How We Think of the EU: Theories Explaining the Fragility of the European Project: Intergovernmentalism

Theories of Integration

1. Intergovernmentalism

◦ European integration is driven by member states (MS), serving their interests.

◦ Unlike a unified country (e.g., Scotland or Catalonia within the UK/Spain), an EU member state can freely leave the Union.

Key Thinkers and Concepts

• Alan Milward, "The European Rescue of the Nation-State" (1992)

◦ Post-WWII, a new national power paradigm emerged, creating an intergovernmental institution to assist nation states.

◦ European integration seemed like a loss of control but actually protected national interests.

◦ Limited national sovereignty was surrendered to a supranational body, forming a new political consensus and legitimacy.

◦ Supranational authority was more about reinforcing the state than superseding it.

• Andrew Moravcsik, Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI)

◦ Integration is a rational choice by powerful actors ensuring their preferences through bargaining, which is mutually beneficial.

◦ Integration occurs on two levels: domestic politics and state-to-state bargaining.

◦ The Single European Act (SEA) exemplifies intergovernmental bargaining, with key policies negotiated by France, Germany, and the UK, although supranational bodies facilitated swift decision-making.

• Critiques of LI

◦ Mark Wincott: Moravcsik focuses too much on final integration decisions (supply side) rather than pressures leading to integration (demand side) and the role of supranational bodies.

◦ Ben Rosamond: LI supports some Neo-functionalist arguments but neglects the importance of supranational actors like the Commission, viewing Moravcsik’s two-level analysis as too narrow.

◦ Barnett and Finnemore: International organisations like the EU create rules that construct the social world, generating new interests for actors. They argue for a cognitive, knowledge-based approach.

◦ Olsen’s Public Action Theory: Emphasises the 'logic of appropriateness' over rational actor models, leading to lowest-common-denominator bargaining, as states expect future reciprocation.

Disagreements and Challenges

• Basic Actors in Integration

◦ Moravcsik limits focus to state actions, while others argue that actors like the Commission or European Court of Justice (ECJ) play significant roles in policy-making.

• Collective Action Problems

◦ Issues like the refugee crisis illustrate difficulties in achieving collective action, as member states have differing opinions.

• Fluctuation in EU Interests and Externality Management

◦ Changing governments and shifting policy priorities in member states lead to constant changes in EU laws and policies.

◦ Example: US shifting positions on the Paris Agreement under different administrations.

• The Maltese Problem (De Witte)

◦ Malta, with a population of 500,000, can veto decisions, challenging the democratic nature of the EU while upholding member state sovereignty.

New Intergovernmentalism

• Bickerton, Hodson, and Puetter (2015)

◦ Governments, not supranational institutions, are the prime movers behind integration.

◦ Cooperation has led to the creation of new bodies outside the supranational framework, such as the European Financial Stability Facility, which supports troubled member states.

• Frank Schimmelfenning

◦ Describes new intergovernmentalism as a 'phase-specific approach,' focusing on particular policies rather than defining the post-Maastricht era.