Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
On the relationship between neo-classical integration theory, processes
of integration, and social structure*
H E L G E HVEEM
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
Hveem, H. Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom? On the relationship between neo-classical integration theory, processes of integration, and social structure.
Cooperation and Conflict, IX, 1974, 263-284.
This paper is a partial critique of the 'neo-classical' integration schools, the 'neofunctionalist' inspired by Haas and the 'transactional' of Deutsch and followers. Discussing mainly the former, the author makes the plea that integration theory should
be more clearly related to the distribution of power and to social structure. Seven
aspects of the theoretical deficiencies of the 'neo-classicists' are identified and discussed: the atomism in the sense that national sovereignty is unduly assumed; the lack
of recognition of asymmetric social relationships and the need to distinguish between
vertical (asymmetric) and horizontal integration; the. formalism or institution-bias
resulting in the neglect of such crucial integration actors as the multinational corporations; a tendency towards theoretical encapsulation not relating duly a theory of integration processes to other relevant political and social theory; a bias towards elites
leading to undue assumption that what integration is good for elites is also automatically good for non-elites; an obsession with the process of integration as such almost
leading to making the process a goal in itself; and a widespread tendency towards
structural and/or cultural bias in comparative integration studies. The critique also
points out 'neo-classical' propositions and hypotheses which may usefully be reformulated and reintegrated into an alternative functional theory. Some suggestions
as to the contents of such a theory are made towards the end.
Helge
Hveem,
International
Peace
Research
I. I N T R O D U C T I O N
W h a t is t h e p r o p e r p l a c e of i n t e g r a t i o n
t h e o r y in a b r o a d e r t h e o r y of g l o b a l
politics? W h o a r e t h e actors i n v o l v e d i n
a n d t h e objects affected b y i n t e g r a t i v e
processes?
T h e s e a r e some of t h e initial questions
in any treatise on integration, whether as
t h e o r y or as t h e a c t u a l process. I a g r e e
* This article is a revised version of a paper
completed in April, 1973 and later presented
in absentia to the IX Congress of the International Political Science Association, Montreal, 19-25 August, 1973. I am grateful to
Sverre Lodgaard, Jostein Mykletun, Joseph
Nye, and Kjell Skjelsbaek for comments on
the first draft and to Susan Heivik for polishing the language and the references. The
article can be identified as PRIO Publication
No. 22-39 from the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
Institute,
Oslo.
w i t h those w h o v i e w i n t e g r a t i o n as a process - a r a t h e r simple y e t necessary o b s e r v a t i o n from w h i c h t o d e p a r t . T h i s
p a p e r m a y be seen as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to
t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y . It
is a r e p o r t a b o u t a feeling of uneasiness,
f o r m e d as a p a r t i a l critique, a n d at t h e
s a m e t i m e a n a t t e m p t t o f o r m u l a t e certain
p r i n c i p l e s t o w a r d a fruitful a p p r o a c h to
integration beyond the nation-state.
I h a v e f o u n d it necessary to m a k e t h e
m a i n b u l k of t h e p r e s e n t p a p e r a critique
of theories, h o p e f u l l y a constructive one.
I will s t a r t by p o i n t i n g out w h a t I see as
p r o b l e m a t i c o r deficient i n t h e two b r o a d
'schools' o f i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y t h a t a r e
a l r e a d y b e c o m i n g classical; t h e neo-functionalist a n d t h e transactional a p p r o a c h e s .
A t h i r d school, t h e federalist, seems of
less i m p o r t a n c e at p r e s e n t . I will i n d i c a t e
some c e n t r a l t h e o r e m s in t h e neo-classical
264
Helge
Hveem
theories w h i c h I b e l i e v e should be r e t a i n e d as v a l i d . L a s t l y , I will a t t e m p t to
show h o w these t h e o r e m s m a y b e e m p l o y e d
i n r e f o r m u l a t i n g t h e aims a n d perspectives
of i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y .
Obviously, w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k of a
short p a p e r , it is n o t possible to m a k e a
complete s u r v e y a n d g i v e d u e a c c o u n t t o
all t h e w o r k s o n i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n
from recent y e a r s t h a t m a y b e considered
c e n t r a l to a g e n e r a l t h e o r y . W h a t is cent r a l , m o r e o v e r , will i n e v i t a b l y b e subject
t o d e b a t e . T h e theories a n d t h e o r e m s
covered i n t h e following, a r e t h e r e f o r e
my selection of w h a t I see as c e n t r a l in a
discussion
of
international
integration
theory.
II. I N T E G R A T I O N T H E O R Y IN A
THEORY OF GLOBAL POLITICS
A r e v i e w of w h a t I consider as m a j o r
deficiencies in t h e neo-classics of i n t e g r a tion t h e o r y necessitates t h a t I first state
some of my o w n e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t t h e
contents of a fruitful t h e o r y .
In its w i d e s t p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y , integration theory should explain why, how,
and with what consequences to whom two
(or more) social units grow together to
become one. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , d i s i n t e g r a tion t h e o r y e x p l a i n s w h y , h o w , a n d w i t h
w h a t consequences t o w h o m one social
u n i t g r o w s a p a r t t o b e c o m e t w o (or more)
units. A n y fruitful t h e o r y m u s t b e c a p a b l e
of s h o w i n g in g e n e r a l , if n o t in d e t a i l ,
h o w t h e t w o opposite poles o n t h e i n t e g r a tion/disintegration dimension not
only
contradict each o t h e r in a l i n e a r d e v e l o p m e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , b u t also c o m b i n e or coexist as m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t processes
w i t h i n one a n d t h e s a m e social context.
I h a v e used t h e t e r m ' g l o b a l politics'
p u r p o s e l y t o state two closely r e l a t e d d e m a n d s o n t h e o r y . First, t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n
t h e o r y should be a multilevel analysis: t h e
widest a n d t h e finite u n i t of a n a l y s i s social u n i t in my o w n t e r m s - b e i n g t h e
w o r l d , t h e g l o b e ; t h e ' n a r r o w e s t ' o r lowest
level b e i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l . ( A l t h o u g h t h e
integration of individuals may have rel-
e v a n c e to such processes at higher levels
of a n a l y s i s , t h e y a r e n o t considered within
t h e c o m p e t e n c e of political analysis.)
S e c o n d l y , t h e n o t i o n of global politics
d e m a n d s t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n processes be seen
as r e l a t i n g v a r i o u s levels of social structure
(from t h e i n t e r - i n d i v i d u a l to t h e interr e g i o n a l ) . D i f f e r e n t levels of social struct u r e a r e r e l a t e d - b o t h as causal determin a n t s of, and as b e i n g causally affected
by, i n t e g r a t i v e a n d d i s i n t e g r a t i v e p r o cesses b e i n g i n i t i a t e d at some other level(s).
No social unit, a n d no level of analysis
c o r r e s p o n d i n g to it, should be a priori
e x c l u d e d from t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n d empirical a n a l y s i s of unit-specific integration
processes.
T h e c l a i m for a g l o b a l politics perspect i v e is n o t exclusively a d d r e s s e d to integ r a t i o n t h e o r y . M u c h of w h a t goes under
such categories as ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l Relations',
' I n t e r n a t i o n a l Polities', or ' F o r e i g n Policy
Studies', suffers from some of t h e deficiencies t h a t p l a g u e neo-classical integration t h e o r y . In a n o t h e r context I h a v e
p o i n t e d out t h e n e e d for a t h e o r y of global
p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m y to a c c o u n t for patterns
of c o n t r o l a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s of dependency,
p e n e t r a t i o n , a n d e x p l o i t a t i o n u n d e r conditions of d o m i n a n c e ( H v e e m 1973a,
1973b). T h i s c l a i m for a m o r e 'totalistic'
a p p r o a c h t o politics b e y o n d t h e nations t a t e c a n b e m a d e i n g e n e r a l , m a i n l y because t h e n a t i o n - s t a t e s , or their formal
decisionmakers
(government),
can
no
l o n g e r l a y c l a i m to exclusive control over
t h e lives of t h e i r citizens.
I t i s m y c o n t e n t i o n t h a t research falling
u n d e r a n y of these h e a d i n g s h a s been characterized by a lack of validity, because
t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o t e n t i a l a n d empirically
a c t u a l interrelatedness of t h e p h e n o m e n a
s t u d i e d h a v e n o t b e e n accepted. A fundamental
deficiency
of
integration
theory
seems to be its state of theoretical disintegration.
I see t h r e e sets of evidence to support
this p o i n t . First, w h a t follows from the a
priori selection of u n i t s w h i c h a r e seen as
r e l e v a n t in a c c o u n t i n g for i n t e g r a t i v e or
d i s i n t e g r a t i v e processes: t h e nation-states.
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
T h i s is e n c a p s u l a t i o n of domain. Secondly,
t h e r e is e n c a p s u l a t i o n of scope, i l l u s t r a t e d
b y t h e so-called ' i s s u e - a r e a ' a p p r o a c h
w h i c h h a s led to a t h e o r y of 'political i n t e g r a t i o n ' , ' e c o n o m i c i n t e g r a t i o n ' , 'social
i n t e g r a t i o n ' , ' c u l t u r a l i n t e g r a t i o n ' , etc. a n d
to t h e distinction b e t w e e n ' h i g h politics'
a n d 'low polities'. T h i r d l y , t h e r e is a
d e g r e e of e n c a p s u l a t i o n from t h e o r e m s
a n d from t h e g r o w i n g k n o w l e d g e ' m a i n s t r e a m ' of theoretical d e v e l o p m e n t (Kaiser
1968) g e n e r a t e d by social sciences, history,
a n d p h i l o s o p h y at l a r g e ; a deficiency
w h i c h is obvious in t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t
school but less so in t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i s t one.
On t h e o t h e r h a n d - a n d as a f o u r t h a n d
a positive aspect of e n c a p s u l a t i o n - t h e
' i s s u e - a r e a ' a p p r o a c h is useful from an
analytical point of view.
The role of integration
theory in a
science of politics is to relate processes of
integration and disintegration to
the distribution
of
power
and
the
authoritative
allocation
of
scarce
value
within
and
among
units
that
integrate
and/or
disintegrate. It must be able to e x p l a i n w h y
a n d h o w existing p o w e r d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d
p a t t e r n s of a l l o c a t i o n d e t e r m i n e p a t t e r n s
of i n t e g r a t i o n , a n d vice versa. H e n c e , it
must be d y n a m i c , u s i n g historical as well
a s t h e c o n t e x t u a l , 'totalistic' analysis r e ferred to a b o v e .
1
M y own e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i n t e g r a t i o n
t h e o r y is a d m i t t e d l y r e l a t i v e l y limited, if
i n t e g r a t i o n on r e s e a r c h is defined a c c o r d ing to t h e p e r s p e c t i v e d e v e l o p e d by t h e
neo-functionalists. As will be s h o w n in
t h e following, t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t a p p r o a c h is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e l a t i v e l y
h i g h d e g r e e of e n c a p s u l a t i o n in most of
t h e forms m e n t i o n e d . H o w e v e r , t h e t y p e
of e x p e r i e n c e I h a v e h a d - a n d w h i c h I
t h i n k is s h a r e d by m a n y others - seems
h i g h l y r e l e v a n t in an e v a l u a t i o n of t h e o r y .
I s t a r t e d l o o k i n g first in t h e E a s t
African framework, and then in the P a n A f r i c a n , for i n t e g r a t i v e a n d d i s i n t e g r a t i v e
processes in these sub-systems of t h e
w o r l d . T h e n a t i o n - s t a t e s w e r e t h e units
of i n t e r a c t i o n , a n d t h e p a r a m e t e r s of t h e
system of e x c h a n g e s b e t w e e n t h e m - t h e
265
'relational' dimension - were trade volu m e s , t r a n s p o r t n e t w o r k s , institutionalized
c o o p e r a t i o n , ' p o l i t i c a l elites' i n t e r a c t i o n ,
etc. S t r a t i f i c a t i o n in t h e system(s), r a n k
inequalities expressed b y ' a t t r i b u t e ' v a r i ables such a s G N P , p o p u l a t i o n , a r e a , etc.,
w e r e t a k e n into c o n s i d e r a t i o n ( H v e e m
1972a).
T h e level of a b s t r a c t i o n o b t a i n e d in
such studies is n o t h i g h . M o r e i m p o r t a n t ,
h o w e v e r , studies like these r e p r e s e n t r e search of v e r y l i m i t e d v a l i d i t y . I n t e r action studies of this t y p e , or systems
analysis as it h a s b e e n p r a c t i s e d , a r e
b a s e d on t h e (implicit or explicit) a s s u m p tion of r e l a t i v e system a u t o n o m y . T h i s
assumption, in my own research on African
i n t e r - s t a t e i n t e r a c t i o n a n d in t h a t of
o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s ( A m i n 1971), h a s p r o v e d
itself to be u n t e n a b l e . T h e s t u d y of w h e n
a n d u n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s it is correct, is a task for e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h , not
an axiom.
T h e thesis t h a t A f r i c a n politics - be it
d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o l i t i c a l p o w e r , social d e velopment, economic growth performances
or t r a d e - is d e p e n d e n t on a n d often
totally determined by the wider, global
system (that is, m é t r o p o l e , relationships)
is in p r i n c i p l e e q u a l l y a x i o m a t i c . But as
it c h a l l e n g e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n of a u t o n o m y ,
it is a m o r e fruitful hypothesis. T h u s I
s t a r t e d d o i n g studies on A f r i c a n affairs
from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of d e p e n d e n c y r e l a tionships in a s y m m e t r i c structures, i n c l u d i n g p a t t e r n s of p e n e t r a t i o n : one unit
controlling the other. T h e perspective was
adapted to relations in the 'Euro-afrique'
system: F r e n c h ( a n d in a w i d e r context
EEC) - African relations.
