ChaprerContents

. what s neo-f!nctiona
5m?
. A briefhstoryolnolufclronasm
. S!pranato.asrnandspi over
. C ri u q u eosf.e o f!n c to n as m
. Thervivalofneo
fuictionasm

85 Cr \ten StrohylFnsen

l
i
I

Introd
uction
Neo functionalism is oftn the filst theory of to ourtinethe generalcharacleristics
ofthe theo.y.
Europeanintegrationstudiedby studenrsof the The secondsectionthen sumnarizes
the dse and
EuropeanUnion. This is largely for hisrorical fall fron graceof neo tunctionatism
berweenthe
reasons,as
neo-functionalism
wasthe first atrempt 1450.and rhe lq 1r. I hr ,hird ,cd:on cumines
at theorizintihen;w forrnofregionalcooperaron threetheseswhich form the
coreof neo tuncrionatisr
that ehergedaithe end ofrhe Seconaworld war. thinking.Theseare:(a) the
spiloverthcsn;6) the
Althoughfew resenichers
of Europeanintegraron elitesocialization
thesis;and (c) the supranational
wouldnow acccptall neo-tunctionalisr
argumems, mterestgrouprhesis.
Thesethreearguments
hetpto
the theoryremainsimportantbe.auseits concepls e\po\enrc tun\riondli.rbetief\
dhourrhi dfrrmic(
andassumptions
havebecomcpart ofthe so-ca ed of the Europeanintegrationprocess.The fourth
Monnet methodof Europeanintegratjon.Indeed, sectionreviewsthe main criticisms
of thc ncoat times,it hasbeendificult to separate
thc theory tunctionalistschool,while
thefinalsectionturnsro
ofinteSrationfrom the reatityofrhe EC/EU.This morerecentadaptations
ofneo tundionatistidcas,
hasbeensomething
ofa cursefor neo-tunctionalism,accountingfor rhe reneMl of interestin
m1s
aslt hasmeantthat its sucess
asa rheorybecame approach to the study of regionat integrntion at
ine{tricablytied to the success
of the Europenn the beginningof the I 990s.The chaprerconcludes
integGtion pfoiecr.But it does mean that it is by stressinSthnt although
sone researhcr
possibleto chart the history of the EC/EU rediscovered neo
tunctionatism long after the
throughthe lensof neo,functionalism,
aswe shatt md-1950s,its applicationis very djfferenttoday,
and no-tuncrionalism
is no longer parr of rhe
The chapterbeginsby asking:.What is neo- manstreamtheorizingof EU
developments.
tun.rionalrm?lhe purpu.eot rhi, fir,r re(lioni\

Whatisneo-fu
nctional
ism?
The story of no-liuctionatisD beganin 19s8with and, moreover lrith a particutar pnth
of Europeatr
rnepftlication by Emst b. Haas( t92a-2003) of Ire - integration. However, some
argued that despite
Undag ut Furopp:Potiti l. \oral ana t,ononi. the scientific innguage,
neo-funcrionatism was
For.es195U1957lHaas 1958).In this sernjnalbook, irnbued liom the outset
with pro-integarion
Haas explainerthow six West Europeancountrtes assumphonsthat were
not made explicit in the
came to initiate a new forn of snpranational
cooperntionafterrhe SecondWorld Wa. Originally,
Three characterisrics of neo-function:trst
Haastmnin aim in folandathg a theoreticalaccounr theoryhelpto address
the questionofwhat is neoof thefuopeanCoaldnd\lccl.ommuirv ,tr y , tunclionalism. First, neo-tun.tionatism,s
core
i{asto provideascienrificandobjectiwa-}rlanationof conceptis thnt of spilover.
This is coveredin more
regronil
.ooperu
Iion..rgr nddreorv fi"r h oujJe{pLrin detail later in the chapter.It is important to note ar
simild processes
elsewherein rhe wodd (nr Latin this point, howeveathat neo functionalismwas
Amcdca,for exampl).Howeverneo tunctionaxsm manly concernedwith rhe process
of integr;tjon
soonbecameveryclosell'associatedwith
theECcase (andhadlittle to sayaboutndgoats,
thati., abour

Neoi!nctronalism 87
[urope wou]dlook).As a conse_ rely$henp
howan rntegrated
I,uropern
inregrdrion
'hingforhrr!,her
rnernenrv\uughrIn e\ptrinrhedynJm;6 (see
quence.
Box6.1).
, tf durga6;hich
staaas
subje.t whcn they
'veie
cbopeEle4:Haas'a]haory,tTren,was basedon rhe
. assumptronthat cooperation in one polic)- area
wo ld create pressuresin a neighbouring poticy
'iaa, placingit on
the poliricalagenda,aid utti,
turrh$ integration.
matelyleadingto
Thus,spillor. Features
of neo-functionaJism
refersto a situation wherecooperationin one field
,. \po ,Ll I d d i,r 5 a hFo^ or.."grob, inregc
,o.
necessitates
cooperarion in another. This might
w *.
f - r . t o e , p q r ! e o , o c " ( so r t t n o o a d r r
_ luggestthat the processis automatic,that is, beyond
' the ontrol of politicjl leaders.Howevea!\,henwe
r F t t s F o n*a s p J . , i
f
d,r. ,.lLe- ra ,n tne to50,
look at the various forms of spitioveridenrified by
and'1960s.
Haas,wewil seehow this'automatic' processmight
begurded
o- nranip-lared
\y dcrohJndi1\rirurion\
ihos notives areunaquivocalypolitjqqi.
A second,albeit rel:ted, point rvhichhetpsto
e\plain neo-tuntionakm concernsthe role of
rocietalgroupsin rhprocessofintegration.Haas
di$d that inreresrgroupsand potiticalparties
woutd be key actors in driving integration
forward.Whilegovernnentsmight be reluctantto
ingagein inregration,groupswould seeit as n
: rhir interestto pushfor further integration.This
r because
groupswould seeintegrationasa wayof
re\ohingproblem,rhel fa,ed.AJrhough
group:
wouldin'ariabtvhavedifferenrp-ut.i
""a.
indeed.
ditferenl
ideotogicit
po.rrion..
rhe)woutd,
accordingto no-irnctionalists,ati seergional
mregranon
asa meansto theirdesiredends.Thus,
glle might seeinregrationas a processdriven by
of groups,rather rhan by {ry
.i-eriiogical
_the
-sif-interest
vision of a united Europeor siared
seltseoI idenrity.
Iinaily, neo tunclionatism is often charactenzed
a ratherelitistapproach
ro European
intesrarion.
F. rl eotoofFg.o.drreg?ri o.,,
Althoughir seesa rolefo. gro"psin tt inreg,.tron { N eofJnoi ondhsr
popuiarjn the 1950sand
1960s.
'
"
integration rendsto be driven by tun.tionat
Process,
,o Thetheorydea
s wtththedyrarnicsofthe
andtechnocraticneeds.Though not apotiticar,1i
integraUon
o.oL" \'0a,t.rtri \ w t5.Fge.doreLL.opedrcas:
little
and ac.ounrabte
gov_
_sees rolefor democrati
Thecorcconcepr
of neo-functionatism
isspilover
ernance
atrhele\elofrheregion.
Rrrher
the
benign
- elitism'
l
hethA
o.\qs
LTA
rtndr,
l egrdto.rcte< ort?< eh
of neo-tunctionatists
!3
tenasto asume tie
rr." e< of
. oceul rouo r i . dt,oot" . conrderea
tacitsupportofthe luropean peoples_ a.permisa rathere iti5ttheory
Jrcn h h:che?err.d.lJcxe.urive.

