Reading Paper #10: “Theorizing the European Union”

Allison Brown 4215: European Union Dr. Anderson March 9, 2021 Reading Paper #10: “Theorizing the European Union” Author: Mike Pollack currently is a professor of Political Science and Law at Temple University in Philadelphia. He describes his research/teaching as, “ … I teach and do research on international institutions, international law, and the politics of the European Union, among other subjects” . He also served as the founding director for the university’s Global Studies Program. His work, including published books, focuses on the institutions and policies of the EU and the politics of international law. Published: In the “Annual Review of Political Science”, an academic peer-reviewed journal that “... covers significant developments in the field of Political Science including political theory and philosophy, international relations, political economy, political behavior, American and comparative politics, public administration and policy” . The journal’s works are compiled and edited by Margaret Levi and Nancy L. Rosenblum and is recognized as a legit academic journal in the broader academic community. Date: Was first published as a review in advance on March 4, 2005. Domestically, on July 7 of that year London fell victim to a terrorist attack killing 52 and wounding over 700 (UK’s worst since WWII), Tony Blair became the first Labor Party prime minister to win three successive terms, the EU abandons a plan to ratify the proposed European constitution (by 2006) after France and the Netherlands vote against it, and Angela Merkel wins her first election to become Germany’s first female chancellor. Globally, G8 pledged to double aid to Africa to $50 billion a year after 2010, cancel the debt of many impoverished countries, and open trade. It’s clear how the turmoil experienced in the EU and European elections relates to this article, an understanding of how the EU works and makes policies, as well as how they are studied in the realm of international relations was crucial to making effective European policy. Thesis: Many different notions and theories exist in EU integration academia surrounding policies and institutions, the field is constantly changing and different approaches can work to predict the future of the EU and the role both state and non-state actors will play in that future. Gist: There are three different approaches to study EU integration, policies, and institutions. Each approach differs with regards to applying international relations theory vs. comparative political theories and the debate over what role non-state actors play in the European Union’s future. These three approaches are: (1) explains the process of European integration and has worked outside neo-functionalist ideas with rationalist-constructivist subjects to look at the EU through the lens of broader international relations theory and (2) rejects international relations theory instead to analyze the EU using different models of other legislative, executive, and judicial activities and (3) views the EU as a new, shaping system of multi-leveled government which shows state governments losing power to the supranational and sub-national actors, which relates directly to the power complex the EU has over states and the inverse. Telling Examples: 1) Neofunctionalism, defined as a theory of regional integration which downplays globalization and reintroduces territory into its governance, similar to some thoughts of Jean Monnet on European integration. Pollack argues that neo-functionalism in the EU has created a process of “functional spillover” (359) that creates pressure to extend the authority of institutions and in the broader region in order to change currency exchange rates, taxations, and wages. Essentially, the EU and other groups create additional pressure for further integration to better the supranational system. 2) Intergovernmentalism, reformed by Andrew Moravcsik (1993, 1998), intergovernmentalism places states as the primary actors in the integration process, not non-state actors. Moravcsisk’s take, liberal intergovernmentalism in European integration combines a “liberal theory of national preference formation with an intergovernmental model of EU-level bargaining and a model of institutional choice” (360). 3) Modern Integration Theory, no longer is EU policy shaped by the dichotomy of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism argues, instead, it has evolved to be a debate between “rationalist scholars against constructivists” (368). The old debate was only with the study of European integration, but now, it includes contemporary issues that mirror global scholarly debates in international relations theories. Criticism: I enjoyed this reading and founding its contrast and comparisons of different theories and fields of thought in EU integration policy to be helpful. After reading this article, it is easier to see how different historical figures, like Jean Monnet, and contemporary figures in EU integration policy value and believe different aspects of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism with regards to European integration.