T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t results o f this l e a r n ing stage d i d n o t p r i m a r i l y m a t e r i a l i z e i n
w r i t i n g a l t h o u g h a few p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t s w e r e m a d e ( H v e e m & H o l t h e 1972).
I assisted a few s t u d e n t s in c a r r y i n g
t h r o u g h r e s e a r c h a l o n g these lines. I also
m a d e some m i n o r studies o n c e r t a i n aspects
of t h e d e p e n d e n c y s t r u c t u r e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r respect to a description of its c o n t e n t
a n d t h e possibilities for c h a n g i n g it into
a s t r u c t u r e of (relative) s y m m e t r y a n d
266
Helge
Hveem
inter-dependence
(dependence
between
units in a s y m m e t r i c r e l a t i o n s h i p ) . T h e
task of social r e s e a r c h is n o t o n l y to d e scribe a n d e x p l a i n social r e a l i t y , b u t also
to a n a l y z e and show h o w it c a n be c h a n g e d
a c c o r d i n g tc c e r t a i n d e f i n e d c r i t e r i a for a
better world (Hveem & Willetts 1973;
H v e e m 1972b).
This research pattern - increasing the
level of a b s t r a c t i o n a n d v a l i d i t y - can be
described in a p u r e t y p e form as t h e foll o w i n g stepwise a c c u m u l a t i o n of n e w a n d
deeper perspectives:
(1) A c t u a l interaction studies, w h i c h d e a l
w i t h e x c h a n g e s of v a l u e s ( t r a d e , t o u r ism, ' f o r e i g n a i d ' ) ;
(2) stratification (plus i n t e r a c t i o n ) studies,
w h i c h show h o w i n t e r a c t i o n is r a n k d e p e n d e n t ; e x a m p l e s a r e legion a n d
i n c l u d e studies o f w o r l d a i r l i n e p a t t e r n s (Gleditsch 1967), I G O / I N G O
s t r u c t u r e (Skjelsbsek 1972), E a s t - W e s t
i n t e r a c t i o n ( G a l t u n g 1966), e t c ;
(3) penetration studies, w h i c h a n a l y z e t h e
' c o u p l i n g ' a m o n g units of t h e system
in p a t t e r n s of influencing, d e p e n d e n c y
a n d control of one u n i t o v e r t h e o t h e r ;
(4) exploitation
or
imperialism
studies,
w h e r e t h e e n d effects of t h e a l l o c a t i o n
of v a l u e g o i n g in a p e n e t r a t i n g s t r a t i fied i n t e r a c t i o n system a r e described
and explained.
2
3
C a r r y i n g t h e r e s e a r c h process t h r o u g h
these levels does n o t only m e a n i n c r e a s i n g
a b s t r a c t i o n a n d v a l i d i t y (as a v e r y general
rule). I t also m e a n s t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y ,
w h e n t a k e n from level 1 t o w a r d s levels 3
and 4, attains decreasing relevance: the
h i g h e r t h e level, t h e less r e l e v a n t becomes
i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y - of t h e neo-classical
or any other conceivable type.
III. T H E N E O - C L A S S I C A L
APPROACH A N D ITS M A I N
DEFICIENCIES
T u r n i n g now to the argument on the deficiencies of t h e neo-classical a p p r o a c h in
the light of t h e g e n e r a l p o i n t s m a d e in t h e
p r e c e d i n g section, I will c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e
n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t s , E r n s t B . H a a s and
f o l l o w e r s . Both in n u m b e r s a n d in terms
of t h e i r o w n e m p h a s i s on specialization in
i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y , this 'school' is t h e domi n a n t one at present. T h e other school
r e f e r r e d to - t h e transactionalists under
the theoretical leadership of Karl W.
D e u t s c h - w i l l be specifically discussed at
points w h e r e it r e q u i r e s s e p a r a t e treatm e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e r e m a y b e differences
of m o r e t h a n s h a d e , w i t h i n as well as bet w e e n t h e t w o schools, on points where
t h e y a r e not t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y , such differences do n o t a p p e a r theoretically relev a n t e n o u g h t o w a r r a n t special attention
i n t h e p r e s e n t p a p e r . A t certain points,
r e f e r e n c e will also be m a d e to the third
'school' - t h e federalist a p p r o a c h .
4
5
I w i l l n o t go into d e t a i l on t h e content
of these t h r e e b r o a d 'schools' of integration
theory, because t h e i r m a i n t h e o r e m s and
p o s t u l a t e s a r e r e l a t i v e l y w e l l - k n o w n and
h a v e b e e n s u r v e y e d e l s e w h e r e (cf. H a a s
1 9 7 1 ; S æ t e r 1972a, p p . 8-71). T h e analysis
t h a t does seem n e c e s s a r y is found in the
following p a r a g r a p h s .
T h e federalist school, w h i c h is the most
simplistic one, seems to h a v e two broad
t e n d e n c i e s in its a p p r o a c h . O n e tendency
sees i n s t i t u t i o n - b u i l d i n g as t h e m a i n task
of t h e o r y a n d sets out e l a b o r a t i n g on institutional schemes t h a t it perceives as
c o n d u c i v e to i n t e g r a t i o n . It emphasizes the
correct division of p o w e r b e t w e e n suprao r i n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d n a t i o n a l institutions,
b u t w o r k s in t h e p r o m o t i o n of t h e former.
Such a p r o m o t i v e a t t i t u d e is p a r t i c u l a r l y
p r o m i n e n t in t h e o t h e r t e n d e n c y - federalist activism. It perceives of institutionb u i l d i n g as a basic ' n e e d ' of peoples and
n a t i o n s , a n d sets a b o u t fulfilling it. Its
basic a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t once an international i n s t i t u t i o n h a s b e e n created, p r a c t i cally a n y t h i n g c a n b e a c h i e v e d b y working
t h r o u g h t h e institution. T h e activists n u m b e r a m i x e d v a r i e t y of authors, practitioners, a n d interest g r o u p s .
6
7
T h e neo-functionalist a p p r o a c h is also
a h e a d i n g for a b o d y of theoretical works
a m o n g w h i c h t h e r e a r e i m p o r t a n t differences. Some p r i n c i p l e s a n d m a n y of the
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
c o n c e p t u a l schemes e m p l o y e d , h o w e v e r ,
seem c o m m o n t o most w o r k s f a l l i n g u n d e r
it. T h e y focus on t h e concept of 'political
c o m m u n i t y ' , w h i c h is a state w h e r e g r o u p s
a n d i n d i v i d u a l s , in a specific a r e a a n d
o v e r a specific p e r i o d of time, s h o w m o r e
l o y a l t y t o their own c e n t r a l ( s u p r a - n a tional) political institution t h a n to a n y
o t h e r ( H a a s 1958, p. 5). I n t e g r a t i o n is a
process conceived of as b e i n g d e v e l o p e d
through a 'spill-over' mechanism: the
process is i n t e g r a t i o n - f u n c t i o n a l if it leads
to i n t e g r a t i o n in one sector b e i n g c a r r i e d
o v e r t o a n o t h e r ( H a a s 1958, p . 40).
R e c e n t neo-functionalist w o r k s h a v e
e l a b o r a t e d often c o m p l i c a t e d c o n c e p t u a l
p a r a d i g m s t o a n a l y z e the i n t e g r a t i o n p r o cess (cf. L i n d b e r g 1971, S c h m i t t e r 1971).
T h e y h a v e focused m a i n l y o n ' r e g i o n a l
i n t e g r a t i o n ' , sometimes as a critical r e a c tion to t h e e a r l y federalist e m p h a s i s on
g l o b a l institution.
Etzioni seems to b e l o n g to b o t h t h e
federalist a n d t h e neo-functionalist school
- or r a t h e r he is on t h e b o r d e r l i n e b e t w e e n
t h e two (Etzioni 1965). He differs from
t h e neo-functionalists in his definitions of
i n t e g r a t i o n , which he sees as t h e a c h i e v e d
s t a t e of unification, t h e l a t t e r b e i n g t h e
process. Etzioni emphasizes, as n e o - f u n c tionalists do, t h e concept of p o l i t i c a l c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h h e defines b y t h r e e c r i t e r i a :
c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of loyalties, a n d identification of
t h e citizens (Etzioni 1965, p p . 5 a n d 329).
H e seems t o s h a r e w i t h t h e federalists t h e
strong emphasis on 'union' or 'federation'.
The
transactionist
approach
borrows
m u c h from perspectives a n d t h e o r e m s d e v e l o p e d i n cybernetics a n d also t h e g e n e r a l
t h e o r y of c o m m u n i c a t i o n at v a r i o u s levels
of society. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of f o r m a l
o r g a n i z a t i o n , 'political institutions', p l a y s
a r e l a t i v e l y m o d e s t role in this a p p r o a c h .
M o r e e m p h a s i s is p u t on b r o a d 'societal'
processes in ' p e o p l e - t o - p e o p l e r e l a t i o n s ' ,
of w h i c h four in p a r t i c u l a r a r e seen as
integration-promotive:
assimilation,
the
d e v e l o p m e n t of m u t u a l responsiveness, d e v e l o p m e n t of ' w e - f e e l i n g ' , a n d some d e g r e e
of division of l a b o r t h r o u g h t h e c r e a t i o n
267
of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . T w o types of c o m m u n i t y a r e d e v e l o p e d , one called ' a m a l g a m a t e d ' , t h e o t h e r ' p l u r a l i s t i c ' security
community.
W h i l e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t s focus m a i n l y
on 'political processes', t r a n s a c t i o n i s t s h a v e
a more 'open' approach. In their methodological a p p r o a c h e s , t h e differences t h a t
w e r e r a t h e r s t r o n g l y felt b e t w e e n t h e two
'schools' some y e a r s b a c k h a v e t e n d e d t o
become less p r o m i n e n t in r e c e n t y e a r s
( H a a s 1971). Both t h e neo-functionalists
a n d t h e transactionists use a v a r i e t y of
qualitative and quantitative methods: the
neo-functionalists, h o w e v e r , give p r i o r i t y
t o t h e former, t h e transactionists m a i n l y
m a k e use of t h e l a t t e r .
T h e deficiencies o r t h e m a j o r p r o b l e m s
in n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t (neo-classical) theories
can be s u m m a r i z e d as follows:
(1) T h e w o r l d is seen as l a r g e l y atomistic
i n t h e sense t h a t n a t i o n a l s o v e r e i g n t y
is u n d u l y a s s u m e d .
(2) I n t e g r a t i o n is seen as g o i n g on in a
priori s y m m e t r i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
(3) T h e a p p r o a c h is formalistic or institution-biased.
(4) It is issue-specific, l e a d i n g to u n f r u i t ful t h e o r e t i c a l e n c a p s u l a t i o n .
(5) It is elitistic, or elite-biased.
(6) It is often too p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d , t h e
process itself b e c o m i n g a n o r m or a
goal.
(7) Its c o m p a r a t i v e p a r a d i g m s a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y a n d c u l t u r a l l y biased, often
leading to rather tautological or uni n t e r e s t i n g c o m p a r i s o n s of i n t e g r a t i o n
processes.
T h e s e deficiencies, w h i c h will b e d i s cussed h e r e in some d e t a i l by w a y of concrete illustrations from t h e l i t e r a t u r e , a r e
r a t h e r closely r e l a t e d . T h e y stem p a r t l y
from t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , i n c l u d i n g
t h e d e g r e e of n o r m a t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n of t h e
schools. T h e s e weaknesses a r e n o t only
caused by t h e fact t h a t m e t h o d s sometimes
work 'on their own', uninfluenced by
t h e o r y . In this respect, most social science
disciplines m a y w e l l b e deficient. T h e y
also suffer from t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t an
268
Helge
Hveem
i r r e l e v a n t theory, when it influences t h e
methods,
necessarily
imposes
on
the
methods employed. A p a r a d i g m which,
e.g., does n o t recognize actors in t h e i n t e g r a t i o n process o t h e r t h a n n a t i o n - s t a t e s
o r n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s , c a n n o t possibly
be used to assess t h e ' r o l e ' of t h e m u l t i n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n . A n d the continuing,
widespread,
or almost universal non-recognition of the multinational corporation as
an important, often dominant, actor illustrates perhaps better than any set of examples of specific miscalculations or theoretical shortcomings the general state of
deficiency under which neo-classical theories suffer. It relates to most of t h e following points ( 1 - 7 ) .
8
tionalists - a n d possibly also H e r z - a r e
missing is t h e s t r o n g e l e m e n t of structural
p e r m a n e n c e i n h e r e n t in g l o b a l as well as
b i l a t e r a l , s t a t e - t o - s t a t e , relationships.
P e r m a n e n c e c a n be witnessed in the socalled E a s t - W e s t conflict f o r m a t i o n , in
the 'Atlantic Community', and within
W e s t E u r o p e a n p a t t e r n s o f interaction.
While
processes
and
their
character
c h a n g e d c o n s i d e r a b l y , t h e s t r u c t u r e - the
p a t t e r n e d p o w e r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n units
- r e m a i n e d r e l a t i v e l y u n c h a n g e d from the
e m e r g e n c e of t h e Soviet U n i o n as a n u c l e a r
p o w e r u n t i l t h e e n d of t h e 1960s a n d the
e m e r g e n c e o f t h e E E C a n d E u r o p e a n corp o r a t i o n s as a ' s u p e r p o w e r ' c h a l l e n g i n g
the bipolar hegemony and the US domina n c e of t h e A t l a n t i c c o m m u n i t y .