88

Clrtef Stroby ensen

A briefhistory
of neo-functionalism
Neo'fnnctionalism
is very much comcredto the
In the late t980s and during rhe 1990sneo_
caseof Europeanilrtegration.Indeed,most neo- tunctionalism underwent a sorr of revival.The
uew
tunctionalistwriters havefocusedtheir attentioDon dynamismof the EC/EU,a consequen.e
of the
Europe (Lindberg 1963;Lindbery and Scheingoid SingieMarketprograrnine Chapterl6),
made
Gee
1970,1971).Tbis wasnot their originalintention, lheorisfocusingon processes
ofpotitical inte8ra_
horvever.Ratler, an eartyobjectivewasto formulate tlon relevant once again (Traniolrn
Mihkeben
J gcneral
or B!Jrd$cor) of intflndrionat
retarionr, 1991). And evn rraditional critics of xebased on observarionsof regional integration tunctionalism, such as piul Taylor, accepted
rhe
pro.e'"e'.Polirical
Jnd e.onomic.ooperaLton
in needto examinethis approachmore closely.On
Latin Americawas one of the .ares investigatedto thispoint,Talor (1993:77)wote that'The
student
Ihrr endrHad,dnd\, hmirtcrtqo4:\lrllLi 20011.
Ir ofthe EuropeanCommunity. . . needsto retu.n to
h.' in furope.howerer.
rhJrpoliljcalJnd
e.onomic the writingsof. . . the neo tunctionalisrs
- whose
integration wasbest developedand most sr.dtedto witings for many yearshavebeen unfashionabte.
theoretical and empirical study.Therefore Eorope They provide the essentialcontext
of theory rn
rnd turopeaninteSralion
be.amcr-hemajoriocus wnrcnro ptdictheprdjl',e ot diplomacy
dndeten
of neo-tunctionaiisL,
durinSthe tg6osand1970s. thespeeches
of primeMinisrerssothat theymDr
With thbenefitofhindsightthe success
ofneo- bebetterunderstoodl
tunctionalism is undrstandable,as it seernedthat
Sincethis revivalof inrersrin neo-funclionatrsnr,
the theory er?lained well the reatity of rhe a nnrnber of scholan have sought to
adapt the
f,uropeanintegration processat that time. Until th theory to their own researchagendas whether
on
1970s,neo fun.tionalism had wide support in the European integration process
writ targe, on
academiccircles,though afterthar it lost mrch of its specificpoiicyareas,or on the roleof rhe
supranaappelt. Indeed, it almost disappearedas a rionrlin\rirurion..
Corre.pondirBly
the,ewere.in
theoreticaland empiricalpositionin the stuoyor connectronwirh the deathof ErnstB. Haas
in 200i,
Europeanintegration. One reasonfor this wasthat
no-tunctionalismlakeda rheorticaly sotid base
for its observations.Another reasonwas rhat the
kind of incrementalpolirical integration that neo
. N Fo{ rnc,o% )n $" . rdsl i o-" D e.ro-si . etie5
tunctionalism predicted did not take pjace.From
andacademics
untitrhei 970s.
the mid-1970s,politicalcooperationseemedtess
.-om
cornpelling, and researchenbecamc more inrer
.
lh" c70(,othe. nrcrFr,.aard co..epr,"
approaches
seemedb fit the reatityof Europea.
estedin otherkinds of theories,especiallythosethat
integration
m!ch beterthanneofunctionatism,
and
stres,ed
rheimporrdncc
ol rhe nalionsr,:te.
Eren
the theorybecanre
obsoete.
Hraswa,rmongrhor who recogni/ed
rhetimirr_
Fromthe '1980s
and 1990s,
with the revivaof rhe
tions of neo tunctionalism.On rhis point he wrore
Inregraion
process,
rhere
came
atsoa renwed
inrer
that'theprognoses
oftendo not matchthcdiagnosest n neo-functionallsm.This
ted
to
a
wave
offurlhr
tic sophistication,and patients die when they
research,
which
certatnetements
of the nee
shouldrecoverwhile othersrecovereventhough all
'rsed toofkit.
tuncUonalists'conceptual
thevital signslook bad'(Haast 97s:s).

Neo flrnct oral 5m 89

a number of attemptsto evaluaaeand re evaluat issue of the ,lornal of EuropeanP blic Policy in
200s).Thesenew approaches
and evaluations
wnl
iie importance of the neo tunctionalist contribu
tion to the understandingof the developmentof the be reviewedtowardsthe end ofthis chapter.
EuropeanCommunity (for example,in a speciai

ismandspiIlover
Supranational
Tte key questionsaskedby neo-tunctionalistsare togetherwith Labour menbers from t}Ie UK, and
whither and how economicintegrationleadsto libffals fiom Spain work with liberals liom
poTticalintegratioq and, if it does so, whnt kind Denmark. According to neo-tunctionaiist theory,
o f p o liLi. il unir ) \ iil re 5 u h .In th i " re ' p e c rn e o MEPS tnd to become more European h iheir
-filnction
ism ditrers &om other traditional outlook, as a consequenceof these working
:
' .pproaches
,DDroa.hesto
to intelnational
intelnational relations
relations theory.
tl,corv. praclices,tbough in practicethis may be disputed
more
realist
positions
have
stressed
enpiricafly. This is often referredto ar'elite social:j. Jrad{ionally
thepowergamesthat occur btweenstates.Among ization: The fact drat MEPs work together across
1' nio'iuctionalists it war believed that economic bordersmakesit difficult for them to focussolelyon
-iniegration would strengthenaI the statesinvolved, nationd interests.This also maksthe EP a natural
:
.om mi.sionin rrrdiscus,io$
;d LharLhir hould ledd {o hrfiherpolirical inregrdlor rheLuropnn
"Iy
.j tion. The tundamental idea was that intemational with the BU Council, evenif the institutions do not
relationsshould Dot be seen:s n zero-sumgame, alwaysagreo! mattrsofpolicy.
iLnd tnat everybodywins when countries become
Political integration is thereforea keycon.ept for
neo-tuncrionaiisG.
rhoughir isposiblero idenriry
a
number of different understa;dings of politicat
integrationin their witings. Lindbe.g(l97ir s9),
for example, stressedthat political integration
involves govemments doing together what they
i institutions are lilcly to have their oM political
used to do individually. It is about sening up
,gendas. Ove! time, neo-fiuctionaiists predict, the supmnational and collective decisionmaking
supranational ngenda will tend to triumph over pro.e$e\.By Lontrd't.Haa rendedto seepoliti,ai
i interestsfomuratad Ethember;tats. Asan example jntegrationin termsof shitu in attitudesandlol"nles
one might look af how the EuropeanParliament amongpolitical actors.In 1958h famouslywrote:
(EP) operates.Members of the EP are directly
'.
I I
. lectedwithin the membei stntes.One Irould thqe'nr.sr"ro | . proces.
qrFr"orpo,t,a
"o I r,.r
fore erpect it to b an insdrurion influencdvery actorsn sevendistnctnational
settings
arepe6Laded
ro
po
expectatons
and tca actvtes
much b)' narional interests. In the Parliament, shift their oyatls,
possess
a newcentre,
whose
insttutons
ordemand
however,Members of the Europ.'an Parliament toward
j'rrisdicton
pre-existing
ovrthe
natofalstates.
Theend
(MEPS)are not divided into groups relating to ther
procss
po
poliiical
resuLt
ofa
of
itkal
integration
ls
a
new
nation l origin. They are organized along pr]ty
comnrunity,
superimposed
overthe
nctr$
'
ere-exist
Po l i ri c aiand ideolosi ,J l i n e 5r\e e ( h a p re rI I r. l n
tt
(Haas
othef words, social democrats ftom Germany work
19s8:16).

