Essay aus dem Jahr 2004 im Fachbereich Politik - Thema: Europäische Union, , Sprache: Deutsch, Abstract: This is a short and comprehensive essay describing the Monnet method and testing the neo-functionalist theory intitally developed by Haas with regard to the Monnet method.
This new study revisits the work of the late Ernst Haas, assessing his relevance for contemporary European integration and its disparities. With his seminal book, The Uniting of Europe Haas laid the foundations for one of the most prominent paradigms of European integration – neofunctionalism. He engaged in inductive reasoning to theorize the dynamics of the European integration process that led from the Treaty of Paris in 1951 to the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Treaty of Rome set the constitutional framework for a Common Market. Today, a second Treaty of Rome may lay the foundation for a European Constitution that embeds the Common Market in a European polity. Unfortunately, Haas will not be able to witness this path-breaking step in the development of a European political community, which he so aptly theorized almost five decades ago. This is all the more regrettable since students of European integration are more than ever challenged to tackle a major empirical puzzle: After 50 years of European integration, the member states managed to adopt a single currency and to develop common policies and institutions on justice and home affairs. The integration of foreign policy and defence, by contrast, is still lagging behind. This text delivers sharp insights into these issues. This book, previously published as a special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy, will be of great interest to all students and scholars of international relations, the European Union, European politics and Public Policy.
Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1,0, University of Hamburg (Institute of Political Science), course: European Integration Theories, language: English, abstract: Neofunctionalism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism (from now on I will use the abbreviations: NF and LIG in this paper) have been predominant approaches to theorizing Integration processes, especially in the first phase of theorizing European Integration. In the following essay I will begin by briefly lay out the main assumptions of the two approaches, drawing especially on their differences and similarities. In a second part I will discuss what these theories set out to do and raise questions about the actual accomplishments. Thirdly, I will turn to a critique of LIG and NF identifying their weaknesses, refering to Thomas Risse s argument that Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism are both lacking ...some categories necessary to capture distinctive features of the EU 2. This will lead me to the fourth part of my analysis in which I will demonstrate what and how other approaches can fill in the theoretical gaps and wholes that I have pointed out in my critique. In My conclusion I argue that European Integration Theory does not need overarching, universal theories, but rather is a useful conglomerate of different theories3, that might be combined in eclectically, and offer various toolkits for different suitable areas and levels of analysing and explaining Integration.
When Ernst B. Haas presented neofunctionalism (NF) as the first theory of European integration in the late 1950s in his analysis of the European Coal and Steel Community his approach seemed both highly innovative and plausible. However, doubts were cast on its suitability following the apparent slow-down in integration in the 1960s and 1970s. Although neofunctionalism enjoyed a renaissance in the wake of the single market in the 1980s it is generally regarded in retrospect, that Haas's approach, although intriguing, was overambitious. Critics maintained that not only could neofunctionalism not fully account for member state preferences, but was in essence a theory of elite integration. Are these correct assumptions? Although no serious commentator on EU affairs endorses the 1950's definition of NF in its entirety it should not be dismissed so casually. Something was happening and radical and revolutionary advances were being in terms of supranational governance in specific policy fields as later generation of researchers advocated in the late 1990s. This article explores the evolution of competition policy against the backdrop of the neofunctionalist literature. Its purpose is twofold. It seeks to advance a stronger awareness of competition policy among regional integration theorists and secondly, to encourage more competition policy researchers to delve deeper into theories of European integration.
The University of Notre Dame Press is pleased to bring Ernst Haas's classic work on European integration, The Uniting of Europe, back into print. First published in 1958 and last printed in 1968, this seminal volume is the starting point for anyone interested in the pre-history of the European Union. Haas uses the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) as a case study of the community formation processes that occur across traditional national and state boundaries. Haas points to the ECSC as an example of an organization with the "power to redirect the loyalties and expectations of political actors." In this pathbreaking book Haas contends that, based on his observations of the actual integration process, the idea of a "united Europe" took root in the years immediately following World War II. His careful and rigorous analysis tracks the development of the ECSC, including, in his 1968 preface, a discussion of the eventual loss of the individual identity of the ECSC through its absorption into the new European Community. Featuring a new introduction by Haas analyzing the impact of his book over time, as well as an updated bibliography, The Uniting of Europe is a must-have for political scientists and historians of modern and contemporary Europe. This book is the inaugural volume of Notre Dame's new Contemporary European Politics and Society Series.
The creation of the European Union arguably ranks among the most extraordinary achievements in modern world politics. Observers disagree, however, about the reasons why European governments have chosen to co- ordinate core economic policies and surrender sovereign perogatives. This text analyzes the history of the region's movement toward economic and political union. Do these unifying steps demonstrate the pre-eminence of national security concerns, the power of federalist ideals, the skill of political entrepreneurs like Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors, or the triumph of technocratic planning? Moravcsik rejects such views. Economic interdependence has been, he maintains, the primary force compelling these democracies to move in this surprising direction. Politicians rationally pursued national economic advantage through the exploitation of asymmetrical interdependence and the manipulation of institutional commitments.
Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1,0, University of Hamburg (Institute of Political Science), course: European Integration Theories, language: English, abstract: Neofunctionalism and Liberal Intergovernmentalism (from now on I will use the abbreviations: NF and LIG in this paper) have been predominant approaches to theorizing Integration processes, especially in the first phase of theorizing European Integration. In the following essay I will begin by briefly lay out the main assumptions of the two approaches, drawing especially on their differences and similarities. In a second part I will discuss what these theories set out to do and raise questions about the actual accomplishments. Thirdly, I will turn to a critique of LIG and NF identifying their weaknesses, refering to Thomas Risse`s argument that Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Neofunctionalism are both lacking `...some categories necessary to capture distinctive features of the EU`2. This will lead me to the fourth part of my analysis in which I will demonstrate what and how other approaches can fill in the theoretical gaps and wholes that I have pointed out in my critique. In My conclusion I argue that European Integration Theory does not need overarching, universal theories, but rather is a useful conglomerate of different theories3, that might be combined in eclectically, and offer various toolkits for different suitable areas and levels of analysing and explaining Integration.
When Ernst B. Haas presented neofunctionalism (NF) as the first theory of European integration in the late 1950s in his analysis of the European Coal and Steel Community his approach seemed both highly innovative and plausible. However, doubts were cast on its suitability following the apparent slow-down in integration in the 1960s and 1970s. Although neofunctionalism enjoyed a renaissance in the wake of the single market in the 1980s it is generally regarded in retrospect, that Haas's approach, although intriguing, was overambitious. Critics maintained that not only could neofunctionalism not fully account for member state preferences, but was in essence a theory of elite integration. Are these correct assumptions? Although no serious commentator on EU affairs endorses the 1950's definition of NF in its entirety it should not be dismissed so casually. Something was happening and radical and revolutionary advances were being in terms of supranational governance in specific policy fields as later generation of researchers advocated in the late 1990s. This article explores the evolution of competition policy against the backdrop of the neofunctionalist literature. Its purpose is twofold. It seeks to advance a stronger awareness of competition policy among regional integration theorists and secondly, to encourage more competition policy researchers to delve deeper into theories of European integration.
Wayne Sandholtz and Alec Stone Sweet examine the evolution of Neofunctionalism, as it was modified in the 1990s, and discuss the theory's contributions to the study of European integration.