9
1.
'Atomism'
T h e i n h e r e n t atomistic perspective is n o t
only observed i n t h e p r e d o m i n a n t o r a l most exclusive role p l a y e d b y t h e n a t i o n state, w h i c h is seen by definition as i n d e p e n d e n t . F r o m this a s s u m p t i o n of n a t i o n a l
independence, international anarchy logically follows. H e n c e i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y is
basically a n o r m a t i v e t h e o r y . In t h e w o r d s
of H a a s :
The main reason for studying regional integration is thus normative: The units and actions studied provide a living laboratory for
observing the peaceful creation of possible
new types of human communities at a very
high level of organization and of the processes which may lead to such conditions
(Haas 1971, p. 4).
An e q u a l l y s t r o n g n o r m a t i v e basis is
h e l d by t h e federalists.
Implicitly, if not explicitly, n e o - f u n c tionalists a n d federalists m a y h a v e a c cepted t h e c h a l l e n g e to t h e n o t i o n of n a tional i n d e p e n d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y H e r z ,
w h o p o i n t e d out t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
n u c l e a r a r m s t h a t c a n b e sent all o v e r t h e
globe has e n d e d t h e s t a t e of s o v e r e i g n t y
t h a t m a y h a v e existed ( H e r z 1959). H i s
observation w o u l d b e consistent w i t h t h e
m a i n concern o f t h e federalists a n d m a n y
neo-functionalists: t h e a n a r c h i c c h a r a c t e r
of the global society. W h a t t h e n e o - f u n c -
G l o b a l politics a r e f a r m o r e structured
a n d less a n a r c h i c t h a n neo-classical integ r a t i o n theorists p e r c e i v e t h e m (Senghaas
1972; H v e e m 1973a, b). T h e p e r m a n e n c y
is most n o t i c e a b l e in t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n ' W e s t e r n ' h i g h l y d e v e l o p e d areas
a n d t h e g r e a t e r p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d . I n this
r e l a t i o n s h i p of c o n t i n u i n g d o m i n a t i o n , the
s t r u c t u r e seems m o r e , n o t less, e n t r e n c h e d
in an i n t e r n a t i o n a l division of l a b o r w h i c h
m a k e s r e l a t i o n s h i p s a p p e a r o r d e r l y , not
anarchic, and which makes the underd e v e l o p e d w o r l d d e p e n d e n t o n t h e develo p e d one.
T h i s is t h e g e n e r a l p a t t e r n to w h i c h
t h e r e a r e few exceptions, a n d also t h a t
w h i c h t h e neo-classical theorists - a g a i n
w i t h few exceptions - t e n d to forget or
are not conceptually
or theoretically
e q u i p p e d t o p e r c e i v e . T h i s deficiency e x p l a i n s w h y t h e neo-classical version of
c o m p a r a t i v e i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y is comp l e t e l y m i s l e a d i n g in its a c c o u n t of i n t e gration and disintegration among underd e v e l o p e d a r e a s (see also (6)).
T h e b a s i c a l l y atomistic c h a r a c t e r of the
federalist a n d n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t 'school'
does n o t o f course m e a n t h a t t h e y a r e u n a w a r e of t h e w i d e r (global) context of
r e g i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n . I t enters, often only
in a m o d e s t w a y , in t h e i r p a r a d i g m s as
t h e ' e x t e r n a l ' or ' e x o g e n o u s ' factor, or in
t h e form of an i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l ' l i n k a g e '
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
( L i n d b e r g & S c h e i n g o l d 1971). B u t these
a r e r e l a t i v e l y obvious p a r t s of a n y t h e o r y
on i n t e r n a t i o n a l politics t h a t is t a k e n seriously. Obviously v e r y few social u n i t s
exist in c o m p l e t e isolation.
W h a t these two 'schools' i n p a r t i c u l a r
do n o t see, is t h e 'constant input' into an
i n t e g r a t i o n process w h i c h t h e s u r r o u n d i n g
society represents in most concrete ' r e a l
w o r l d ' relationships. T h i s constant i n p u t
is s i m p l y t h e (global) s t r u c t u r e w h i c h d e v e l o p e d a n d existed p r i o r t o t h e t i m e
s c h o l a r s s t a r t e d looking for a process of
i n t e g r a t i o n . A n d it is t h e s t r u c t u r e and
processes - w h e t h e r i n t e g r a t i v e , conflicting,
or t h r e a t l i k e - w h i c h a r e in p e r m a n e n t b u t
changing interaction with the individual,
as w e l l as t h e collection of, i n t e g r a t i n g
u n i t s . E x a c t l y h o w does this w i d e r s t r u c t u r e condition a n y r e g i o n a l o r sectorial
(functional) i n t e g r a t i o n ? A n d h o w a n d t o
w h i c h d e g r e e is it c o n d i t i o n e d by it? Or
rather, how do unit and environment not
o n l y c o n d i t i o n each other - in t h e sense of
interacting - b u t also penetrate e a c h o t h e r ?
A n d : h o w m a y a n d h o w does i n t e g r a t i o n
a m o n g some units come at t h e e x p e n s e of
some o t h e r unit(s)? I n w h a t w a y h a s , e.g.
W e s t E u r o p e a n i n t e g r a t i o n been affecting
t h e position of u n d e r d e v e l o p e d countries,
or b e e n benefitting d i r e c t l y from it? (cf.
H v e e m & H o l t h e 1972). T h e n a t i o n - s t a t e
m a y a n d should be used as a u n i t of
analysis - b u t only in a t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k w h i c h accepts p e n e t r a t i o n of t h e u n i t
as essential a n d which accepts a c t o r s b e i n g
c r e a t e d b y p e n e t r a t i o n processes a s c e n t r a l
to t h e a n a l y s i s .
Such a f r a m e w o r k , as
i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , will shift t h e e m p h a s i s
from i n t e g r a t i o n to i m p e r i a l i s m t h e o r y .
10
T h e r e l e v a n c e of this point a n d t h e
failure of neo-classical theorists to come
to g r i p s w i t h t h e p r o b l e m it poses is best
seen if we t u r n to our second c o n t e n t i o n
a b o u t deficiencies.
2.
Symmetry
bias
T h e symmetric p e r s p e c t i v e of most n e o classical theorists is closely r e l a t e d to t h e i r
a priori a s s u m p t i o n t h a t n a t i o n - s t a t e s a r e
269
basically sovereign a n d i n d e p e n d e n t . A l l
units share in decisionmaking, make up
t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s a n d control t h e outcomes
of t h e process. T h e y m a y be seen as i n t e r r e l a t e d a n d e v e n ' i n t e r p e n e t r a t e d ' (Scheing o l d 1971). But as e v e r y b o d y i n t e r p e n e t r a t e s e v e r y b o d y else, t h e r e is still r e l a t i v e
independence. Increased interdependence
is in fact seen by some scholars a n d p r a c titioners
as i n c r e a s e d i n d e p e n d e n c e of
t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n t units.
11
T h i s may be t r u e in r e a l life. T h a t is an
e m p i r i c a l question, n o t a d o g m a as it is
too often b e i n g p r e s e n t e d in neo-classical
theories. Obviously, some u n i t s m a y b e
more (inter)penetrated and ( i n t e r d e p e n d e n t t h a n others, r e s u l t i n g in, or r e s u l t i n g
from (a p r e i n t e g r a t i o n ) asymmetric r e l a tionship b e t w e e n i n t e g r a t i n g units. It is
n e c e s s a r y to distinguish - as a simple c o m bination of the s y m m e t r y - a s y m m e t r y and
d e p e n d e n c e d i m e n s i o n s m a k e s possible b e t w e e n dominant dependency (as e x e m p l i fied by t h e position of t h e U n i t e d States
vis-a-vis some u n d e r d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r y e x p o r t i n g some s t r a t e g i c m i n e r a l ) a n d dominated dependency (as e.g. t h e position of
a mineral-exporting country penetrated
a n d l a r g e l y c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e U n i t e d States
a n d e x p o r t i n g its m i n e r a l resources t o U S
i n d u s t r i e s ( H v e e m 1973c).
Several authors have accepted the possibility t h a t t h e r e exist, o r m a y d e v e l o p ,
p o w e r a n d rank d i f f e r e n t i a l s a m o n g i n t e g r a t i n g units. O n e p e r s o n w h o h a s most
s t r o n g l y e x p o s e d this possibility is Etzioni.
H i s distinction b e t w e e n 'elite' a n d ' e g a l i t a r i a n ' u n i o n s is useful, as is his conception
of ' e x t e r n a l elites' as c o n d i t i o n i n g t h e i n t e g r a t i o n process (Etzioni 1965). H e r e h e
is in fact p o i n t i n g o u t r a n k differentials
as a p o t e n t i a l source of p e n e t r a t i o n from
outside t h e i n t e g r a t i n g collectivity. T h i s
m e a n s t h a t his p a r a d i g m is n o t deficient
as regards atomism a n d symmetry to the
extent that neo-functionalist paradigms
are.
Etzioni's concepts a r e m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c
w h e n a p p l i e d to a m o d e l of i n t e g r a t i o n ,
i.e. w h e n he theorizes a b o u t conditions
which promote integration. His main
270
Helge
Hveem
t h e o r e m h e r e seems to be t h a t ' e l i t e ' u n i fication is most c o n d u c i v e to i n t e g r a t i o n :
either s t r o n g c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , in a m o n o elite structure, or c o m p l e t e e g a l i t a r i a n i s m
a m o n g i n t e g r a t i n g units. T h e l a t t e r m a y
be as successful as t h e f o r m e r . A n y t h i n g
b e t w e e n these poles of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to Etzioni, w i l l be less c o n d u c i v e
to i n t e g r a t i o n (Etzioni 1965, p p . 9 5 - 9 6 ) .
A s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r albeit less strongly
' c e n t r a l i z e d ' t h e o r e m is found in D e u t s c h ' s
concept 'core a r e a ' (Deutsch 1954).
I see at least two m a j o r p r o b l e m s w i t h
these propositions. First, t h e m o n o - e l i t e or
'core a r e a ' t h e o r e m seems t o b e c o n t r a dicted b y e m p i r i c a l studies w h i c h h a v e
p o i n t e d to t h e c e n t r a l r o l e of m i d d l e - l e v e l ,
medium rank units in promoting integration (Reinton 1967). T h i s finding, h o w ever, does seem to h a v e l i m i t e d a p p l i c a b i l ity. It h a s p r i m a r i l y b e e n verified in connection w i t h c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t h e o r y a n d
t h e role p l a y e d b y units c e n t r a l l y l o c a t e d
in t h e s t r u c t u r e of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . As such,
it is s i m p l y a r e p l i c a t i o n of studies c a r r i e d
out on i n t e r a c t i o n in small g r o u p s .
12
Secondly, w h a t t h e m o n o - e l i t e t h e o r e m
overlooks - a n d w h i c h t h u s seems a m a j o r
deficiency in Etzioni's a p p r o a c h - is t h a t
i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e ' e l i t e ' t y p e often results
in vertical i n t e g r a t i o n . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e tween vertical and horizontal integration or w h a t G a l t u n g (1968) refers to as ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' a n d 'association', respectively - h a s
been l a r g e l y o v e r l o o k e d in neo-classical
theories. O r : it has b e e n a c c e p t e d into t h e o retical f r a m e w o r k s , b u t o n l y w i t h specific
reference t o s t r o n g l y h e g e m o n i a l o r i m perial integration. Concretely: there is one
'moderate' type of vertical integration
t h a t m a y b e c a l l e d ' h e g e m o n y ' , viz. t h e
A t l a n t i c c o m m u n i t y ; a n d t h e r e is a ' r i g i d '
vertical i n t e g r a t i o n t h a t m a y b e c a l l e d
' i m p e r i u m ' , viz. Soviet r u l e o v e r E a s t e r n
Europe.
13
W e m a y l e a v e aside such implicit o r
explicit i d e o l o g i c a l - n o r m a t i v e biases a n d
state t h e case for a v e r t i c a l - h o r i z o n t a l d i s tinction as b e i n g universally a p p l i c a b l e .
A vertically i n t e g r a t e d unit, or collectivity
of units, is one in w h i c h m e m b e r s (nations,
classes or i n d i v i d u a l s ) i n t e r a c t m o r e w i t h
each o t h e r t h a n w i t h others, a n d are constantly interacting in a structure characterized
by
(highly)
uneven distribution
of
power and allocation of value. It is my
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t such structures a r e found
a m o n g a n d w i t h i n i n t e g r a t i n g collectivities
in t h e A t l a n t i c a r e a as well as in E a s t e r n
E u r o p e , a n d b e t w e e n these p a r t s a n d the
u n d e r d e v e l o p e d w o r l d ; further, t h a t the
multinational
corporation,
while
it
may
c e r t a i n l y h a v e t h e characteristics of h o r i zontal i n t e g r a t i o n in some p a r t s of global
g e o g r a p h i c a l a n d social space, so far
represents the most efficient form of vertical integration.
14
3.
Institution
bias
I see t h e formalistic a n d sometimes almost
' a p o l i t i c a l ' c h a r a c t e r of t h e neo-functionalist a n d federalist theories p r i m a r i l y in
w h a t m a y be called their 'institution-bias'.