90

C a E t n 5 trrrb y -rc n 5 e rl

Neo linctionnlist wdters developedat least three

differentargumentsnbout thedlnamics of theinteg
thespilorcrrhesis;(b)theelite
ratioDprocsses:(a)
thesisirnd (c) the thesison supraDa
socialization
tbnal interestgroups.The folowing subsectionsset
',ur rl-e(onrcnrol the.r rhe\e.dnd rhefolloh:ng
sectionpresents
critiquesof thesearguments.

( n i ll ov er
Spilover is neo tunctjonalisn's best known concept,one which hasbeenwidely usedboth by social
scicntists md by practitioners. According to
Lindberg (1963: t0), the conceptof spilover refers
to a processNhere political cooperation conducted
u it h a
i fi . g u a l n mL n d l (a d ,ro rh eformul Jri on
'pe,
of new goalsin order to assurethe achievementof
the original goals. what this means is that political
( oope rJ r:o nu. n c ( i n ' r.a re di .s e y te n d e do\cr ri nrei n
a way that wns not necessarilyintended at the outset.
In ordertoi fil certrin go:rls,statescooperateon
a specific issue.For exanple, the original aim may be
the ftee movement of workers across EU borde6.
But it may soon becone obvious that different
national rules concerning certification prcvent
workers Forn gaining emplq.rnent in other EU
states.For example,nuses educatcdin onemember
statemay Dot be allowedto work in anotherbecause
ol differences in national educdtioral systems.-ds a
consequence,
nervpolitical goalsin the fieLdof education policy may be formllated so as to overcome
this obstacle to the liee movement of labou This
processofgenerating new political goirlsis the very
essenceol the neo-tunctionatist concept of spillover.

Typesofspillover
in
. Furctionalspillover
takesplacewhencooperaton
pressures
onesectotssue
area'functlonaly'creates
for cooperation
in anotherreated
area
. Potca spi ovefrfe6tosituations
character
zedby
a rnoredeiberatepoliticalprocess,
as whenactors
(ratonal or suprarational)
rnakepackage
dealsin
orderto enabLislr
commonagreement
ln a rang{of

A distinction is often drawn betweendifferent types

of spilover:functionil (or technical)spilloverand
poliricrl (or cuitivated) spillover (Nye 1e71i
Tranlolm-Mihkelsen 1991r Rosamond 2005a1
Moravcsik2005;seealsoBox6.2).
An exampleof functional spilover may be seen
iI1thecascofthe SingleMarket(seeChapter16and
Box 16.3).The Single Market was functionaily
relatedto,ommon rulc. go\c'n-ngrhc working
environrenr.
f"r e\rnrpl(.'om( ofrherrrdebdrfle6 to be removed under thc Single lvtarket progranme took the form of nationalregulxtionson
health and safety matters, as different health and
acrossth Communityprevenled
safetyregulations
of
liee novement. The tunaionaLconsequence
estabLishing
a SingleMarket was,then, that the
memberstatesendedup acceptingthe regulationof
certain aspects of the working environment at
European
level(lensen2000).
Politicalspilloverrefersto situationswherepolicy areasare deliberatelylinked togethen not
becausethey are functionallyor technologically
lji
.p ,rr6 1,-,"
" r
(Nye
relnted,butforpoliticalor ideological
reasons
olan ntegration
scheme- agrcedon somecoledvegoah 1971:202).
Specialintcrestsareoftenpromotedvin
lor a varety ol motvesbut unequally
salisned
wth their so-called
'packagedealslwherestepsare takenio
attain.nent
ofrhesegoas - attemptto resoiletheir
dissatis
r.(ard numberof Jppdrenrly
di*re(e i'.uer r. r
facton byresortngtoco aboratoninanotlretreated
sector
(nJblrng
it(m.
dllrorrhemdjor(expand
ngrhescopeofnrltlalcomm tment)orby ntens '.ng\'kompo'irc
ityof) actorsto safeguard
thcirinteresis(Lindberg
f y ngth e .c o mntn
r re to th e o fe i n as e c tor(i ncrcasl ngthe
and Scheingold1970i 116).ror e{ample,if one
ev elom
f u tu a l c o m m L l me ftr,o rb
! otlth
memberstatehas an interestin a .ertain poticy
( s c hmtte r1 9 6 91: 6 2 )
area,for exampleto prevent.uts in asricultural

Nco fLrnction3lism 91

integration need not b the declaredend goal for

','p*1lng,.*,11t:T:,hermemberstateharinterests

) in industri.l policy, thesememberstatesmay agree, member statesengagingin this proess.The latter

