EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS AND INTEGRATION – KU LEUVEN
What is the European Union? (Chapter 1)
What is a state?
States rule: make laws and enforce them
States provide public goods
States extract (taxes)
States solve collective action problems (= when you need to work together but it’s easier not do
anything as an individual this creates hurdles in the collective actions the state can overcome
this by extracting taxes e.g. Everyone has to pay taxes to construct a road they’ll use because
otherwise every individual would just think someone else will pay for it and in the end there won’t
be any road)
Is the European Union a state?
No, because the EU doesn’t enforce or use violence (for this they rely on the member states)
“Order of Westphalia” (1648)
Wesphalian order was established
it was a recognition of states, borders and that external powers should not interfere with
domestic affairs of a state
4 main characteristics:
1) Fixed and populated territory
2) Possibility to impose authority over that territory
3) Legally and politically independent
4) Recognized by its people and by other states
Sovereignty = ‘supreme’ authority over a territory and its population
State
Political-legal unit defined by territory and by laws
Institutional basis
Nation
A group of people defined by shared identity or culture based on language, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Difference nation & ethnic group:
Ethnic group: a group of people who share a heritage, common language, culture (often
including religion) and can discuss shared ancestry
Nations (more political): unified by a sense of purpose to control the territory that the
members of the group believe to be theirs.
nation and state do not always overlap e.g. Kurdistan
Nation-state:
Sovereign states in which a majority of the population is united based on factors that define a
nation
Limitations of the concept of a state
Nationalism: state should be based on a “nation”
→ National superiority, ethnocentrism, racism and genocide
→ tensions between states
↔ international cooperation to overcome tensions + promote cooperation e.g. the UN
• Manifestation: international organizations and/or international treaties (= voluntary
cooperation)
,Integration
Collaboration
Member states decide to achieve certain goals together by taking joint measures, but the member states
retain authority over the specific policy domain
Integration
The authority to take decisions is transferred to a higher (supra-)national level, so there is a transfer of
competences from the member states to the EU level
Some international organizations lead to integration
Integration
• = transfer by states of (parts of) sovereignty
• = pooling of authority in specific policy areas, and the creation of common institutions with
restricted powers (delegation)
• ≠ the total surrender of their own separate legal, political, economic, social and national
identities (≈ assimilation)
Theories of European Integration
What is a theory?
Consists of concepts and makes propositions about relations between these concepts
Attempt to explain reality
(Often simplification of reality: highlight those elements that matter most)
≠ normative (not about how you think it should be, but how it is)
Theory of European integration = explanation on why states decided to transfer more and more
authority to the European level and to supranational institutions
Two competing theories in international relations (= explanations for relations between states)
Realism
• World is defined by anarchy, international relations are chaotic, and main motivation of
states is to ensure survival, security, sovereignty
• Core actors in international relations = states (no ‘world government’)
• States are unitary actors that act rationally out of self-interest (zero sum-game)
• Core concept = power (the states that are the strongest can enforce their preferences on
weaker states)
Vs.
Liberalism
• International relations is more than survival, more than power, collaboration is possible
• Other actors in addition to states = international organizations (that promote further
collaboration and prevent free-riding)
• States can go beyond self-interest, collaboration can lead to positive-sum games
• Core concept = shared values (freedom, democracy, human rights)
Functionalism (Mitrany) (= normative)
Nationalism = source of conflict
Peace trough collaboration between states built on common interests
International agencies that fulfil specific functional needs
“economic and financial ties precede political ties”
“Integration by stealth / “sneak up on peace”: Integration in noncontroversial fields encourages
collaboration in other fields
Neofunctionalism (Haas and Lindberg; 1950s-1960s):
Part of the “liberal school of IR”
, “spill-over effect”: “a given action, related to a specific goal, creates a situation in which the
original goal can be assured only by taking further actions, which in turn create a further condition
and a need for more, and so forth” (Lindberg, 1963: 9)
Different types of spill-over
• Functional spill-over: integration in one policy domain requires integration in other policy
domains (e.g. the European integration project established a free trade area this creates
a spill-over/incentive to take further steps, in particular the customs union this creates a
spill over/incentive to take further steps, in particular the single market this creates a
spill over/incentive to take further steps, in particular the creation of a common currency)
• Political spill-over: if you give more power to supra-national institutions, there are more and
more interest groups/companies that will also focus their lobby activities towards these
supra-national institutions, this leads to these particular supra-national institutions
promoting even more integration to strengthen their own position
• Technical spill-over: an attempt to create a level playing field in all countries (e.g. the push
for a common European minimum wage, and thus for more integration, so that some
companies do not move to cheaper European countries)
• Cultural spill-over
• Geographical spill-over: how integration expands over territory (e.g. when states join the EU
they harmonize their laws with the EU level)
European integration = deterministic process (“expansive logic” it’s hard to stop the European
integration spill-over after spill-over after spill-over)
European integration = autonomous process (not a result of deliberate strategies of member
states)
Driving forces = not the states themselves but non-state actors:
• Companies
• Trade unions
• Political parties
• EU institutions (Commission, European Court of Justice)
BUT: neofunctionalism is not an explanation for the stagnation of the European integration in the
1960s empty chair crisis: France refused to send their own representatives to the meetings at
the European level, CDG really opposed the new proposals of the European Commission
Intergovernmentalism (Andrej Moravcsik, 1960s-1970s)
Part of the “Realist School of IR”
“Logic of diversity”
“in areas of key importance to the national interest, nations prefer the certainty, or the self-
controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of untested
blunder” (Hoffmann, 1966: 882)
sometimes governments basically oppose the limitations on their own actions that spill-over
provides because more integration would mean less power for member states sometimes they
want to keep the decision-making power because they prefer freedom & diversity over
harmonization & integration
Driving force = heads of state and government of nation states
European integration = zero-sum game = result of the negotiations between the member states
“European integration = two-level game in three stages”:
1) there are national preferences and interests in the member states determined by the
internal dynamics in the state (role of pressure groups) (= national level)
2) the manifestation/realization of integration depends on the relative power of the
member states (= EU level)
3) institutionalization: EU institutions are useful to execute/implement and enforce deals
between member states (to solve coordination problems)
, Theories of the European Union
Not explain evolution of European integration, but functioning of European Union as it is
EU = international organisation?