I n t e g r a t i o n is seen as ' f u n c t i o n a l ' to the
e x t e n t t h a t it leads t o w a r d s a f o r m a l ins t i t u t i o n ^ ) w h i c h acts as a c e n t r a l g o v e r n m e n t t o t h e i n t e g r a t i n g units. W h i l e ins t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of p a t t e r n s of i n t e g r a t i o n
in some f o r m of f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n m a y
certainly be part of the integration process a n d m a y be seen as t h e finite goal by
t h e actors ( a n d scholars) i n v o l v e d , the rise
or fall of f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n is no proof
of integration or disintegration. T h e ass u m p t i o n t h a t it is, h o w e v e r , h a s m o t i v a t e d
m a n y a n d v o l u m i n o u s studies o f ' f e d e r a tion', ' c o n f e d e r a t i o n ' , ' u n i o n ' a n d ' g o v e r n m e n t ' , e.g. t h e n o r m a t i v e s t a n d s t a k e n b y
H a a s . I t h a s w r o n g l y l e d scholars t o p e r ceive t h e e m e r g e n c e of an association
t r e a t y b e t w e e n t h e E E C a n d colonial
A f r i c a as sufficient proof t h a t a n e w r e l a tionship, b e t w e e n e q u a l p a r t n e r s , has
e m e r g e d . T h a t is: i n t e g r a t e d t h e y cont i n u e d to be, b u t t h e colonial, h i g h l y a s y m m e t r i c r e l a t i o n s h i p h a d b e e n converted
into a s y m m e t r i c one by m e a n s of formal
g o v e r n m e n t a n d of a t r e a t y ( Z a r t m a n
1971).
It is r e l a t i v e l y c o m m o n p l a c e in sociolo g y - a n d in political science for t h a t m a t -
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
ter - t h a t social o r g a n i z a t i o n is of b o t h a
formal and an informal type. Similarly,
t h e concept ' i n s t i t u t i o n ' h a s a far w i d e r
meaning than that given it by the neoclassical i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r i s t s . O n e o f t h e
virtues of t h e D e u t s c h c o n c e p t i o n of ' c o m m u n i t y ' is t h a t it a v o i d s this p i t f a l l of a
too n a r r o w - m i n d e d p e r s p e c t i v e .
15
W h a t neo-functionalists assume, often
explicitly, is t h a t 'power is where there is
formal
organization :
national
governm e n t s a n d h e a d s of s t a t e in t h e initial
states of i n t e g r a t i o n ; s u p r a n a t i o n a l institutions gradually assuming power as integ r a t i o n p r o c e e d s . T h i s is a w a y of by
definition solving t h e p r o b l e m of p o w e r .
T h e a c t o r s in t h e i n t e g r a t i o n process - ' i n
practice that is the national governm e n t s . . . ' (Sæter 1972a, p . 2). P o w e r i s
w i t h i n this 'closed system' of a n a t i o n a l supranational continuum. Units integrate
o r d i s i n t e g r a t e , b u t t h e y d o n o t l e a v e it.
T h i s is an easy w a y out of t h e p r o b l e m
of ' W h o , whom?': who holds the power
to m a k e a u t h o r i t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n s of v a l u e
within and among integrating and/or disi n t e g r a t i n g u n i t s ? As such it is an u n a c c e p t a b l e solution.
T h e r e a r e m a n y reasons w h y t h e o r i e s
about integration between nation-states
cannot become valid until they h a v e included in their paradigms or 'pre-theories'
the multinational corporations, financial
institutions, v o l u n t a r y agencies, etc., as
c e n t r a l actors a n d d e c i s i o n m a k e r s . Sicco
M a n s h o l t , t h e f o r m e r p r e s i d e n t of t h e
E E C Commission o n l e a v i n g his post,
stated t h a t t h e ' r e a l bosses' of t h e C o m mission - a n d implicitly of t h e w h o l e E E C
- a r e t h e big c o r p o r a t i o n s .
Another
reason is found in t h e l a r g e b o d y of
w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d t h e o r e m s a b o u t t h e superior c a p a c i t y of the m u l t i n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a tion to i n t e g r a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h a l l o c a tive functions across n a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s
( V e r n o n 1971, H y m e r 1960, K i n d l e b e r g e r
1970). T r a n s a c t i o n s do n o t t a k e p l a c e at
r a n d o m , v i a a m a r k e t of free e x c h a n g e of
goods, services, ideas, a n d a t t i t u d e s . I n c r e a s i n g l y t h e y t a k e p l a c e v i a t h a t specific
16
271
institutionalized p a t t e r n w h i c h is t h e m u l t i national corporation.
T w o sets of facts s u p p o r t this p o i n t : t h e
p e n e t r a t i o n of A m e r i c a n c a p i t a l a n d corp o r a t i o n s of t h e E E C , a n d t h e ( c o r r e s p o n d ing) m e r g e r s a n d p r e s e n t magnitude of
European corporations. If we assume that
t h e t o t a l sales ( t u r n o v e r ) of foreign comp a n i e s in t h e 'host' c o u n t r y ( a n d thus
their ' c o n t r i b u t i o n ' t o t h e G N P o f t h a t
c o u n t r y ) a r e r o u g h l y t h r e e times t h e v o l ume of the invested capital,
then the
c o n t r i b u t i o n of US ' E u r o p r o d u c t i o n ' , its
present share of the total G N P of the
EEC, can be estimated at about 1 5 - 2 0 % .
I f G N P g r o w t h r a t e s can b e used a s a n
i n d i c a t o r of t h e o v e r a l l p e r f o r m a n c e of
an i n t e g r a t i n g e c o n o m y - as t h e y often
are - then the Europe-based US corporations
c o m p r i s e t h e total relative g r o w t h
of W e s t e r n E u r o p e as c o m p a r e d to t h e
g r o w t h of t h e US e c o n o m y from 1950 to
1968.
This point is overlooked in
Krause's comparative study of the E E C
a n d t h e U n i t e d States (Krause 1968).
17
18
19
N e o - c l a s s i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n theorists h a v e
of course noticed, t h e c o n c e r n of S e r v a n S c h r e i b e r (1967) a n d of E u r o p e a n business
leaders about the American challenge.
But this c o n c e r n m o s t l y r e m a i n s w r a p p e d
in footnotes, n o t i n c l u d e d in t h e p a r a d i g m s .
H e n c e neo-classical i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y which is mainly the theory about the E E C
- fails to (1) discuss p e n e t r a t i v e r e l a t i o n ships, U S a n d o t h e r ; (2) s t u d y w h a t E E C
actors h a v e d o n e a b o u t t h e m ; a n d (3)
r e l a t e b o t h to t h e question of ' W h o ,
w h o m ? ' in the E E C . In the same way as
N y e p r o p o s e s to m e a s u r e t h e saliency of
different i s s u e - a r e a s in t h e i n t e g r a t i o n
process by t h e i r s h a r e of p u b l i c e x p e n d i t u r e ( g o v e r n m e n t a l budgets) ( N y e 1970,
L i n d b e r g & S c h e i n g o l d 1971), one m a y
also m e a s u r e t h e p o t e n t i a l p o w e r of different actors w i t h i n a n d a m o n g i n t e g r a t i n g
units by t h e i r s h a r e of (control o v e r or
p r o d u c t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n to) t h e t o t a l G N P
of n a t i o n a l u n i t s .
A c c e p t i n g such a p a r a m e t e r as a v a l i d
indicator of power potential, we m a y then
find t h a t a few big corporations, primarily
272
Helge
Hveem
multinational, control a large part of the
national economy in all the EEC countries
(cf. T a b l e I). In fact, the few biggest corporations in each of the EEC countries
(except France) control more of the gross
national product than the central government
does
through
public
expenditure.
H o w is it possible to see a c o m m o n m a r k e t
as a necessary c o n d i t i o n for successful i n t e g r a t i o n ( H a a s 1971), a n d y e t overlook
the institutions t h a t e x e r t such a n a m o u n t
of control over t h e m a r k e t ?
20
T a b l e 1. Total sales of 10 (60) of the
biggest corporations in the EEC (Denmark,
Luxembourg,
and
Ireland
not
included)
and individual EEC countries, as a share
of total GXP, compared to public expenditure's share (1969) in %.
S h a r e of
G N P of
t h e ten
biggest
corporations
Belgium
German Federal
Republic
Italy
France
Netherlands
United Kingdom
E E C total
S h a r e of
the G N P
of t o t a l
national
public
expenditure
19.1
14.1
16.2
21.6
8.8
57.6
28.9
20.0*
15.5
13.4
33.5
20.1
18.0 (1970)
—
* T h e share of the total of 60, i.e. the 10
biggest corporations in each of the six c o u n tries, of the E E C total. Source: L a g e r k v i s t &
Kleberg, Ekonomi ock politik i Europa (Askild
&
Karnekull,
Stockholm
1972),
and
OECD
Economic Survey, 1970.
M e r g e r s b e t w e e n c o m p a n i e s h a v e been
increasing r a p i d l y since t h e m i d - 1 9 6 0 s
with only F r a n c e l a g g i n g b e h i n d (cf. B a r r a t t - B r o w n 1970, E E C 1970). So far,
these m e r g e r s h a v e m a i n l y b e e n t a k i n g
place o n t h e n a t i o n a l level. T h e c o r p o r a tions, thus, a r e e x e r t i n g t h e i r influence
o n the n a t i o n a l economies a n d t h e C o m -
m o n M a r k e t from w i t h i n t h e n a t i o n - s t a t e s .
However, it may be expected that the next
stage, to t a k e p l a c e d u r i n g t h e 1970s, will
be c r o s s - n a t i o n a l m e r g e r s to c r e a t e big
E E C c o r p o r a t i o n s . T h i s t r e n d of a t w o stage e m e r g e n c e of t h e b i g corporations as
m a j o r actors w i t h i n t h e C o m m u n i t y will
p r o b a b l y r e p r e s e n t t h e single most r e m a r k a b l e c h a n g e in t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of
p o w e r in W e s t E u r o p e a n societies in the
i m m e d i a t e future.
21
F r e n c h c o m m u n i t y politics, p a r t i c u l a r l y
u n d e r d e G a u l l e , h a v e b e e n e x p l a i n e d with
r e f e r e n c e to n a t i o n a l gloire a n d consequent
suspicion t o w a r d s s u p r a n a t i o n a l institutions. C o u l d t h e y n o t be s i m i l a r l y - ind e e d p e r h a p s p r i m a r i l y - e x p l a i n e d by
t h e fact t h a t F r e n c h economic structure
is v e r y m u c h ' s t a t e capitalistic', w h e r e
p r i v a t e business is n o t y e t able to meet
E E C p a r t n e r s ( W e s t G e r m a n corporations)
on an e q u a l level in a f a r - g o i n g i n t e g r a tion? T h e r e a r e i n d i c a t i o n s of this, but
t h e r e a r e also factors to c o n t r a d i c t such
an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . O n e such factor is the
comparatively strong corporate-state integ r a t i o n of t h e F r e n c h economy, which
m e a n s a de facto a n d s t a t e s u p p o r t of
c o r p o r a t i o n s . D e G a u l l e ' s v e t o a g a i n s t the
p r o p o s e d c r o s s - n a t i o n a l m e r g e r between
F i a t (Italy) a n d C i t r o e n h a s been interp r e t e d as proof of b o t h t h e s t a t e s u p r e m a c y
a n d ' n a t i o n a l i s m ' i n F r e n c h politics. But
t h e fact t h a t F i a t is a b o u t t h r e e times as
big as C i t r o e n (in t e r m s of t o t a l sales)
may be an important additional explanation.
4.
Encapsulation
In m u c h t h e s a m e w a y as I conceive of
t h e neo-classical (mis-)use of t h e concepts
of ' i n s t i t u t i o n ' a n d ' o r g a n i z a t i o n ' , I see
t h e concept of 'spill-over' as still v e r y
c e n t r a l in n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t t h e o r y . It is a
concept of l i m i t e d , m a i n l y heuristic value.
H o w e v e r , it m a y be t h e o r e t i c a l l y useful
u n d e r t h e c o n d i t i o n s specified below.
T h e neo-functionalists have abandoned
t h e classical functionalist distinction b e t w e e n w e l f a r e a n d politics ( M i t r a n y 1965/
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
66). I n s t e a d , t h e y h a v e focused on 'issuea r e a s ' a n d defined t h e m i n t e r m s o f ' h i g h '
a n d 'low polities'. Such d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e
also s h a r e d by theories on foreign p o l i c y m a k i n g (Rosenau 1964). As I h a v e a l r e a d y
p o i n t e d out, these distinctions a r e p r o b lematic.
T h e notion of 'issue-area' immediately
l e a d s to notions about t h e social life t a k i n g
p l a c e i n s e p a r a t e p a r t s , each p a r t subject
to its o w n processes a n d p o w e r structures.
If i n t e g r a t i o n , e.g., in t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
a r e a is successful, it w i l l be i n t e g r a t i o n f u n c t i o n a l : its success w i l l spill o v e r to
a n o t h e r issue-area. A n d s o on. L a t e r
theoretical
works
of n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t s
have attempted to play down the comp a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n of society t h a t i n e v i t a b l y
results from too m u c h e m p h a s i s on t h e
s p i l l - o v e r a p p r o a c h , b u t it still occupies a
c e n t r a l position in t h e p a r a d i g m s of, e.g.,
Haas. Moreover, they have introduced the
concept ' s p i l l - b a c k ' t o s h o w h o w d i s i n t e g r a t i o n o r n o n - i n t e g r a t i o n i n one a r e a
m a y l e a d to similar processes in others.