. formally or informaly, to support each other in bavetheir own respectivegoals,which are likely to
havemore to do with policy issuesthan wirh integnegotiJtionj. Ar a re.ulr Ihe two pol'tl rreo
l. beome linked within the bargaining process. ration. As Lindberg and scleingold write: 'we do
packagedealing can ofien be observedduring not assumethat actorswi be primarilyor evenat
Eeary revisions. Political spillover may also be all interestedin incrensingthe scopeand capacities
in situationswheresupranational
actors of the systemper se.Somewil be,but by and]arge
. observed
I like the Connission try to push forward a supra- most are concemedwith ahievingconcreteeco
: national or trmsnational agenda, even where nomicandrellaregorl,anowil \ irs inregrJrion
. memberstatesarereluctantto acceptfunhr inte- only as a means to these ends' (Lindbers and
gration.In the EU, the Commissionoften actsasa Scheingold1970:117).ln this sensetle establish
ofndlionJlinlere.t"m Coun.l negorra- ment of srpranational institutions such as the EU
mediaror
tions, wiih the aim of establishingcornpromises nay be seenas the resultof unintendedcoDscqueDcesof actions among the actors involvd in
amongmemberstates.
, Thus, spillover prqceses rnay be seenpartly as decisionmaking.
Member
the iesult of unintendedco'sequences.
statesmigh'tdetiberntelyacceptpoliti.al integration
an &e delegationof author;ty to supranational
, instiirtions on n particnlar issue. Howeven as a
. iesult of that decision, they may suddenly find The second aspect of neo tunctionalist theoq'
.1 themselvesin a position where there is a turther conerns the development of supranational
needfor evenmore delegarion.As aresult,Lindberg loFlties byparticipants
suchasofficialsandpolitiard Scheingoldare right to stressthat political ciansin the decision-maHng
procesr.The thesis
hereis that, overtime, peopleinvolvedon a regular
barisin the supranationalpolicy proesswili tendto
develop luropenn lo)lties and prcfernces
(Pentland1973). For exampte,Conrmissionofficials
are expectedto hold a Europeanperspecrive
on
'F!nctionalspillover
Marketto
problem-solvingsothat their loyalty may no longer
- fromSingle
andMonetaryUnion
':Ecdnomic
be to any one national politl, but rather to rh
supranntional
levelof governanc.
ofthe SingleMarketincreased
F.establshmem
the
forcompanles
in Eurcpe
tssibilities
roiradeacro5s
bots
we canwellimasinehowparticipants
ensaged
ir
:rs.Thsgenerally
implleda growthin tradeamongthe an intensive ongoing decision-rnaking process,
The incresed
lountriesin the ElropeanCommunity
which may extndoverseveraiyearsandbdng them
lele oftransnational
tradenthe European
Community
into frequentandclosepersonal
contact,andwhich
nowevermade companies(and countret more
joint
problen*olving
engages
them
in
a
and
exposd
to fluctuatonsin naUonacurrencier,
which
i:ihrifid the functonal advantages
in a cornrnon policy generaiing
exercise,
night developa special
curcncy(fromthat perspedlve).
Economic orientation to that processand to those interac-turopean
:ind lvonetaryLrnion
caninthatperspctlve
beseenas
tions, especiallyif they arc rsarding. They may
rarenrltofa frnct onalspiovrlo8lcconnectinggnMh
cometo value the systemand their roleswithin it,
'ln tradeacrossbordersln the EUwith the funclional
airherror it.elfor for rhe.oncrelerewards
dndben(
lheedfor a commoncurencyrdlcng iskr retated
to
produced
fts it has
or that it promisesGindbers
andScheingokt
1970:lI9).

Elitesocialization

92 CarstenStfobylnsr
Tlus neo-tunctionalistspredicted thar the integration,
whi.h would ally rhem ro supranaIuropean integration processwouid tead to the tronal
instjtutions, such as the Eurupcan
establishmentof elite groups loyal to the suprana
Commission.
Thus,.io theprocess
of reformutating
tional institutions and lolding pan European dpeclrtrons
dnd demJnds.
rheinrere\rgroup\in
normsand idea\.Thir etiL soutd rry ro Lon\ince question
approach on another supranationary
nationtj elites of th advantagsof supranational while
their erstwhite ties with narionat friends
cooperation.
At the sametime ,eo_tunctiondfrs undergodterioration'
(Haas1958:3r3).
al'o prcdicr.d lhrt internJriondjnegoriarron. Bfore
wee,.aminecriticismsofttreneo_titrctiona*t
woutd becomeIesspoiiticize<i an<i more ted.,o_ dpproach.
ir i\ importrl ro 5!re\5lhe fo|jowing
crJli(.I he inrr'iurionatiTarion
ol Lhemrerair,onj po nI neo.runcdonJLism
:, ofiencumpared
roor 6
berheen
nrtionaladoF,dndrheconlinued
ne8o(i_ senasconnected
with federatism
Chapter
s).
Gee
ahons betwen different member states, would Federalisl,
arguethat the EU shoutdestabtishsuong
makeit more and nore difEcutt for statesto adler federal
institutionsleadingin the endro the oeation
to their political arguments,nnd retain their credl_ of
a federationwith somesimit Jities ro rhe USA.
bility (Haas1958:291).As a resutt,ir wasexpected
Sometimcsneo,firnctionatismis seenasa rheoreucar
that the agendawould tend to shift towards nrore approach
that suppori, n feder ist agenda.Neo_
tecbnical problernsupon which it was possibleto
tunctional;,t5,
Iile federalirr\.latlabourpro(es,es
of
politi al inregrarjon.Jnd
abouttheJdvd!dge\ol $i,
process(seeBox 6.4). However neo_tundiordsrs
I'le HdasI Had: I97t: 20_li .tre$edrharneo-tuncUonrUrmdndfederJismJreverydiderenr
in rverai
re\pecl\.The mo\t imporranrol lhe(e,dcLordin"In
.
Aclording to neo-tuncrionatisttheory civit servants Har,. is rhdtfederdji,mn, p"rit."t p.,i,i""l*i
neo-fittctionalism i' both tieoreticat and icientinc.
:re not the only groupsthal devetopa supranatiofti
tederalisr\
areinrere5red
in how rhing,oughrto be.
onentahon. Organized interest groups are also
wnde neo tuncliorJists analyr rhe processe<
of
expectedto becomemoreEuropean,ascorporarions
Imegrdtion
and
disiilegrdrion
6om
r
rcrenrj6cpoinr
and businessgroups formulate theii olr; interesrs
with an eye to the supranationalinstitutions (see ot uew However,.ritisofneo tunctionatismmrtlr I
disputethe daim that neo-fimctionalismis devoidof
Chaptr 13).As economicand politi.al integrarion
political agenda.
ln a glvenregiondevetops,interstgroupswill rry .o a
maththis devetopmentthrough a processof rcr
ganization, to form their own supranational
organtzatlons.For exampte,narionatindustriat and
employers orsanizarions established a comron
Europern organization,LINICE, in 1958,at Duch
dre$me limedsrheFuropedn
C-ommuniD
ware5rab.
lished.In .o doing.rheninlenrion$.l5 ro innuin.e
tuture Community poti+ Earl),neo,functionalists
atsosawa similar roie for potiticai parties.
Furthrmore,neo-turcrionalistsbelievedftat
rntrestgroupswould put pressureon govenments
to force them to speedup the integration process.
rnesegroupswereexpected
to developtheir own
,upranJlion.linrere,rin potiti.dldnd e.ononic

