Conceptualising and Theorising Slides to support Chapter 23 of The Government and Politics of the European Union, 7th ed., by Neill Nugent

The Purpose of Theorising ‘It is impossible to make any statement about social phenomena in a theoretical vacuum’ (Rosamond, 2000). Theorising provides a framework for structuring and ordering ‘facts’ (developments, situations, events etc are multi-dimensional). Theorising involves positing explanations for phenomena in abstract terms. Theory is used to facilitate explanation through the identification of recurring causal variables

European Integration Theorising The initial focus was very much on the integration process itself. Integration theory in its various forms drew, and still draws, heavily from IR theory. Disappointments with the perceived achievements of integration theory led from the late 1970s to a greater focus on specific aspects of the integration process. Theoretical development has been much influenced by: - wider discipline developments - ‘real world’ developments

The Nature of Theorising on European Integration and the EU Many distinctions can be made between the types of theorising in EU studies. Of particular importance are: The level of theorising: general (or grand), middle range, and micro. The focus of theorising: what sort of integration is to be explained? The claims of theorising: is an explanation being postulated or is ‘just’ a useful way of approaching subject matter being suggested?

Grand Theory It is concerned with theorising the integration process as a whole. It has become less fashionable in recent years because of: 1) its perceived limited explanatory value in practice 2) much of it is perceived as being either over-simplistic or over-complex Nonethless, the influence of the two major grand theory perspectives still resonates strongly in EU studies: Neofunctionalism Intergovernmentalism

Neofunctionalism The political follows the economic. The importance of spillover: functional, political, and cultural. A key role for supranational and other nongovernmental actors. Key proponents: initially Haas, Lindberg; more recently Sandholtz and Stone Sweet, and Beach – who essentially articulate a form of supranationalism.

Intergovernmentalism Stems very much from realist International Relations theory. The key argument of early IG was that integration is driven primarily by the governments of the member states, which seek to preserve their independence as far as possible – and especially in respect of ‘high politics’. Liberal Intergovernmentaism offers a more sophisticated version of IG, with an emphasis on national preference formation, the convergence of national preferences, and intergovernmental bargaining. Key proponents: initially Hoffmann; more recently Moravcsik, Magnette.

The Obsolescence of Grand Theory? Neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism are frequently denounced for being ‘old-fashioned’ and outdated. But: They still form the foundations of much theoretically informed debate and scholarship on the European integration process and the operation of the EU. Much theoretical work has really been concerned with developing and nuancing neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism. Much of the empirical work on aspects of the EU – such as the many studies of EU institutions – draws heavily on neofunctionalist and intergovernmentalist concepts and ideas.

Middle-Range Theory Used to help explain particular features of the EU system: most notably policy and decision-making processes Usually best thought of as being ‘approaches’ rather than ‘theories’ Middle range theory draws heavily on approaches developed in ‘mainstream’ political science, especially comparative politics and public policy studies – with the EU being assumed to be a ‘polity’. The most used such theoretical approaches include: - Rationalism - Constructivism - New institutionalism - Policy networks

Rationalist Approaches Used to explain the motivations and behaviour of actors: - motivations: it is assumed that actors are motivated by self-interest to maximise utility; - behaviour: if they are to act rationally throughout, actors will identify their goal(s), establish alternative ways of achieving the goal(s), and make decisions made on the basis of an evaluation of all options. There are several variants of rationalism, all of which are concerned with explaining how, in the ‘real world’, ‘pure’ rationalist decisions are not possible.

Constructivist Approaches The actions of political actors cannot be explained wholly in rational or instrumental terms. Socially constructed identities, norms and values are crucial in guiding actions. Ideational mechanisms: - Socialisation: the integration process transforms ideas and identities; - Resonance: existing and established ideas and identities constrain the integration process.

New Institutional Approaches Core notion is that ‘institutions matter’ Three main variants: rational choice institutionalism historical institutionalism sociological institutionalism

Policy Network Approaches Used to explain both policy processes and policy outcomes. Policy networks can vary in nature according to: - The stability/instability of network memberships - The insularity/permeability of networks - The strength/weakness of resource dependencie Policy networks can be stretched along a spectrum: Policy communities Issue networks

Limitations of, and Challenges for, Integration Theory Arguably, existing theory is: - too focused on ‘first pillar’ issues - too focused on formal integration and activities - too focused on elite level activities (with European integration processes and mass level politics not sufficiently linked). too compartmentalised: in particular with too little connection between integration theory and middle range (especially ‘governance of the EU’) theories. insufficiently focused on the increasingly differentiated nature of the integration process (continuing ‘pillarisation’, flexible cooperation, opt-outs and opt-ins).