I see t h e conception of ' i s s u e - a r e a s ' as
a useful a n d often n e c e s s a r y analyticalmethodological tool. T h e d a n g e r , h o w e v e r ,
is t h a t t h e tool is m a d e into a t h e o r e m :
i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y becomes a set of ' s p e cialized t h e o r i e s ' about i n t e g r a t i o n on
v a r i o u s issue-areas.
In a w a y , t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t use of
t h e concept of ' s p i l l - o v e r ' m a y seem
r a t h e r s e l f - c o n t r a d i c t o r y . O n t h e one h a n d ,
n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t s b a s e t h e i r theories p r i marily on integration experience between
h i g h l y i n t e g r a t e d societies, viz. W e s t E u r o p e a n countries. T h e p r o b l e m i s n o t seen
as one of g e t t i n g a h e t e r o g e n e o u s b u n c h of
n o n - r e l a t e d social g r o u p s a n d activities
('issue-areas') t o g e t h e r . It is r a t h e r t h a t
of d i s e n t a n g l i n g a s t r o n g l y i n t e g r a t e d
society (nationalism) so t h a t it can g r o w
into a n o t h e r o r s e v e r a l o t h e r n a t i o n a l
societies to b e c o m e a larger (but e q u a l l y )
i n t e g r a t e d society.
H o w t h e n can t h e process of i n t e g r a t i o n
between h i g h l y i n t e g r a t e d units be seen
primarily as taking place in compartmentalized p a t t e r n s ? If a link b e t w e e n t h e t w o
20 — Cooperation a n d Conflict 1 9 7 4 : 4
273
is established w i t h some r e c o g n i z a b l e effect on t h e a l l o c a t i o n of w e a l t h a n d p o w e r
in o n e or b o t h of t h e m , t h e n exactly
because t h e y a r e h i g h l y i n t e g r a t e d in
t h e i r s e p a r a t e existence w o u l d one logically expect t h a t this effect w o u l d be s p r e a d
o v e r all or most o t h e r fields of activity
i n t h e respective units. R a t h e r t h a n t e s t i n g
w h e t h e r t h e r e is spill-over, t h e n e o - f u n c tionalists o u g h t t o r e - e x a m i n e t h e v e r y
concept itself. It may be useful in d e s c r i b ing a n d e x p l a i n i n g processes b e t w e e n , e.g.,
F r a n c e a n d W e s t G e r m a n y i n t h e 1950s,
b u t it seems h i g h l y d e b a t a b l e w h e t h e r it
is useful in a c c o u n t i n g for i n t e g r a t i o n or
d i s i n t e g r a t i o n processes b e t w e e n these two
c o u n t r i e s i n t h e 1970s. T h a t e m p i r i c a l
studies of t h e E E C ( L i n d b e r g & S c h e i n g o l d 1970) a n d L a t i n A m e r i c a (Schmitter
1969) a l o n g ' i s s u e - a r e a ' lines show differing p a t t e r n s of i n t e g r a t i o n o v e r t h e
s a m e p e r i o d from one a r e a to a n o t h e r is
n o t necessarily disproof of t h e s p i l l - o v e r
thesis, n o r is it necessarily proof t h a t t h e
issue-area approach corresponds to w h a t
takes p l a c e i n t h e r e a l w o r l d .
S c h m i t t e r (1969) h a s p o i n t e d out t h e
p h e n o m e n o n of ' s e l f - e n c a p s u l a t i o n ' - t h e
t e n d e n c y for i n t e g r a t i o n to stop in one
specific a r e a a n d n o t spill o v e r to others as proof of t h e usefulness of t h e concept.
But t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t p o i n t a b o u t selfe n c a p s u l a t i o n suffers from its i n s t i t u t i o n b i a s : f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o r 'policy i n t e g r a t i o n ' a r e its m e a s u r e s of 'spill-over'.
T h e w e a k n e s s i n such m e a s u r e s i s p e r h a p s best seen in studies c a r r i e d out to
establish as a fact w h a t H a a s s u m m a r i z e s
as an e m p i r i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of g l o b a l
a p p l i c a b i l i t y : ' M i l i t a r y alliances, even if
e q u i p p e d w i t h f a r - r a n g i n g competences
and standing organs, have triggered very
little p e r m a n e n t i n t e g r a t i v e consequences'
( H a a s 1971, p . 12). T h e fact h a s been
established for N A T O , S E A T O , a n d for
the O A S .
Is it a fact? It m a y be t r u e if - b u t o n l y
if - ' t r i g g e r i n g ' some n e w i n t e g r a t i v e
consequence of a ' p e r m a n e n t ' c h a r a c t e r
m e a n s , after t h e s e t t i n g up of t h e f o r m a l
m i l i t a r y a l l i a n c e , t h e setting u p i n c h r o n -
274
Helge
Hveem
ological o r d e r of some n e w f o r m a l o r g a n i zation b e t w e e n t h e allied u n i t s . I f a m o n g
e m p i r i c a l facts such p h e n o m e n a as, e.g.,
continuous flows of d i r e c t i n v e s t m e n t ,
t r a d e , economic aid, m i l i t a r y aid, v o t i n g
patterns in the UN and diplomatic representation w e r e i n c l u d e d a n d t h e closely
p a t t e r n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n such p h e n o m e n a a s well a s b e t w e e n t h e m a n d t h e
'military alliance issue-area' were accepted, t h e n scholars w o u l d face a structure and some related processes of a strikingly permanent character ( H v e e m 1973b).
T h e n w h a t t h e y w o u l d h a v e seen, i n t h e
case of N A T O as well as in t h a t of t h e
OAS, would have been a continuous 'spillin' of exchanges, interaction, a n d penet r a t i o n by o n e a l l i a n c e p a r t n e r - t h e
U n i t e d States - of t h e others. T h e r e w a s
vertical integration, by the hegemonic or
imperialist partner. Increasingly there was
(in t h e case o f N A T O i n p a r t i c u l a r ) h o r i zontal integration as weaker partners
gained in strength. A n d there was integration a g a i n s t some t h i r d p a r t y t h a t ' s p i l l e d '
far outside t h e m i l i t a r y a r e a : one e x a m p l e
is t h e 'economic w a r f a r e ' a g a i n s t t h e
C M E A countries ( A d l e r - K a r l s s o n 1968)
d e m a n d e d b y t h e U n i t e d States a n d o r g a n i z e d t h r o u g h N A T O , a n o t h e r t h e blockade of Cuba, organized through the OAS.
My p o i n t h e r e is not t h a t a l l this i n t e g r a tion took p l a c e as a ' s p i l l - o v e r ' from
N A T O , S E A T O , etc.; t h a t w o u l d b e e x actly t h e t y p e of ' i n s t i t u t i o n - b i a s ' I h a v e
p o i n t e d out as fallacious. My p o i n t is
rather that the creation of N A T O a n d
the emergence of other hegemonial and/or
cooperative patterns of exchange a n d interaction a m o n g N A T O members were
all s y m p t o m s , or results, of f u n d a m e n t a l l y
one a n d t h e s a m e i n t e g r a t i v e process.
5.
Elitism
T h e elitist c h a r a c t e r of t h e neo-classical
theories, f o u n d in a l l t h r e e schools, is
largely e x p l a i n e d b y t h e i r a t o m i s t i c p e r spective a n d t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n - b i a s . H o w ever, several a d d i t i o n a l factors also e x -
p l a i n t h e i n h e r e n t elitism i n neo-classical
theories. By 'elitism' I m e a n a tendency
to
view
the
determination
of
integration
goals and the control of the process of integration as the tasks of national elites
(i.e. central government), and to see the
consequences of integration as being more
or
less
automatically
distributed
on
the
(internal)
social
structure.
W h a t I refer to as elitism should n o t be
confused w i t h t h e observation of scholars
t h a t elites in t h e ' r e a l w o r l d ' seem to
p l a y a c e n t r a l role in a c t u a l i n t e g r a t i o n
processes. T h i s is t o t a l l y different from
an elitist p e r s p e c t i v e , w h i c h is to see this
p a t t e r n n o t o n l y as a r e c u r r e n t one, but
as
the
optimal
integration pattern
from
w h i c h e v e r y b o d y , i n c l u d i n g non-elites,
benefits. It is this aspect of t h e automaticity thesis w h i c h in a d d i t i o n to atomism
a n d i n s t i t u t i o n - b i a s m a y a c c o u n t for t h e
elitist c h a r a c t e r of t h e neo-classical t h e o ries. M o r e t h a n p e r h a p s a n y o t h e r t h e o r e t i c i a n , Etzioni c o m b i n e s this theoretical
d u a l i s m - o b s e r v i n g elite p r e d o m i n a n c e
a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e seeing i t a s o p t i m a l .
T h e s t r o n g elitist t e n d e n c y - w h i c h is
obviously f o u n d in m u c h social science
outside t h e i n t e g r a t i o n schools - does not
m e a n t h a t social s t r u c t u r e , or even class
s t r u c t u r e , is n o t recognized. It is simply
t a k e n for g r a n t e d . G r o u p or class interests
a r e represented by elites, because the
i n t e g r a t i n g units, at least of t h e t y p e t h a t
H a a s calls ' i n d u s t r i a l i z e d - p l u r a l i s t i c n a t i o n s ' ( H a a s 1971, p. 13) a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
polities by definition. T h e ' m a s s p u b l i c ' is
seen as a ' s u p p o r t r e s o u r c e ' ( L i n d b e r g
1971), 'societal i n p u t ' into t h e decisionm a k i n g system ( I n g l e h a r t 1971), or as a
source of ' p e r m i s s i v e consensus' to elite
actions ( L i n d b e r g & S c h e i n g o l d 1970).
F r o m t h e m a s s p u b l i c (bottom) to the
elite (top) level t h e r e is a ' c o n t i n u i t y in
a t t i t u d e s ' (Sæter 1972a, p . 76). T h e public
m a y l a g b e h i n d , a n d s o t h e elite m a y h a v e
t o slow d o w n t h e i n t e g r a t i o n p r o c e d u r e
a n d s t a r t t h e process of t e a c h i n g t h e public
('social l e a r n i n g ' ) , ( H a a s 1971). If t h e lag
is r e a l l y serious, t h e process m a y be
b r o u g h t to a t o t a l stop - not because t h e
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
d i r e c t i o n it took w a s w r o n g , b u t because
the public did not want to go that way.
T h e p u b l i c is an object, n o t t h e subject of
integration.
This two-way 'law of automaticity' has
h a d t o face some p r o b l e m s i n r e c e n t d e velopments in the real world. A m o n g
others, Le Monde c o n d u c t e d a s u r v e y of
t h e first fifteen y e a r s of t h e E E C . It c o n fronted t h e goals of F r e n c h elites in 1 9 5 6 57 a n d what they promised the French
p u b l i c w o u l d get from t h e E E C , w i t h t h e
a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s of t h e E E C by 1972.
Its m a i n conclusions w e r e t h a t t h e r e h a d
b e e n g r o w t h a s p r o m i s e d a n d some o r g a n ized unification, also as p r o m i s e d : but
social
and regional
inequalities
had not
been reduced - as h a d b e e n p r o m i s e d b u t i n s t e a d objectively i n c r e a s e d in some
areas. T h e Common Market h a d increased
t h e flow a n d supply of goods r a d i c a l l y , b u t
this h a d been to t h e benefit m a i n l y of t h e
b i g p r o d u c e r s , n o t t h e c o n s u m e r s (Le
Monde Hebdomadaire 2 2 - 2 9 A p r i l 1972).
W h i l e these o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e i n d i c a t i o n s
that
the
law
of
the
automatic
public
benefit m a y n o t s t a n d t h e test of e m p i r i c a l
analysis, t h e law of automatic representativity d i d n o t seem to h o l d t r u e in t h e case
of N o r w a y . In t h e S e p t e m b e r 1972 r e f e r e n d u m , a m a j o r i t y of 53.5 % of those
c a s t i n g t h e i r votes w a s a g a i n s t N o r w a y ' s
e n t r y . ' D i r e c t ' d e m o c r a c y conflicted w i t h
and overruled 'representative' democracy
( H e l l e v i k & G l e d i t s c h 1973).
W a s t h e N o r w e g i a n case s i m p l y a d e v i a tion from t h e m a i n t r e n d , d u e t o some
' p e t t y n a t i o n a l i s t i c ' m o o d in a p e r i p h e r y
of E u r o p e ? Or m i g h t it r e p r e s e n t a lesson
to integrationists and practitioners as well
as scholars? Reactions, n o t t h e least from
E E C countries, w e r e r a t h e r m i x e d . I t i s
t e m p t i n g t o suggest t h a t t h e N o r w e g i a n
case is both a d e v i a t i o n from t h e m a i n
t r e n d - t h a t of elites setting t h e goals a n d
at t h e same t i m e c a r r y i n g out t h e task of
i n t e g r a t i o n - and a lesson in p u b l i c d e c i s i o n m a k i n g on i n t e g r a t i o n goals. It is
equally tempting to demand that integration theory t a k e a c c o u n t of t h e lesson
l e a r n e d from t h e N o r w e g i a n case.