Theformation
of
supranational
interest
groups

N eof! r.t ona sm 93

expectations
ItN;"functionalist
aboutthe
institutions
liEuropean

the Eumpean
Commission
AlthoughMEPS
areelected
h. tfe nrr o4alorrqe
.
| | onp ro r.t1 r-F)d' 6di ,roFd
politicallyand deologica
ly in thetrdaily,'!ork.Neofunctionalistsexpect^4EPstodeveop
oyaltestowads
ihe EUandthe European
idalsothattheywo!td
ofter
lho reh ro_ \",) oelbrd- troo.dr ' " ".t5 aBr-.1
"

theorieswhichthey
iNeofundiona sis have6crrnulated
lsed to predictth behavolr of th umpean
;.,,have
llnstltLtions.
Commisson
isexpected
to actasa porrt!_a ThEurcpean
i,i: ka entrepreneurlas
wellasa mediatorTheConrrn
ssron
. TheEUCoufcl(Councilof1\,linisten)
is expeded
to be
ngloneofunctionalisttheorytrytopushtur
i-, w l,accord
the
nstitLton
wher
nationa
intrests
are
defended.
coopefation
betweenth memberstatesin a
i_ greater
,FofL_to_dr' r( ro.' d " p" .1 .eroe
' direction
that leadsto moreand moresuDranational l ow F\" r
stares
fromtimetot metobinfllencedbythetogc of
\oi l o -' . nF, ' r s l " " o rhFn rodrgLFro nore a^o
. fT. r r ooa" o. r t De,o e fl d d -o o .\.o i 6 o n re
po
" rd ti cali nr" 8" i ol dFpl " d er'
but aso 10 tuvolr po itkal
natrofalintere5ts
Themembersiatesarea soexpected
. basisof legala.Cuments,
: i n tec r at ion. lr t hsw a y ,th e c o u rtw i l l s e e k to e x p andthe
to be influenced
byth factthat theyae nvotved
rn
lr' loCkof Conrmrnitilaw
to newaras
o_ro' 1rl etordro.! i o ,pd . i ol ar.o -.r 1l
'
ro.
.orb
d'Fcul t
o np^ oF, rd.e Lo 16,i .r p.opo o,
Parliament
s sypecred
to be a suplana,
r. TheELropean
poLitical
which
eadtofufther
integnlon
insttutionandtobea natula vof
: tlonallyo.ientated

Critiques
of neo-fu
nctional
ism
Wenow reviewbrieflyrhe main criticismsof neo could even be arguedthat the integration process
tu&tionalism rnade by observerssuch as Haas had reversed.Moravcsikwritesthat:
(197s,1976),Moravcsik( 1993,1998,2005),
Taylor
(1990,1993),Kohaneand Nye (1975),Keohane r E D Fp-r,rF..o r r1,qht.1-oL,ro^" ,.
s todaywidey regarded
a havngofltredan unsatisiactory
andHoftnan (1e91),ard Schmitter(200s).
Neo-iunctionalism
has beencriticizedon both accountot ELropeanntegration ..The mostwideycited
cal
omi spredrct
enpnical and theoietial giounds:Ar ar eni,irical r casoni senrpi rineo-functona$mappearsi
boththetrajectoryandtheprocessoiEClolltlon
Insoturas
levettle c'iaicismfocnsedon ihe absence
(or srow
a clearprecond
ton abolt the
pace)of political integrationin WestcrnEurope neotunctonalisfiradvances
tralectory
In the ECovert me, t wasthat the technocratc
duringthe 1970sand rp to the mid i980s.Neo,
lmperative
wouldleadto a'grad!a', aLrtomatic'and
ncre
tunctionalism
had prediiteda patte.nof deveLop rnenial'progressron
towardde.pef ntgration
and greater
mentcharactcriedby a gradualintensification
of suoranatrona
nauence
I t
tt
political iniegration, a development rhat by the
1993:
476).
{Lloravcsik
1970s
hadclearlynot talen place.The Frenchboy
cottofthe Euopeaninstitutionsin rhe nid 1960s
hadtedto a morecautiouspbasein theevolutionof Even Haas talkcd about the possibility that there
the Community, and a recognition of the import- might be a disintegrativ equivalent to spillover,
which nisht be labelled'spillback'l
anceof political leadersas constrnintson the
However alongsidethese empirical critiques lie
proess
of integration.Indeed,with the Eufopean
objectionswhich cover a broader spec
.thcorctical
Conrmr.niry
hJ\ing \uherednumerous
.ri\e,, ir l rJm. H ci L q( shJl l l uru, on hre(
rl " r.
mai n

