaps in member- state control are four of fundamental importance: the autonomous actions of European institutional actors, the restricted time horizons of decision makers, the large potential for unintended consequences, and the likelihood of changes in COG preferences over time[19]. [...]