Home » Politics & International Relations » Cini: European Union Politics 2e » Student resources » Case studies » Chapter 06
Cini: European Union Politics 2e
Chapter 06
Neofunctionalist approach or German hegemony in creating the EMU
During the last forty years, political scientists have relied on one of two theoretical frameworks – neofunctional spillover and intergovernmentalism – to explain the process of integration in Europe. Intergovernmentalism gained the upper hand during the 1970s and 1980s; in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, the Single European Act and plans for EMU suggested that the spillover argument had merit.
The widely accepted post-war Keynesian welfare state consensus and the hegemonic order of the post-war world were thrown into crisis in the 1970s, which was compounded with the collapse of the Bretton Woods System (fixed exchange rates and capital controls), two oil shocks and financial liberalisation. This turmoil implies that, as Hoffman points out (1982: 31-2), European nation states were faced with external destabilising pressures that they could not overcome alone. In the monetary cooperation among member states, the European Monetary System (EMS) was created in 1979. Since then, German as the core country in the EMS became vital to the EMU process by serving a model of the successful practice of monetarism and by allowing member states of the EU to reach an agreement at Maastricht on a low-inflation, German-model style EMU (see also Dyson 1994; Howarth and Varouxakis 2003). This implies that German power in Europe consists of indirect institutional power rather than its hegemonic status in Europe, and derives from Germany's role as an example of policy success (McNamara 1998; Kaelberer 2001).
The neofunctionalist approach, however, enables us to understand the importance of the Commission and of the member states. For example, the rules and decisions about the contents of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) were decided upon by member states, with the Commission also playing an important role. That is, the neofunctional approach explains the direction of policy-making and the importance of supranational actors in the EMU process. However, the neofunctionalist approach does not explain why Germany had an exceptionally strong bargaining position in the creation of the SGP nor does it clarify the position of any other national governments.
Web Links
Special Issue of the Journal of European Public Policy on Neofunctionalism, Vol.12, No. 2
taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(hbnwlm55ea14h1jo5eu33g55)/app/home/issue.asp?referrer=parent&backto=journal,6,46;linkingpublicationresults,1:101484,1
Science and Progress in International Relations: Conversation with Ernst B. Haas
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Haas/haas-con0.html
Further Learning Resources
Burley, Anne-Marie and Mattli, Walter (1993), ' Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration', International Organisation, Vol. 47, No.1, pp. 43-76.
Schmitter, Philippe (2004) , 'Neo-Neofunctionalism', in Wiener, Antje and Diez, Thomas (eds.), European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 45-74.
Schmitter, Philippe (2005), ' Ernst B. Haas and the legacy of neofunctionalism ', Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 255-72.
Haas, Ernst (2001), 'Does Constructivism subsume Neo-Functionalism?', in Christiansen, Thomas, Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Wiener, Antje (eds.), The Social Construction Of Europe, London, Sage, pp. 22-31.
Lindberg , Leon (1963), The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Lindberg , Leon and Scheingold, Stuart (1970), Europe's Would-Be Polity, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe (1991), 'Neo-Functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete?: A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC', Millennium, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 1-22.