ul

94 Carslen
Strobylens,"n
criticism.Thefirstsetofobjections
wasaimcdat the the realityof Europeancooperarion(Haas r97s,
thesesadvarcedby neo-firndionalists.An xampie 1976).He recommended
a differcntapproachro
ofthis is Talor'.scha enges
to theelitesocialjzahon regionalinregmtion,basedon rheoriesof jnterdethesis,and to the ideathat supn.ational ioyaltues pendcncewhichwerebeingdevetoped
in the midrvordd emerge in institurions such as thc . r970sby KeohAne
and Nye (1975,1976),amorysr
ComDission.
Ttylor (1990)pointedoutthat,rathcr others.This xpproacharguesthat instirutionssuch
againsrtte back
than integration making olicials more European,it asthe EC/EUshouldbc nnalysed
groundof thc groMh in international
inrerdelend
sJ. rte inrcre{\of
menrbcr\rdrr\ in h..\i-ts (n(e
'ht'
r.,iheirhJf ii, fegrunal
oolirr,
alorgrn
zrriorr
'nntional'ciril servAnts
in the Commissionthat {Hrd.
lo o: 20/tr.Ret{rrinE
to
IurofeJn
integr.l
increased as political integration jntensifed.
hon, Haaswrotc that'Wlat onceappeared
to be a
Mcmber statesbecrmeincreasinSly
awareof the distinctiv"supranational"stle now
tooks
more
nced to ensurethat they rca.hed.their,quota of like a hugeregional
jppendageto an
bureaucratic
Europeancivilseftants(Taylor1990:180)andthar ntergovcnrmentalconference
in permanentses
their intcrestswerereprescnted.
Moreover,ir was snri (Haas1975:6). In so arguing,Haashims.,tf
surmised that Europcan civil servantswoutd abandoned
thc rheoryhehadbcensoinsrtumental
becone more nationally orientatedwhen vrral in developing.
politicalnsuesrvreon |heasenda(seeatsoHooghc
HJd hJdirts-edrhJr, or rh<iacror,reduring
'ne
2001).
rhelevclnfI'cJi..dbJr\ orine\irdhitrlvor
inregrJ
(200s)
tion
was
the
rplacemenr
uissc
hasarguedthar if
of traditionjt forms or
9orr.\pondinsly
the neo tunctioialists were dght, farmers .md tunctioDalpoii.y links(tharir, functionatspilover)
womcnshouldbe amongdre mostlu-supportive by lrhat he referred to as iletiberaied linkaget rn
citizensin Europe,which
whar Haaswas sayingwas that p-titical
is denitelynot thecase: essence,
lorm'," .pdlorerwt''erephL.ns
,heo,is,nalfun,
It,-,. """oLo
d. "
tionallogic.Thismcantthatove.time the poli[car
' a- d
profitmonfronrEuropean
tntcSrat
o. areahomon tikeyto linldgeof prl.JFe,l,aL be,:rme
mo,cJDd mde
shft their oyatiestowrrdELrope
thanotherstf rhiswcre centI Jl Jnd1r,,re
dndmore.on-pter.
ul.reJ5ing
rhr
tr!e,twogro!psshoL
d bemoresupportiveofE!ropean
inre- uncertaintysurroundingthe integrationprocess
gratiofthantheyactuayr.e. F rjt,farmersareerguably
u c both for the researcherand for the participant
oneprore$ronat
gro!pwhoprofirrnosrfromthe
EU .. yet, (Haas1976:
209).Haasernphasized
another,and
iher e i s n on d c a tl o n th a l fa rmdeersn ti fyw i ththeE U rod| y
possiblymoreimportant,deficiency-thrt thethe
consdrabedegree.
Iheir satisf3ctton
with tire EUs pcl
ory of regionalinregrationhad focusedtoo nar
rorma.ceappears
aso ro be ratherow scond,
we wo! d
rowlyon the regionas an isolatedentitn ignoung
erpecrwomento bin Seneramoresupporrive
of E!ropean
niegralron
tfan men,Cvnthar t wasthe EUthat pushed the impactofxternalfactors.
In the third group of obje.tions to the rtreorl,,tr
te cc
\o o r '
o'd
o ddol todrr,
t hew o rk p a c e Bl rth e re
i sa g e n d egra pnsupporttorthew,rs argftd that Deo,functionalism had placed
E U, w i th m ebfe i n Bn C e n e ra
n ro re ru p porri veofi nteeraton emoha\i\
on the\upr.,rrlion.,l
t])mponenr
in
'rndue
rha. wo.nenI I
retsinnal
irregrJri,,n
Criric".ugge\red
lh.r Breirrr
npnrldn(e\houklhe dr-..,hed
rR65e2005297)
ro rh{ ndrion.rJre,
JnJ rhdrr/gionJ ln-m. of.ooFrrti.,n.ho"JJbe
T he r l o 1 d e r o r.,b j e .ri o c \w .b b J \edon..i ri ci \m anabred as intergovernmentalorganizations.This
ofthe thcoriesfonluiated bI Haas himsett By rhc lineof attackwasadoptedbI Morrvcsjk( 1993,I 99S,
lr e 1 0 6 0 .H d J . h J d d c i fp l e d rh J r r he predi cri on 200s)amongstothers,undertnc rubric of liberat
that regional organizationssuch as the EU woutd intergovernmentalism
(seeChapter7): .whereas
J e\ ero Ti n .re me n ri ' l ) p ro o e rtc dr,,-h.r' (i\\ rJfi - Deo'functionalism
slresses
thc autonomyof supra,
ous dlnamics suc-hasspi|over, failcd to en.apsuare nJlionrl ofic.dl.. rib.rJl
inrcrB,aernm.nu,i.m

Neofuncrronirlsrrr
95
stsessesthe auroDomy of natjonat teaders,
Neo-tunctio
nalismfirstandforemostfocuscdon
(Moravcsik
1993:4el). This canbe readar a c,tm potitical and
administrativeeljtes and on thc
tiat the Datior sraterenains the core.:lementilt an pro,.e'*sthardoeloped
rhecuoDLrrlion
L(rhe(n
understandingof irrernational r.,tations,induding (lrherenr
nJrional
elik. tI. d*umptinn{d. lhdlif
inrerFerJrion,
of theJevelupmcnt
of ,ooperJtion theeirtessrrrtedb cooperate
thenthe populntjons
withinrhe LU franrtuork If we,r,(eprdn tt esjs, q,ruid
rheirlne of poticy.the,*rc,ien,..
obviousiy
imposes
limitson opportunities
for poxt related'bIow
ro diffcrenrnationatreferendaabout !U
icnlintegration.The assumptionappcarsto be that r-eari(,
poinhn,lhefJLtrhrt rheuoil.Icrdt
tu.u,jg
lolitical integration is based exctusivetyon rhe on politicai ctitesis a najor weahess
nr !tu
aggregate
interestsof thesinglenation stateaDdon its tunctiondist
theorl Atthough the poliricatand
determinationto survive.Nation statesarethuspre administrntive
elitesar rhe nation.l and Europon
paredto ccdfolrnat competencero supnnational level,for
cxample,agreedupon rhenewCrnstitution,
innirurionr
onjvir bv\o doingfieynr,urc.or po.si_ thisdid not mean
that thevotersfolowcd thc elites.tn
tly regain,control of specificareasof poticy.
thA respe(
r one.oujddv lhJr.lco tundjon-Ji\m.rrn
Iinduy.!h('e i. J.o J ditferenr
iyle ut criri\i\m, theoreticallradiiion has a bijnd spdr
in the fack of
whichrelatestowhat w- rrright cnll the ctitisr narure undersranding
of tlle need for the EU ro estabtish
of neo-tunctionalism.
This criticism attacksthe legjdmrryarnongdrepeoptt,
of turope.
prescriptive
impli.ations
i
of the approach,uther
As theabovesuggests,
theoriginalneo tuncriona$t
t\an the theo.y itself and so is of a different nature proie,::t
has been subjecred from many differenr
tothecritiquesaheadyoutlined.
Theargumrnthere angles to criricalreappraisai
at both the rheoretiis that neo-functionalismnot meialy is d s.ientific cal
and empiricallevels.yet this did not meanthar
and objectte rheoiy ot resionatintegratn,n,but neo-tun.riunJ,'nl
Jredd, r rheorrri.at
prore.r.t.
arsonas be.omean esseRrial
part of a model of wa shallseein the next section,
neo
fiuctionarst
tu 'o p e J n inr egr J r ion.
r , :, rh ; mo d e t,w h i c h !o !R
theoryexperienced
jn thelate
a sort of renabsancc
ra i J l h e \ 4onnet r nel h o d o , L h e I n mmu n i r)
i 980sard I990s,asneo ftrnctionaiist
concepts
such
nethod, thatla anb.ie.1ro the criticism th:rt it
does as'spi over'wereonceagainusedto explain
con
tot invoTveEuropern citiens jn this momentous
temporarydevelopments
in European
integrarion.
lrocessof chans,and rhat ir is thereforeunrlenu
cratic.Neo tun.tionalisrn seesintegrationprimarily
ar
. a processof tunctional or tehnoraticchange,
wi rh e \pen: ldr 8e, yr un n i n g rh e ,n ,$ .
A. p o i n ;d
out by Rissq 'Haas ,vas not rhat much
co;cerrco

aboutmasspublicopinion and rhe loyatties

ofthe
ordrndry,
ili/, ns.r he,cgdrJed
I rropcdninrets,
r_
uu n a srnet r r er ilJ ir ' r Ri \re 2 u 0 5 :2 q 7 .
th i .h J \l e d

i to a.cusationsthat neo functionalistnrtegration

lmplie.inleSruriun
b) ,re.rtrh:
Norontvi, ;r. not
n appropriare
modeilo,Lu,ope,niniegrarion
in
. &e earlytwenty-firsr cn,rry, ;,'rf- i, ..j".*.
*
:. accuratedepiction of the process
itsetf thon;n, is
r. t{shalseein Chaprer2Zon thedemocaticd-e6cit,
i: not everyonewould agree
thar things havechanged
verymuchfiom rheearlyda)$
of theCommumry.