• YES: members are nation states, membership is voluntary, strive for consensus
• NO: transfer of sovereignty to EU, autonomy and decision-making power of EU actors,
intensity & scope of policy (impact day-to-day lives)
EU = state?
• YES: internationally recognized boundaries, member states subjected to EU laws, influence
over daily lives, common currency and symbols
• NO: no monopoly over violence (no police forces, no army), no direct taxes
Intergovernmentalism Supranationalism
Governments and member states keep control Member states lose control over decision-
over decision-making in the EU (inter- making to the benefit of EU institutions,
governmental = between governments) which operate and decide relatively
Focal point of decision-making is (European) autonomously (supra-national = above
national level)
Council
Important role for European Parliament,
Decisions taken by unanimity (veto) Commission, Court of Justice, European
Implementation and control by member states Central Bank
→ “intergovernmental method” Decision taken by majority
Implementation and control by Commission
and Court of Justice
→ Community Method
The European Union as a political system (comparative politics) can be compared to national political
system
a bicameral system: a lower chamber (representation of the people)
and an upper chamber (representation of the member states)
lower chamber = the European Parliament
upper chamber = the Council of Ministers
The EU as a democracy = system of checks and balances
Legislative Branch:
• European Parliament
• Council of Ministers
Executive Branch:
• European Commission
• (+ Member states)
What is the European Union? (Chapter 1)
What is a state?
States rule: make laws and enforce them
States provide public goods
States extract (taxes)
States solve collective action problems (= when you need to work together but it’s easier not do
anything as an individual this creates hurdles in the collective actions the state can overcome
this by extracting taxes e.g. Everyone has to pay taxes to construct a road they’ll use because
otherwise every individual would just think someone else will pay for it and in the end there won’t
be any road)
Is the European Union a state?
No, because the EU doesn’t enforce or use violence (for this they rely on the member states)
“Order of Westphalia” (1648)
Wesphalian order was established
it was a recognition of states, borders and that external powers should not interfere with
domestic affairs of a state
4 main characteristics:
1) Fixed and populated territory
2) Possibility to impose authority over that territory
3) Legally and politically independent
4) Recognized by its people and by other states
Sovereignty = ‘supreme’ authority over a territory and its population
State
Political-legal unit defined by territory and by laws
Institutional basis
Nation
A group of people defined by shared identity or culture based on language, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Difference nation & ethnic group:
Ethnic group: a group of people who share a heritage, common language, culture (often
including religion) and can discuss shared ancestry
Nations (more political): unified by a sense of purpose to control the territory that the
members of the group believe to be theirs.
nation and state do not always overlap e.g. Kurdistan
Nation-state:
Sovereign states in which a majority of the population is united based on factors that define a
nation
Limitations of the concept of a state
Nationalism: state should be based on a “nation”
→ National superiority, ethnocentrism, racism and genocide
→ tensions between states
↔ international cooperation to overcome tensions + promote cooperation e.g. the UN
• Manifestation: international organizations and/or international treaties (= voluntary
cooperation)
,Integration
Collaboration
Member states decide to achieve certain goals together by taking joint measures, but the member states
retain authority over the specific policy domain
Integration
The authority to take decisions is transferred to a higher (supra-)national level, so there is a transfer of
competences from the member states to the EU level
Some international organizations lead to integration
Integration
• = transfer by states of (parts of) sovereignty
• = pooling of authority in specific policy areas, and the creation of common institutions with
restricted powers (delegation)
• ≠ the total surrender of their own separate legal, political, economic, social and national
identities (≈ assimilation)
Theories of European Integration
What is a theory?