2 2
275
A c c o r d i n g t o H a a s (1971, p . 27), t h e e n d
goal of international integration m a y be
seen as 'a successful p l u r a l i s t i c - d e m o c r a t i c
state w r i t l a r g e ' . H o w t h e n w o u l d h e d e f i n e
this i d e a l - t y p e e n d s t a t e i n m o r e concrete
terms, and how would he relate it to the
N o r w e g i a n case? O r : w h a t does ' d e m o c racy' and 'pluralism' really m e a n to integ r a t i o n a n d its r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e social
structure?
T h e r e is a serious d i s c r e p a n c y in t h e
w a y t h e neo-classical theorists t r e a t this
relationship. T h e Norwegian ' N o ' was,
a m o n g o t h e r things, a ' N o ' to w h a t w a s
p e r c e i v e d as i n c r e a s e d c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of
power through the setting up of monetary
a n d e c o n o m i c u n i o n . T h u s , it w a s a n e g a tion of one of t h e m a i n p r e m i s e s in
Etzioni's p a r a d i g m . A t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e
Norwegian vote did lend support to what
I n g l e h a r t (1971) p r o v e d : t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n
of t h e E E C t y p e is t y p i c a l l y f a v o r e d by
t h e m o r e afluent, 'successful' p e o p l e a m o n g
the mass public (Hellevik & Gleditsch
1973). If this f i n d i n g is r e l a t e d to Le
Monde's o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t t h e f a c t u a l
consequences o f i n t e g r a t i o n , one m a y p e r h a p s shed some l i g h t on why h i g h e r social
s t r a t a a r e m o r e f a v o r a b l y inclined. N e o classical t h e o r y h a s i n t e g r a t e d p u b l i c o p i n ion surveys in t h e analysis. So far it does
n o t seem t o h a v e c a r r i e d t h e analysis into
s t u d y i n g , in concrete real-life terms, how
integration effects are distributed on social
structure. Such effects m a y be difficult to
d e t e r m i n e . It is even more difficult to
ordinary persons, to the public, who the
object is, m o r e t h a n t h e subject of t h e
process. T h a t i s w h y surveys o n public
o p i n i o n t o w a r d s i n t e g r a t i o n often d o n o t
p r o v i d e a r e l i a b l e m e a s u r e of r e s p o n d e n t s '
subjective w a n t s a n d feelings. I f research
could establish t h e fact a b o u t objective
i n t e g r a t i o n effects - such as effects on
d e c i s i o n m a k i n g s t r u c t u r e s , income differences, etc. - a n d c o m m u n i c a t e f i n d i n g s to
t h e public, t h e m e a s u r e m i g h t i m p r o v e
considerably.
W h a t w e observe, t h e n , m a y seem p a r a d o x i c a l to s o m e b u t is objectively possible:
t h e r e m a y b e i n t e g r a t i o n b y a n d for
276
Helge
Hveem
(positively affecting p r i m a r i l y ) t h e elite,
and at the same time there m a y be no
i n t e g r a t i o n (indifferent or n e g a t i v e l y affecting) at t h e l e v e l of t h e m a s s p u b l i c .
Fisher (1969), in his c r i t i q u e of D e u t s c h ' s
p a r a d i g m , seems t o h a v e c o m e v e r y close
to realizing the p a r a d o x without really
d o i n g it, w h e n h e c o n c l u d e s t h a t i n t e g r a tion m a y go on w i t h o u t t h e s u p p o r t of t h e
public:
Deutsch's factor-analytical and cross-tabulation techniques fail to show a measure of
absolute intensity of European populations'
feelings regarding integration or a measure
of intensity of feelings about integration
relative to other issues. W h a t the attitudinal
data does seem to reveal is that in Europe
there exists a loose enough structure to public opinion so that various elite leaders can
have great freedom in deciding their positions and behaviors regarding political integration. The absence of any unified, strong,
national mass feelings against behavior that
might be thought of as leading to integration seems to indicate the existence of a
permissive consensus (Fisher 1969, p. 289).
Fisher f o u n d t h a t i n t h e E E C t h e r e w a s
a sevenfold i n c r e a s e in s u p r a n a t i o n a l i n stitutional d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d a l l o c a t i n g
a u t h o r i t y b e t w e e n 1953 a n d 1964, w h i l e
'social a s s i m i l a t i o n ' at t h e l e v e l of m a s s
publics d i d n o t i n c r e a s e o v e r t h e s a m e
period. But while he may be right in
p o i n t i n g out t h a t D e u t s c h d i d n o t specify
t h e link b e t w e e n a t t i t u d e s a n d elite b e h a v i o r , i.e. t h e 'collective d e c i s i o n m a k i n g '
s t r u c t u r e , h e himself failed t o p r o b e m o r e
d e e p l y into w h y this e l i t e - m a s s d i s c r e p a n c y
d i d occur, w h a t its consequences w e r e , a n d
w h a t t h e o r y m i g h t l e a r n from it.
In a d e v e l o p m e n t of extremely uneven
integration, w h e r e elites a n d t h e u p p e r
social s t r a t a i n t e g r a t e c r o s s - n a t i o n a l l y a t
t h e level of a t t i t u d e s as well as in t e r m s
of c o n c r e t e t r a n s a c t i o n s a n d decisionmaking, while lower strata do not integrate
a n d elite p u b l i c i n e q u a l i t y a t t h e s a m e
time increases, t h e r e is integration with
disintegration. T h e n a s i t u a t i o n o b t a i n s
w h e r e b y t h e two (or m o r e ) u n i t s g r o w
together t o b e c o m e n o t o n e , b u t t h r e e units.
I n t e r - or c r o s s - n a t i o n a l l y t h e r e is i n t e g r a -
tion into a n e w unit, an elite c o m m u n i t y .
I n t r a - n a t i o n a l l y , t h e r e i s increasing h i e r a r c h i z a t i o n , i.e. d i s i n t e g r a t i o n a l o n g class
lines r e s u l t i n g in t h e t w o sets of lower
s t r a t a left b e h i n d in t h e process of elite
i n t e g r a t i o n i n c r e a s i n g l y b e c o m i n g separate
collectivities. O r : l o w e r s t r a t a are integ r a t e d b u t w i t h o u t t h e i r o w n consent. T h i s
t y p e of d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h should be
r a t h e r consistent w i t h I n g l e h a r t ' s a n d
Fisher's findings, w o u l d still be ' u n e v e n
integration': higher strata integrate willingly, l o w e r s t r a t a are being i n t e g r a t e d .
I n its e x t r e m e form, this w o u l d b e integ r a t i o n by a n d for t h e elite; they a r e
subjects w h i l e t h e m a s s p u b l i c is an object
of i n t e g r a t i o n .
6.
The process as a goal
To a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , t h e o r y is a prisoner
o f its o w n p a r a d i g m s a n d m o d e l s . T o
m a n y , i n t e g r a t i o n does n o t o n l y become
the process to study, it becomes the goal.
N e o - c l a s s i c a l theorists h a v e long been
p e r f o r m i n g t h e role of t h e c a r r e p a i r
w o r k e r w h o looks u p o n his j o b a s being
t h a t of g e t t i n g a b r o k e n - d o w n c a r r u n n i n g
without caring about what happens to it
in t h e traffic or a b o u t w h e r e it goes. A
s u r v e y of t h e most cited w o r k s of t h e four
sages of i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y - H a a s (1958),
Deutsch
(1954),
Etzioni
(1965),
and
M i t r a n y (1965-66) - y i e l d s a b o u t 50 p r o positions o n i n t e g r a t i o n . T h e s e a r e d i v i d e d
e q u a l l y b e t w e e n a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t conditions for integration to be initiated, and
conditions that will help the integration
process keep going. T e n of t h e propositions
o n i n i t i a t i o n d e a l w i t h socio-economic
s t r u c t u r e s as a p r e c o n d i t i o n for successful
i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n , b u t only a couple
h a v e a n y t h i n g t o say a b o u t h o w t h e i n t e g r a t i o n process m i g h t affect structure.
R e c e n t t h e o r e t i c a l efforts h a v e been
a i m e d at c o m i n g to t e r m s w i t h this deficiency. L i n d b e r g
(1971)
has adapted
Easton's input-output-feedback paradigm
in o r d e r to d e v e l o p a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l int e g r a t i o n m o d e l . T h e i n t e g r a t i o n feedback
process, h o w e v e r , is still p r i m a r i l y a t o m -
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
istic a n d b a s e d on t h e l a w of t w o - w a y
a u t o m a t i c i t y w h e n t h e i n t e g r a t i o n process
is r e l a t e d to social s t r u c t u r e . L i n d b e r g
may, however, have contributed to rej e c t i n g or at least casting d o u b t on an
e a r l y (neo-)functionalist p r o p o s i t i o n : t h a t
t h e i n t e g r a t i o n process w a s a u t o m a t i c ;
once it w a s well u n d e r w a y , it could n o t
stop.
W h i l e N y e , i n m y opinion, h a s m a d e
fruitful c o n t r i b u t i o n s to a t h e o r y of i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n , I find it difficult to
accept his a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e e a r l y n e o functionalist thesis a b o u t ' p r o c e s s u a l a u t o m a t i c i t y ' w a s 'based on useful i n s i g h t '
( N y e 1971, p . 223). H o w e v e r , N y e h i m self seems to h a v e come to t h e conclusion
that integration is not automatic, but can
c o n t i n u e once s t a r t e d only if ' w i d e s p r e a d
p o p u l a r s u p p o r t or a p o w e r f u l coalition
of intensely c o n c e r n e d interests h a v e d e veloped to the point at which they determ i n e the decisions of political decisionm a k e r s ' (p. 224). B u t this m e a n s t h a t h e
c a n either side w i t h t h e 'elitists' (as a
' p o w e r f u l coalition of i n t e n s e l y c o n c e r n e d
i n t e r e s t s ' w o u l d most likely b e m a d e u p
by corporate leaders a n d capital owners)
or, b e t on t h e m a s s basis for i n t e g r a t i o n
which a 'widespread popular support'
w o u l d constitute.
S c h m i t t e r defines ' a u t o m a t i c i t y ' as 'a
(theoretically) h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t spillo v e r a n d its c o m p l e m e n t a r y process, e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n a n d p o l i t i c i z a t i o n . . . will
occur' (Schmitter 1969, p. 164). He stresses
t h a t t h e process is n o t a priori n o n - c o n flicting. Both ' e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n ' — t h e n e c e s sity, once i n t e g r a t i o n h a s got off t h e
g r o u n d , to a d o p t c o m m o n policies vis-a-vis
t h i r d p a r t i e s - a n d 'politicization' - w h i c h
is
increasingly
controversial
decisionm a k i n g d u e to a w i d e n i n g of t h e ' a u d i e n c e
o r clientele i n t e r e s t e d a n d a c t i v e i n i n t e g r a t i o n . . . ' (p. 165) - m a y c r e a t e conflicts.
T h e conception of processes, a p a r t from
the common denominator which the 'spillo v e r ' concept r e p r e s e n t s , v a r i e s from one
neo-functionalist author to another. Even
m o r e ' p l u r a l i s t i c ' is t h e i r list of v a r i a b l e s .
T h e r e is, i n t h e p a r a d i g m s a n d i n t h e
277
checklists of i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , a
c e r t a i n c o n c e p t u a l o v e r l o a d w h i c h does
n o t h e l p clarify t h e i r ideas. N o r d o t h e
p a r a d i g m s a l w a y s l e n d t h e m s e l v e s easily
to e m p i r i c a l testing.
S c h m i t t e r also m a k e s t h e p o i n t t h a t p r o cesses a r e n o t ' u n c o n s c i o u s ' (Schmitter
1969, p . 164). W h i l e h e does n o t m a k e
c l e a r w h a t h e believes could b e ' u n c o n scious' i n t e g r a t i o n , he may be r e f e r r i n g
i n d i r e c t l y to t h e concept of ' i n d e p e n d e n t
processes', suggested by F r i e d l ä n d e r (1965)
a n d a d o p t e d by Sseter (1972a, p p . 65, 69
a n d 75). T h e f o r m e r sees a n ' i n d e p e n d e n t
process' as c h a n g e s in t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l
distribution of power over which the integ r a t i n g u n i t s (actors) h a v e little o r n o
influence. T h e l a t t e r even includes c h a n g e s
in intranational power structures under
t h e concept. A m o n g such ' i n d e p e n d e n t
processes' t h e y find t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
t e c h n o l o g y , t h e p o p u l a t i o n explosion, a n d
the development of the relationship bet w e e n t h e U n i t e d States a n d t h e Soviet
Union.
I find it difficult to a c c e p t this concept,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e w a y these a u t h o r s ill u s t r a t e it. W h i l e t h e process o f h u m a n
biological
reproduction may
obviously
h a v e a d e g r e e of ' i n d e p e n d e n c e ' in a r e a s
a n d social s t r a t a w h e r e i t t e n d s t o ' e x p l o d e ' , t e c h n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t is cert a i n l y a l a r g e l y ' d e p e n d e n t process'. T h i s
is proved beyond doubt by the w a y and the
e x t e n t b o t h s t a t e a n d c o r p o r a t e decisionm a k e r s i n i t i a t e a n d strive t o l e a d t h e
R & D sector. P o w e r i n g l o b a l politics m e a n s
technological
supremacy,
and
supreme
technology means power. Power and techn o l o g y a r e m u t u a l l y i n t e r d e p e n d e n t (see
H v e e m 1973a, b).