, . Neofuncrionatism
isc.iticizdon
bothemprkatand
tneoretcatgrounds
. O" ernp ? grotra. i . hr.
" rpd tdr l F!
' Jn.rordrin -o,o1B e.
-. tFdw 1tr6,Fa,-vor Lne
ECin thel9Tos
. On theoreticat
grounds,
crrics denieddre import
anceofetitesociaization,stre5sd
theimponance
of
me internatronal
dimenstonof nteeraton,anc
.or tht o repos:ro.r' " -a o

9 6 C a rs te Si
n ro b !l e n l e f

Therevival
of neo-functionalism
I
I

After yearsof obsolcs.ence,

thereivasa rcvjvatin in'r"rd lhe\ de\.1"0whdtrhe\(rlt d lrrn,ajtrun
irxerestir neo,tunctionalism
ir thc beginningof bd{d thcuDof nregrdrior.lhs dr:r. rrrerr.ion
r,,
the 1990s.Thereare a numberof reasonslor the the nrcreasing
levelsof transactions
Guchasin the
theory'.s
rencwedpopulariry.The
firsthastodo,vlm felds oftrade,conmunicarions,
and tralrl) a.ross
gencraldevclopments
in t]rcEuropeaD
Community_ EU borders, which in tufn in.rease demandsfor
Tha Singl.EuropeanAct (seeChaptert6) and the Europeanlevcl regulatjon (Stone
Sweer and
creationofthe SingleMarketnarkedancwphaseof Sandhokz1998:l1).In time,rhese
denandsgener
economicand politicat cooperatjonin Westen atea processof institutionalization
teadingto rhe
Europein the mid t980s.And the processes
of establishment
of what thi authorscall ,suprana
intgration associated
with these dcvetopments
seenedverymuchin linc wirh the sortof spittover
One of the supranationat institutjons aDaryseo
predictedby nco tuncrionalisttheory (Tranhotm_ using this approach
was the European Court of
Nlikkelsen1991).
iustice (StoDe Sweet and Caporaso 199ilj Stone
Howeventhisrenewedinterestin nco-irnctionalbm Sweet200.1;seealso Chaprer
t2). Ston Sweetand
iNolved much more than jt6r a st.? back to the Caporaso observc how
thd Court interprers the
1960s.Rar}rerthd simplyadoptjngtirc traditionator Treaty expansivelywiihin
its rutings. In doins su,
classicalnrodei,Dany of thosewho soughrto reuse they confirm thh theses
about the auronomyofthe
neo-tuDction:lisrtheoryacccptedit asa partialtheory EU s supranational
institutions and abour supranathatis, asa thorywhici woutd explajnsomebut not tional governanceand their
theoreticalielatior !o
all of the Fxropeanint.gration proccss.This coD.ra$s nco tunctioualism.
And clsewhcre,StoneSweetano
with theearlia orbition ofthe neo-inctiondists _ to Brunell explajn the extent to
which their analysrs$
createa gran<itheoryof Europeaninregrarion.
similar to that formulared by Haas:
An inportant contributionto rhisnewapproach
wasmadeby StoneSweetand Sandholtz(1998jsee ! A orr' - ,[ o,o..o.o,o" d pFo.
alsoStoneSweetandBrune 1998aDdSionesweet ca msof neoflnctonaisf theoryf rsrdvetoped
by Emsr
2004).Although
anrr
not neo tunctjonalisi,in anytradi Haas Haas .tned to showttrai marketexpansion
.oLrtdbe connecred
to one anornr
tlonal sensc,StoneSweetand Sandholrzdo darm po tcal developmenr
oopsthatwo!d p!sh5teadilyfor
that their theoreticalconsiderarionshave.imporrant tnroLghposiirvefeedb.ck
mo.eol both Wetormazedthesetnsighis
a5hypothejsj,
afEnitieswith neo tun.tionatism' (StoDeSweerano
gatnered
daraon th processes
commony assocated
wth
Sandholtz1998:5). The).arguethat the traditionai
European
integEton,and
testedourhypotheses
ndifierenr
distinction made in the theoretical study of lvays.
Theevldence
supportHaasbdic iotuttto.sd q
European
integr:tion rlat ir is eithersupranatioDat
r!tlineSNet
andSrrne 200,1t2)
or rntergovernmenkt_ is no tongersufficient.Wtite
jn thc realworld of
both tendencies.re
represented
Others hnve also used rhc EuropeaDCourt to pro
Europeanpolitics, rhey appardifferentty in differ
vidc eviden.e of the existenceofneo tunctbnarN
.'nt ?olicy arearwithin the Unidr, so that sone are
dinamics in the EC. Burleyand Matrli (1993) argue
characteizedby more intergovernmentalism,oth_
that the EuropeanCourt has beena very important
ers by mor supJanationalisn (Stone Swcet and
institution in ihe building ofa supranationalconSandholtz1998:9). HoweveaStone Sweerand
mrni t) .r. i l hJ, pl ,)ed Jn dcri \crotei n rhecr edt ion
Sandhollzdo not usethe spilloverconceptwheD
of Comnunity authodty in tegat matters. Tney
they scekto erplain pro.essesof political iltegration
stress that the founding ncmber srates of rhe
rrrd tLr torm.rrinrot \Upr.,nionit in,riturion\.
Community had no
intcntion of giving rhe coufi

N e. l !fctl ofa l sm 97
rpremacyovernationallegalsystems.Howevrihe
, r n p e d n cour r wa abl r u rl c \d u p i r\ d o c rri n e
overthe courseof the 1960sand 1970s.Accordingto
'urley and Mattli, the Court has also been able to
tvancepolitical integration by using technicaland
apolitical nrguments in thc legal arena, a process
hi. h cl o. e r r , r hc r lpc oJ i l l e S .J ri o nrn e .h d n i
^
ns proposedby reo+unctionalist theorl'.
Along similar lnres,referencesto neo-tunctionalist
'heory have increased dramatically since rhe

beginDing
ofthe 1990s.
And in policyareassuchas
defence(Guay1996),socialpolicy (lcnsen2000),
(sandholtz1998),anrlon
andtelecommunications
the questionof attitudesamong Europeancivil
servants(Hooglc 1999;Risse2005),authorshave
discussed
neo-functionalisn
asa possible
liamefor
explaining spccifi. forms of integration even if
ihey haverefratuedfiom 'buying into' all aspectsof
the'chssical'
theoryofthe 1950s
and 1960s.