Consists of concepts and makes propositions about relations between these concepts
Attempt to explain reality
(Often simplification of reality: highlight those elements that matter most)
≠ normative (not about how you think it should be, but how it is)
Theory of European integration = explanation on why states decided to transfer more and more
authority to the European level and to supranational institutions
Two competing theories in international relations (= explanations for relations between states)
Realism
• World is defined by anarchy, international relations are chaotic, and main motivation of
states is to ensure survival, security, sovereignty
• Core actors in international relations = states (no ‘world government’)
• States are unitary actors that act rationally out of self-interest (zero sum-game)
• Core concept = power (the states that are the strongest can enforce their preferences on
weaker states)
Vs.
Liberalism
• International relations is more than survival, more than power, collaboration is possible
• Other actors in addition to states = international organizations (that promote further
collaboration and prevent free-riding)
• States can go beyond self-interest, collaboration can lead to positive-sum games
• Core concept = shared values (freedom, democracy, human rights)
Functionalism (Mitrany) (= normative)
Nationalism = source of conflict
Peace trough collaboration between states built on common interests
International agencies that fulfil specific functional needs
“economic and financial ties precede political ties”
“Integration by stealth / “sneak up on peace”: Integration in noncontroversial fields encourages
collaboration in other fields
Neofunctionalism (Haas and Lindberg; 1950s-1960s):
Part of the “liberal school of IR”
, “spill-over effect”: “a given action, related to a specific goal, creates a situation in which the
original goal can be assured only by taking further actions, which in turn create a further condition
and a need for more, and so forth” (Lindberg, 1963: 9)
Different types of spill-over
• Functional spill-over: integration in one policy domain requires integration in other policy
domains (e.g. the European integration project established a free trade area this creates
a spill-over/incentive to take further steps, in particular the customs union this creates a
spill over/incentive to take further steps, in particular the single market this creates a
spill over/incentive to take further steps, in particular the creation of a common currency)
• Political spill-over: if you give more power to supra-national institutions, there are more and
more interest groups/companies that will also focus their lobby activities towards these
supra-national institutions, this leads to these particular supra-national institutions
promoting even more integration to strengthen their own position
• Technical spill-over: an attempt to create a level playing field in all countries (e.g. the push
for a common European minimum wage, and thus for more integration, so that some
companies do not move to cheaper European countries)
• Cultural spill-over
• Geographical spill-over: how integration expands over territory (e.g. when states join the EU
they harmonize their laws with the EU level)
European integration = deterministic process (“expansive logic” it’s hard to stop the European
integration spill-over after spill-over after spill-over)
European integration = autonomous process (not a result of deliberate strategies of member
states)
Driving forces = not the states themselves but non-state actors:
• Companies
• Trade unions
• Political parties
• EU institutions (Commission, European Court of Justice)
BUT: neofunctionalism is not an explanation for the stagnation of the European integration in the
1960s empty chair crisis: France refused to send their own representatives to the meetings at
the European level, CDG really opposed the new proposals of the European Commission
Intergovernmentalism (Andrej Moravcsik, 1960s-1970s)
Part of the “Realist School of IR”
“Logic of diversity”
“in areas of key importance to the national interest, nations prefer the certainty, or the self-
controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of untested
blunder” (Hoffmann, 1966: 882)
sometimes governments basically oppose the limitations on their own actions that spill-over
provides because more integration would mean less power for member states sometimes they
want to keep the decision-making power because they prefer freedom & diversity over
harmonization & integration
Driving force = heads of state and government of nation states
European integration = zero-sum game = result of the negotiations between the member states
“European integration = two-level game in three stages”:
1) there are national preferences and interests in the member states determined by the
internal dynamics in the state (role of pressure groups) (= national level)
2) the manifestation/realization of integration depends on the relative power of the
member states (= EU level)
3) institutionalization: EU institutions are useful to execute/implement and enforce deals
between member states (to solve coordination problems)
, Theories of the European Union
Not explain evolution of European integration, but functioning of European Union as it is
EU = international organisation?
• YES: members are nation states, membership is voluntary, strive for consensus
• NO: transfer of sovereignty to EU, autonomy and decision-making power of EU actors,
intensity & scope of policy (impact day-to-day lives)
EU = state?
• YES: internationally recognized boundaries, member states subjected to EU laws, influence
over daily lives, common currency and symbols
• NO: no monopoly over violence (no police forces, no army), no direct taxes
Intergovernmentalism Supranationalism
Governments and member states keep control Member states lose control over decision-
over decision-making in the EU (inter- making to the benefit of EU institutions,
governmental = between governments) which operate and decide relatively
Focal point of decision-making is (European) autonomously (supra-national = above
national level)
Council
Important role for European Parliament,
Decisions taken by unanimity (veto) Commission, Court of Justice, European
Implementation and control by member states Central Bank
→ “intergovernmental method” Decision taken by majority
Implementation and control by Commission
and Court of Justice
→ Community Method
The European Union as a political system (comparative politics) can be compared to national political
system
a bicameral system: a lower chamber (representation of the people)
and an upper chamber (representation of the member states)
lower chamber = the European Parliament
upper chamber = the Council of Ministers
The EU as a democracy = system of checks and balances
Legislative Branch:
• European Parliament
• Council of Ministers
Executive Branch:
• European Commission
• (+ Member states)