T h e concept o f ' i n d e p e n d e n t process',
r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g usefully theoretic, t e n d s
to mystify t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n an i n t e g r a t i n g collectivity a n d structures a n d
processes t h a t s u r r o u n d a n d / o r o p e r a t e
t h r o u g h it. A g a i n , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e
concept can l a r g e l y b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e
atomistic p e r s p e c t i v e of theories. It w o u l d ,
e.g., seem t o t a l l y w r o n g to assume, w i t h out t e s t i n g t h e a s s u m p t i o n , t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n
278
Helge
Hveem
in W e s t e r n E u r o p e w a s a process ' i n d e p e n d e n t ' of, say, i n t e g r a t i o n or d i s i n t e g r a tion in W e s t A f r i c a . In a strict p o l i t i c a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l sense, t h e collectivity of
f r a n c o p h o n e W e s t A f r i c a n states w o u l d
c e r t a i n l y h a v e v e r y little i n f l u e n c e o v e r
developments in the E E C . But if they are
c o n s i d e r e d as a resource, a n d a m a r k e t , to
the EEC, and integration in the latter
benefits from t h a t resource, t h e n E E C
i n t e g r a t i o n is c e r t a i n l y n o t ' i n d e p e n d e n t '
of W e s t A f r i c a n social processes.
Similarly, the assumption that U S - U S S R
relationships can be considered as 'ind e p e n d e n t ' o f t h e E E C process w o u l d seem
r a t h e r dubious. I t i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e t h a t t h e
l a t t e r h a s t o some e x t e n t b e e n d e p e n d e n t
on, o r h a s b e e n i n f l u e n c e d b y , t h e s u p e r p o w e r r e l a t i o n s h i p for s e v e r a l y e a r s a n d
i n several w a y s . B u t could i t n o t e v e n b e
t h e o t h e r w a y r o u n d ? T h i s seems a v e r y
fruitful h y p o t h e s i s . If, e.g., E E C should
seriously p l a n m i l i t a r y defense c o o p e r a tion, t h e Soviet U n i o n w o u l d most p r o b a b l y feel t h a t its o w n position as w e l l as
its r e l a t i o n s h i p vis-à-vis t h e E E C and t h e
U n i t e d States w o u l d b e affected b y it.
S i m i l a r l y , if - as h a s in fact h a p p e n e d
a l r e a d y - t h e U n i t e d States feels t h a t its
position i s affected b y E E C c u r r e n c y a n d
t r a d e policies, this m i g h t h a v e a n i m p a c t
on US-Soviet relations.
23
7.
Trivial
and
biased
comparisons
T h e comparative bias of t h e neo-classical
theories h a s b e e n suggested a b o v e (Section
2). / / some collectivity o f u n i t s w h i c h constitutes a n i n t e g r a t i n g a t t e m p t i s p e n e t r a t e d
a n d d o m i n a t e d from outside, i t m a k e s little
sense to discuss a n d a n a l y z e i n t e g r a t i o n
process a n d failures in t e r m s of conditions
i n t e r n a l to t h a t collectivity. Y e t this is
exactly what m a n y comparative neo-classical schemes d o .
Haas, in summarizing up-to-date emp i r i c a l f i n d i n g s of t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t s ,
offers one set of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s for ' i n dustrialized-pluralistic nations', and ano t h e r for ' l a t e d e v e l o p i n g n a t i o n s ' ( H a a s
1971, p. 10 ff.). T h e r e is no reference to
a n y ' e x t e r n a l factor' in e x p l a i n i n g the
r e p e a t e d f a i l u r e s of t h e l a t t e r to integrate
a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s . T h e almost complete
u n a w a r e n e s s , at least in t h e writings of
m a n y n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t s d o i n g comparative r e s e a r c h , of t h e i m p o r t a n t a n d persuasive dependencia l i t e r a t u r e
w h e n integ r a t i o n in L a t i n A m e r i c a is discussed is
a n o t h e r s t r o n g i n d i c a t i o n of atomism,
s y m m e t r i c t h i n k i n g , and of theoretical selfencapsulation.
24
Underdeveloped
countries a r e fragm e n t e d societies, often v e r t i c a l l y integ r a t e d i n t o t h e economics of developed
countries in an ' e n c l a v e ' structure, which
is n o t only c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i g h 'monoc u l t u r a l i t y ' , b u t also by a s t r u c t u r a l l y cond i t i o n e d lack of i n t e g r a t i o n , on a horiz o n t a l basis, of t h e v a r i o u s sectors of the
e c o n o m y . S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e is v e r y little
i n t e r a c t i o n a n d few m e a n s of interaction
( t r a n s p o r t , c o m m u n i c a t i o n , markets) bet w e e n u n d e r d e v e l o p e d countries. T h i s lack
of i n t e r a c t i o n to a c o n s i d e r a b l e extent
m u s t be a t t r i b u t e d to colonial structures of
rule.
T w o r a t h e r obvious observations can
be m a d e from such a n e c e s s a r i l y v e r y brief
d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e situation of u n d e r d e v e l o p e d c o u n t r i e s . First, if u n d e r d e v e l o p e d
countries a t t e m p t to i n t e g r a t e (even if
o n l y at t h e elite level) t h e y will find
themselves r e s t r i c t e d by t h e global struct u r e w h i c h h a s p l a c e d t h e m i n separated
positions, a n d b y a c t o r s t h a t h a v e penet r a t e d t h e m . S e c o n d l y , if t h e y on t h e cont r a r y seem to be successfully integrating
a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s , t h e n t h e reason may
be f o u n d by a n a l y z i n g the role a n d the
interests of p e n e t r a t i n g ' e x t e r n a l ' actors.
O b v i o u s l y , we s h o u l d l e a v e r o o m for a
t h i r d possibility, a t t e m p t e d integration success or f a i l u r e - t h a t w a s not cond i t i o n e d by such o u t s i d e factors. It is my
contention, h o w e v e r , t h a t such cases would
b e r e l a t i v e l y r a r e . W e m a y say t h a t the
position
of
the
underdeveloped
countries
in the global society is very similar to the
position of the lower strata in a developed
country.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n tends
in b o t h cases to b e c o m e i n t e g r a t i o n by
25
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
elites (countries a n d g r o u p s , respectively),
w h i l e t h e rest h a v e t h e choice, m o r e often
t h a n not, b e t w e e n r e m a i n i n g outside t h e
i n t e g r a t i o n process or being i n t e g r a t e d
into it.
M o s t n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t c o m p a r i s o n s of
regional integration attempts are thus
b a s e d on false a s s u m p t i o n s . T h e y result in
t h e conclusion, b a s e d o n e m p i r i c a l a n a l ysis, t h a t t h e E E C a n d t h e C M E A (in
t h a t o r d e r ) a r e t h e most successful i n t e g r a t i n g collectivities on a r e g i o n a l c o m p a r a t i v e basis ( L i n d b e r g & S c h e i n g o l d
1970, 1971). If one accepts t h a t t h e w o r l d
is (at least relatively) v e r t i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d ,
t h a t a c e r t a i n a m o u n t of e x c h a n g e a b l e
v a l u e (resources, goods, m o n e y , m a r k e t s ,
etc.) m u s t be p r e s e n t if i n t e g r a t i o n can
be successful, a n d if one f u r t h e r accepts
that the E E C and the C M E A contain
u n i t s t h a t on b o t h these scores w o u l d find
themselves r e l a t i v e l y h i g h - r a n k i n g a n d
close to t h e top of t h e v e r t i c a l s t r u c t u r e ,
then it w o u l d follow logically t h a t these
two collectivities w o u l d also be r e l a t i v e l y
highly capable of integrating a m o n g themselves. C o m p a r a t i v e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s of t h e
t y p e m e n t i o n e d w o u l d t h u s seem to be
rather tautological. T w o frequently-cited
'successful' r e g i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n e x p e r i ences a m o n g u n d e r d e v e l o p e d countries,
the East African Community and the
C e n t r a l A m e r i c a n C o m m o n M a r k e t , seem
t o b e strongly c o n d i t i o n e d b y outside
actors.
28
N y e seems t o h a v e come t o accept t h a t
t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t a p p r o a c h is a w e a k
tool for c o m p a r a t i v e research. H e suggests
that the approach be modified
so t h a t it is n o t too E u r o p o c e n t r i c [sic] to be
useful as a f r a m e w o r k for c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l ysis i f t h e following- r e v i s i o n s a r e m a d e :
1) t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e is s t a t e d less a m b i g u o u s l y , 2) t h e i d e a of a s i n g l e p a t h f r o m
q u a s i - t e c h n i c a l tasks t o p o l i t i c a l u n i o n b y
means of spill-over is dropped a n d other
p o t e n t i a l p r o c e s s forces a n d p a t h s a r e i n cluded, 3) m o r e political actors are added,
4) t h e list of i n t e g r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s is r e formulated in the light of comparative work
that has been d o n e in integration processes
i n less d e v e l o p e d a r e a s ( N y e 1971, p . 193).
279
N y e ' s suggestions w o u l d n o d o u b t i m p r o v e t h e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t a p p r o a c h considerably. T h a t depends entirely, however, on h o w t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e is
s t a t e d ( i n t e g r a t i o n g o a l ) ; w h i c h 'actors
a r e a d d e d ' . N y e ' s o w n suggestions r e p r e sent a n e w t e n d e n c y in n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s m ,
b u t t h e y still seem far from ' d r o p p i n g '
t h e deficiencies w h i c h I h a v e p o i n t e d to in
this critique, in p a r t i c u l a r t h e a s s u m p t i o n
of a t o m i s m - t h e p e n e t r a t i o n t h r o u g h v e r tical i n t e g r a t i o n b y t h e m u l t i n a t i o n a l corp o r a t i o n - a n d t h e d i s t r i b u t i v e issue i n h e r e n t in ' t h e l a w of a u t o m a t i c i t y ' . Scheing o l d raises t h e d i s t r i b u t i v e issue in an
a r t i c l e on consequences of i n t e g r a t i o n a n d
suggests t h a t it should t a k e a m o r e p r o m i n e n t p l a c e in n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t research
(Scheingold 1971).
27
IV. N E O - N E O - F U N C T I O N A L I S M OR AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF
INTEGRATION?
In this a r t i c l e I h a v e m a d e a s u r v e y of
some of t h e w o r k s t h a t I consider c e n t r a l
in neo-classical i n t e g r a t i o n theories. As
p o i n t e d out in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n , I f o u n d
it n e c e s s a r y to m a k e a c r i t i q u e of these
theories t h e c e n t r a l t h e m e o f t h e p a p e r . I n
t h e course of t h e discussion, h o w e v e r ,
s e v e r a l references h a v e b e e n m a d e t o
t h e o r e m s a n d p e r s p e c t i v e s w h i c h I find
r e l e v a n t a n d useful i n a n y g e n e r a l t h e o r y
of i n t e g r a t i o n .
Can the neo-functional approach, which
at p r e s e n t seems to d o m i n a t e specialized
research on international integration, be
revised? Can a neo-neo-functionalist theory, as suggested by, e.g., N y e a n d S c h e i n g o l d , cover t h e g a p s a n d find t h e missing
links? Or c a n it be so c o m p l e t e l y r e f o r m u l a t e d as to m e e t t h e d e m a n d s on a g e n e r a l ,
u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e t h e o r y - if such a
t h e o r y can be w o r k e d out - of i n t e g r a t i o n
such as I h a v e m a d e a b o v e ?
A m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t w o u l d seem to
be that neo-functionalists a b a n d o n their
atomism,
elitism,
and
institution-bias.
T h e s e t h r e e deficiencies a r e p e r h a p s t h e
most i m p o r t a n t . T h e one does n o t only
280
Helge
Hveem
often coexist w i t h t h e other. T h e y t e n d to
lead to one or several of t h e o t h e r deficiencies m e n t i o n e d . In a d d i t i o n to these
three, t h e n e e d for a p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t i n cludes a s y m m e t r i e s a n d v e r t i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n
is p a r t i c u l a r l y felt.
I h a v e p o i n t e d out t h a t some n e o - c l a s sicists h a v e t a k e n a n explicitly n o r m a t i v e
stand on international integration. In
principle, t h e r e is n o t h i n g w r o n g in this.
T h a t scholars t a k e n o r m a t i v e s t a n d s i s
less i m p o r t a n t t h a n why t h e y do a n d on
what premises. As l o n g as t h e y a r e v e r y
specific on those two questions, others
m a y j u d g e their t h e o r e t i c a l a n d e m p i r i c a l
efforts w i t h o u t u n d u e bias.
Is international integration really necess a r y ? D o e s it p r o m o t e p e a c e ? It is b e y o n d
d o u b t t h a t m a n y i n d i v i d u a l s , institutions,
a n d interests b e l i e v e so, a n d t h a t these
beliefs m a y be f o u n d in most social s t r a t a .
W h a t integration research must do is to
probe much more and far more reliably
t h a n it h a s so far, t h e o b j e c t i v e r e a s o n s
a n d bases o n w h i c h p r o - i n t e g r a t i o n beliefs
a r e h e l d - in d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , societies,
countries, a n d social s t r a t a t h e r e i n .
S æ t e r in p r i n c i p l e takes a s i m i l a r v i e w
in a r g u i n g as follows:
28
W h a t 'European integration' is and consequently what the European integration system is to be defined as, should remain an
open question until, through an empirical
analysis of the European situation seen as a
whole, a better basis has been established
for deciding which goal perception seems
the most relevant for the study of European integration at the beginning of the
1970s (Sæther 1972a, p. 3. My translation).
