Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||Integration theory for the Europe of Maastricht|
|Author(s):||Hagland, Paul Philip|
|Doctoral Committee Chair(s):||Kolodziej, Edward A.|
|Department / Program:||Political Science|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
Political Science, General
Political Science, International Law and Relations
|Abstract:||Existing approaches to explaining integration, such as neofunctionalism and intergovernmental institutionalism, are insufficient to explain the development of the European Community and its successor, the European Union, the latter established in the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht in February 1992.
An alternative can be proposed that would focus on the emergence of an entity whose supranational institutions may attain some degree of policy autonomy from its member states. At the heart of that new concept is a tetrad of four dimensions of integration, what are here termed 'transnationalization,' 'formalization,' 'institutionalization,' and 'societalization.'
Transnationalization manifests itself in transnational forces able to prevail over state actors, regardless of any possible convergence of policy priorities. Formalization is the result of such struggles, and represents the creation of a legal and constitutional basis for a supranational European order. Institutionalization constitutes the attempt of such supranational institutions to attain policy autonomy from the member states. Societalization represents the basis of social support that is crucial to advances in integration, demonstrated by the near-fatal upsurge of opposition to Maastricht during the ratification process.
The three case studies to be considered include the EUT's provisions on Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), its provisions on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and the development of environmental policy at the supranational level.
In brief, the drive for EMU can be seen as an attempt to reassert some measure of control over national policy-making, paradoxically, through adoption of a supranational alternative to intergovernmental cooperation, while CFSP appears to emerge from a parallel, if distinct, process of fundamental change at the systemic and regional levels. The development of environmental policy, in contrast, can be seen as the result of pressure from the member states as a result of transnational physical and political forces compelling action above the national level.
Overall, the degree of policy autonomy enjoyed by the supranational institutions in each of the three domains varies tremendously, with CFSP being the least integrated, and EMU potentially the most.
|Rights Information:||Copyright 1994 Hagland, Paul Philip|
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2011-05-07|
|Identifier in Online Catalog:||AAI9503204|