I n n a || rcrnn
i Since th e Frs t wr it inggof
E . B.H n a s i n th e l g 5 0 s ,th c - own agendas,
forcingthenationalstatesto delegatc
,: -iesof regional integration,or neo-functionalism turthercompetences
to thesrpraDationai
level
it is more popularly ca|ed, hrve hrd rhcn ups and
Yetby the mid 1970sneo-functionalism
wxsno
) downs. As a means of e\plaining cooperition I'!,tspr
J .redibleto\ | on ru l-"Id.| \en (rddiro;;l
: rtwcen slates in th 1960s, neo-frulctionalism
proponents of the iheory, like Haas,arguedthnt it
". jcane very popular. The new tpes of cooperation
couldrot tuly explainEuropeandevelopmcnts
in
Indeed,he accepted
' that developed after the Second World War, espec regionalcooperation.
that the
.
lly in Europe,demandednew reseatchperspect tiuropeanCommunitydid not developin th way
i
es. Neo hrnctionalism was able to describeand that neo tunction.rListshad predicted. States
- xplain these devetopments in a My that alas novel .emainedkey nciorsand it becanehard to distin
"1d of its time. In the pcriod after the vaa the fash guishsupranational
insrilutionsfrom more tradi'
... nwasforgrandtheorizing,theconstructionof sci
tionalinternational
orgnnizatiors.
enr ia( l h e o riecr hir t r , ' uld e\ ? a i n re b i g p i , ru -e .
Supnnalonalisa did ea"eriencea rcvival at the
i Nowadays,theorists (and particularh those working
beginningof the 1990s,however.Thc establishment
i
1 the EU) are contnt to devote their energiesto the bfdiesingle EuropetnMarketandthecrationofthe
openedthe door to new interestin
dene -d ri oonl le\ r m bir ior r ,m i d d l e rd rg erh e o ri e . EU at N,Iaastricht
(seeChapter8) thrt e\?lain onlypartofthe process. supranationald.velopmentsandinstitutions.ThelU
Focusingon th supranationalaspectsof the new suddenlybeganto look much more Likcthe kind of
. aternational
iligaiiiiations,
neo-tunational$m
in-itiiiLtion that Haas and othars predicted woutd
:. explained.ooperation using conc.?ts likc spillover emergeai a resultof regionaleconomicand political
, rdloyaltyirarsfer. Statesrvcrcdpccted to cooper, integntioD-But althoughtherc wassomeinterestin
I -e on economic mattersin order to realizethe e.o- n$ tuDctionalismat this time,rnostofth ile\^/neo; nomic nd\aDtagesthat come with incr*Ned ]ev.'ls of limctionalistsfelt liee to pick and chooselion those
elementsof the theory that bestsuitedtheir research
a ade. This would lead to demands for political
)ordination
acrossstnteborder, and in $ne cases agen&s.Finally,despitethe renaivnce ofthe theory
,r
il to the establishmcntof supranationalinsritutions. nr the 1980sand 1990s,
nco'tundionalismis st

rd norc independcntand able to formulate their

rarch consideredas at the for&ontcutiftg-eilgc of

researchon Europeanintegntion and EU poLitics.lt
'eem\lharrhemcin.trcJT
n,'qhelong.
morcto rariantsof intergovenrmentalism
md other newercom
petingtheories
of theEU (sceChapters
7and8).

. .i,,:r

it
rI

:r;

!lr:!

:..-i..ii...:.:,i,-.

!,.

-.:.ilj

98 Carsten
Svobylensen

ffi qurr-,o",
1.
2.

Whatdoneotunctionaisismeaf bypolttca|nregrat
on?
Howhelpfu is the spitiover
conc.ptin explaining
the devetopm-anl
of Elropeanintegarionsnce
rh e1 9 5 0 s ?

3.

llo!!.an privarenterestgro!psinfl!encerheprocessesofpotiricat
ntegrarion?

Hoflconvnclngs MoGvcs
k s c.itiqueofneo-funcltonalisml

5 . A c c o rd i n g ro n eotuncti onasttheory,w hatroedothes!pranatonal i .sti turi onspt r yn

InteSntonpro.ess?
6.

W h aet vd e n c rs
e tl r eethat oyatytransfer' amongrl rci
vi
setuantsrnthesl
prafaton
nralt jons

'7. Doerthecondlcrof
the E!ropean
ca!ds!pporithe neo-f!n.rionastrhee5?
Wlrys itverydffic!ltfof neofuncttona
i5mtoanatyse
and.xpainrhefejecrionofrhe
Constttjtion
by
the Fr.nchandDulchvote6at rherefer.ndLrm
in 2005?

ffi

cu,o,ro lunrrER
READTNG

publjcpajicy,'rheDispatiry
of Eurcpean
of Ewapean
.., Journal
Integrationi
Revklting
Neo-functionalism
in Honourof ErnstHaas,,j2(2),2005.Aspectatssueof thisjo!rna with contributons
trom ph [jp C
S c h mi tte r,An d re w M oravcsi k,B enR osamond,Tho..asR 6se,ardothe6.Thrsist hear es
ti o n o fn e o f!n c to n a ti smand
l ' confi buti ontothestudyof
E uropean
ntegr.ti on.
..9 Moravcsik,A. Ir Crolce tut Eurcpe:Socjatputposeand Stotepawet from Mesrinato
Maostti.ht
(London:UCLPress,1998).The seminaltextof tbera nrergovernmentatism
by its keyproponenr.
tt
ncloesa veryusefui.rilique
of .o functonaisnr
, Pen\land,C.
hternationatThearyohdEuropeon
tntegntia,(Newyork:TheFreepress,1973)
A classic
studyof Europeanntegaton rheory whi.h thoughdatedni| prcvidesa helpful ntrodldion
to
neolu.ctionalsm
x Sandholiz,W,and
Stonesweet,A.\eds)Eurcpean
tntegrdtion
ondtup@notionat
(Oxfotdl
Gavendhce
OxfordUniversiry
Press,
t998).Aneditedvolumewhch devetoprthe
norionofsupranatona
goveftrance,
drawngon aspects
offeo fLncroratisttheory

6 Tfanholm-[4ikkeken,
J.,Neo-functiona]ism:
Obstinate
or Obsotete?
A Reapprajsat
in the Lightofrhe
N e w D y n a mi s mo ftheE C ,Mi | enni um:tournatofthternatj a,o/S rrdl s,20(1),19 91, j_22T
encinrxamifing
theapp catonof nenfLrncrionatism
to the postt985period

w.rr,":s
'roo"ro*r
6

http://globetrotterberkeley.edu/peopte/Haas/had-comO.htm
An ntefuie,,wirh Ernn Haas,a fe\,

Visltthe OnlineResource
Centrethar accompanies
ths bookfof totsof interesrirgadditional
rnatera.httpr/www.oxfordtettbooks.co.uk/orc/cini2e/