T h e m e t h o d h e chooses, h o w e v e r , i s
strictly l i m i t e d to p e r c e p t i o n s of ' p o l i t i c a l
elites' o r g o v e r n m e n t a l officials. W h i l e h e
h a s c a r r i e d out a v e r y useful e m p i r i c a l
s t u d y on those p e r c e p t i o n s , one is b o u n d
to ask w h e t h e r he h a s in fact focused on
the E u r o p e a n i n t e g r a t i o n system a n d a n a lyzed ' t h e E u r o p e a n situation as a w h o l e ' .
As I h a v e p o i n t e d out, n o t o n l y m u s t
elite r e p r e s e n t a t i v i t y w i t h respect to m a s s
public p e r c e p t i o n s a n d o p i n i o n s b e q u e s tioned, it is also d e b a t a b l e - a n d m u s t be
clarified by e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h t h a t is not
i n s t i t u t i o n - b i a s e d or elitist - w h e t h e r ' p o litical elite' p e r c e p t i o n s as t h e y a p p e a r in
p u b l i c a r e necessarily r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of
t h e i n t e g r a t i o n goals h e l d b y o t h e r r e l e vant actors: corporate leaders, voluntary
agencies, t h e w o r k i n g class, farmers, etc.
T h u s , i t seems h i g h l y d e b a t a b l e w h e t h e r
t h e conclusions w h i c h S æ t e r m a y d r a w
from his e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s c a n be said to
be valid from t h e p o i n t of view of an
' o p e n ' a p p r o a c h t o p r o b l e m s which h e
himself stresses.
Is there an alternative to international
i n t e g r a t i o n short of ' i s o l a t i o n i s m ' or a g gression? A n d : w o u l d it be t h e task of
r e s e a r c h to d e v e l o p a l t e r n a t i v e models of
integration?
D e u t s c h ' s n o t i o n of a ' p l u r a l i s t i c security c o m m u n i t y ' is a useful w a y of conc e p t u a l i z i n g a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e strong
e l e m e n t s of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of i n t e g r a t i n g
collectivities t h a t seems to be t h e ' e n d
s t a t e ' option most likely h e l d by integ r a t i n g elites a n d (thus) t h e best solution.
W h i l e D e u t s c h ' s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of a
pluralistic
security
community
suffers
from an i n s t i t u t i o n - b i a s , it c a n n o t be said
t o b e atomistic. H e sees t h r e e m a j o r conditions for such a c o m m u n i t y : (1) c o m p a t i bility of m a j o r v a l u e s (ideals a n d goals)
r e l e v a n t to p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n m a k i n g ; (2)
t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g political
units to r e s p o n d to each o t h e r ' s needs,
messages, a n d actions quickly, a d e q u a t e l y ,
a n d w i t h o u t resort to v i o l e n c e ; a n d (3)
m u t u a l p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of b e h a v i o r (Deutsch
1954). If we free his concept of 'social
a s s i m i l a t i o n ' from its elitist u n d e r t o n e s
a n d p e r c e i v e m a s s p u b l i c s as subjects of
i n t e g r a t i o n , a n d s i m i l a r l y a b a n d o n the
i n s t i t u t i o n - b i a s , w e m a y w e l l h a v e found
a n a p p r o a c h useful a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o
federalist
and
neo-functionalist
approaches.
T h e s e a p p r o a c h e s m a k e two assumptions
that ought to be questioned in any theory
of i n t e g r a t i o n . O n e is t h a t a c e r t a i n d e g r e e
of centralization of power is necessary to
a c h i e v e i n t e g r a t i o n a n d its e x p e c t e d b e n e fits: g r o w t h , w e a l t h , p e a c e . T h e other is
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
the a s s u m p t i o n of 'economies of scale', or,
in m o r e g e n e r a l t e r m s , the advantage of
big units. Both beliefs seem to h a v e been
challenged in the N o r w e g i a n referendum.
B a s e d o n his r e s e a r c h o n N o r w e g i a n
local c o m m u n i t i e s , B r o x (1972) h a s s u g gested t h a t t h e N o r w e g i a n ' N o ' w a s a n
i n d i c a t i o n t h a t p e o p l e identified t h e i r i n terests p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e interests of
their own social g r o u p or class a n d w i t h
t h e interests of t h e local c o m m u n i t y a n d
its p r e s e r v a t i o n . T h e most i m p o r t a n t q u e s tion r e l a t i n g to the a s s u m p t i o n s of cent r a l i z a t i o n a n d size is w h a t t h e y t e n d to
result in, a n d w h a t t h e i r effects on social
s t r u c t u r e at different levels t e n d to be.
A g a i n , t h e r e is a s t r i k i n g n e e d for e m pirical research.
In c o n c l u d i n g this discussion, I suggest
two b r o a d i n t e g r a t i o n m o d e l s b a s e d o n t h e
t h e o r e m s a n d perspectives p o i n t e d out
above. One may be referred to as the 'typical n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t ' m o d e l . T h e o t h e r
w o u l d t o some e x t e n t r e p r e s e n t a n ' a l t e r n a tive', p e r h a p s 'populist' i n t e g r a t i o n m o d e l .
At this stage, it is suggested in r a t h e r
v a g u e t e r m s only. I n l a r g e p a r t s t h e m o d e l
follows from m y discussion a n d critique
of neo-classical theories a n d t h e r e f e r e n c e
T a b l e 2.
I
II
m a d e to perceptions prominent in the N o r wegian ' N o ' to E E C entry. F o r illustrative
purposes, t h e two ' m o d e l s ' a r e p r e s e n t e d
in an e x t r e m e form in T a b l e 2.
O b v i o u s l y , these a r e p u r e types. W e m a y
conceive of t h e ' p o p u l i s t ' m o d e l , w h e r e
d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of p o w e r , p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
a n d i n i t i a t i o n is t h e m a i n criterion, as
b e i n g possible w i t h i n a n a m a l g a m a t e d
c o m m u n i t y w h e r e , e.g., two n a t i o n - s t a t e s
m e r g e into one. S i m i l a r l y , t h e f o u r t h p r i n ciple of my n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t m o d e l is n o t
a necessary c o n d i t i o n for or p a r t of a
successful a m a l g a m a t i o n into b i g g e r units
w i t h c e n t r a l i z e d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . A s classical functionalism h a s held, a n d as is
also i n d i c a t e d in my e m p h a s i s on the
multinational
corporation,
institutions
other than governments may perform the
i n t e g r a t i n g function.
T h u s as a m i n i m u m d e m a n d on a fruitful i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y t h e a x i o m s of cent r a l i z a t i o n a n d size m u s t be questioned.
I h a v e a i m e d to r e l a t e t h e o r y to social
s t r u c t u r e ( i n d e e d , it h a s b e c o m e necessary
t o m a k e t h a t p l e a ! ) a n d class, o r elitemass, r e l a t i o n s . In my opinion, if i n t e g r a tion theories m e e t these d e m a n d s , n e w
perspectives a n d possibilities will be seen
Two broad types of international
integration:
and its alternative.
'Alternative'
'Neo-functionalist'
Amalgamation
one u n i t
of
units:
Centralization of d e c i s i o n m a k i n g
s u p r a n a t i o n a l institutions
a
=
neo-functionalist
to
model
'populist'
Pluralism = i n t e r a c t i o n a n d
b e t w e e n a p l u r a l i t y of u n i t s
becoming
281
exchange
Decentralization of d e c i s i o n m a k i n g to
' n a t u r a l s u b - u n i t s ' (local c o m m u n i t y ) ,
c e n t r a l institutions r e t a i n i n g c o o r d i n a t i n g
a n d p r o t e c t i v e functions
III
C r e a t i o n of big units a n d 'economies
of scale'
P r i m a c y of small communities (local,
intranational, national) in production,
market relations and consumption
patterns
IV
G o v e r n m e n t is t h e p r i m a r y decisionm a k e r : elitism a n d elite i n t e g r a t i o n
Multi-level,
cross-national
initiation,
p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d control, i.e., by t h e
mass public
282
Helge
Hveem
a n d theoretical exercises w i l l b e c o m e
richer a n d m o r e t r u l y social science. F i n a l ly, I h a v e p l e a d e d t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r e t icians should see t h e l i m i t e d r e l e v a n c e a n d
a p p l i c a b i l i t y of such exercises.
T h e introduction of the simple distinction b e t w e e n v e r t i c a l a n d h o r i z o n t a l i n t e gration may help us avoid overextending,
avoid t a k i n g t h e s t u d y o f i n t e g r a t i o n p r o cesses into a r e a s , fields, a n d p h e n o m e n a
i n g e o g r a p h i c a l a n d social space w h e r e
such concepts as p e n e t r a t i o n , i m p e r i a l i s m ,
and exploitation and their corresponding
real-life processes b e c o m e m o r e correct
g u i d e - l i n e s for r e s e a r c h , a n d m o r e r e l e vant theoretical departures. Along the
h o r i z o n t a l axis of e x c h a n g e a n d i n t e r action, i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y will a l w a y s h a v e
relevance. H o w e v e r , w h e n i t m o v e s a l o n g
t h e v e r t i c a l axis, it should a c k n o w l e d g e
its l i m i t a t i o n s . When i n t e g r a t i o n m o v e s
into either of these r e s p e c t i v e perspectives,
it is a m a t t e r of e m p i r i c a l s t u d y . I h a v e
t r i e d to p o i n t to s o m e of t h e deficiencies
in t h e t h e o r e t i c a l e q u i p m e n t of n e o - c l a s sical theories t h a t m a y m a k e t h e m u n s u i t able in an analysis of t h e r e a l w o r l d , a n d
h a v e suggested w a y s t o i m p r o v e it. T h e s e
suggestions m a y b e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d into
an ' a l t e r n a t i v e ' i n t e g r a t i o n t h e o r y , or to p u t it less a m b i t i o u s l y a n d p e r h a p s
m o r e correctly - an a l t e r n a t i v e p e r s p e c tive a l o n g t h e lines i n d i c a t e d h e r e .
NOTES
1
For a discussion and definition of the concept of value, see Hveem 1973b.
Most of the works of the transactionist
'school' fall within this category; references are
given in other footnotes. Studies on the goals
and attitudes of integration actors also fall
under this category, e.g. Sæter 1972a.
There is a growing literature on international penetration. For a useful bibliography,
see Senghaas 1972.
Philippe Schmitter, Leon Lindberg, Stuart
Scheingold, and others. For the 'classical' statement of the neo-functionalist case, see Haas
1958.
2
3
4
5
Bruce M. Russett, Donald Puchala, Robert
Merritt and others. One of the first statements
of this approach is Deutsch 1954.
One representative example is Bowie &
Friedrich 1954.
Cf. Such tendencies as the 'European federalists' and the creation of the Council of Europe, the universal federalists in the World
Federation of World Federalists, and the group
around the 'radical' pro-EEC magazine, Agenor.
In a more recent article, Herz has modified
his stand considerably, pointing out the persistence and viability of the nation-state (see
Herz 1968).
T h e emergence of EEC as a superpower
is still more a prediction of the future than
an actual reality, but it seems an increasingly
important and correct prediction.
While the neo-functionalists certainly perceive of transnational processes as relevant to
their own 'political community' building, they
do not seem to have come to accept that such
processes are institutionalized (in a broader
meaning than the one in which they use the
term institution, see paragraph (3) in the text),
into actors: transnational interest groups and
organizations, of which patterns of cooperation
between national employer's organizations and
again the multinational corporation are the
most important.
This contention was often made by leading pro-membership spokesmen in the debate
on Norway's entry into the EEC.
For a survey, see Berelson & Steiner 1964.
Sanness 1972. Sæter has rightly rejected
such a view (cf. Sæter 1972b).
See Hveem 1973b for the theoretical rationale of this contention.
In the International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences (The Macmillan Company &
The Free Press, N. Y. 1968) Vol. 14, p. 409.
Social institutions are defined as: ' . . . the basic
focuses of social organization, common to all
societies and dealing with some of the basic
universal problems of ordered social life. Three
basic aspects of institutions are emphasized.
First, the patterns of behavior which are regulated by institutions ("institutionalized") deal
with some perennial, basic problems of any
society. Second, institutions involve the regulation of behavior of individuals in society
according to some definite, continuous, and
organized patterns. Finally, these patterns involve a definite normative ordering and regulation; that is, regulation is upheld by norms
and by sanctions which are legitimized by
these norms.'
Mansholt, in an interview with the magazine L'Expansion. T h e same interview was
published later in the Swedish magazine Veckans Affarer (No. 1, 1973) from which I quote
(my translation into English): ' . . . after fifteen
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
years I must admit that the only real decisionmaking centers in (Western) Europe a r e the
business leaders a n d their assistants . . . N e i t h e r
the Commission in Brussels nor the g o v e r n m e n t s
control capitalist Europe. T h e political leaders
of the nation-state humiliate themselves before
the multinational corporations. On the whole,
I d o n o t b l a m e t h e m for t h a t . T h e y h a v e o n l y
o n e goal - to m a k e profit. .. . the m u l t i n a t i o nal's capitalism in the W e s t will not, m u c h
as S o v i e t c a p i t a l i s m w i l l n o t , g i v e us a m o r e
h a r m o n i o u s society. O n t h e c o n t r a r y . '
For a theoretical defense of this a s s u m p t i o n , see S a m u e l s o n 1970, p . 2 1 5 .
It is one of the parameters of integration
achievement in Deutsch's paradigm, and it has
b e e n u s e d t o p r o v e t h e success o f t h e E E C i n
a d d i n g to the national incomes of member
states i n K r a u s e 1968.
Cf. F . S c h l u p p e t al. 1971, p . 4 4 . T h e y
use a c a p i t a l coefficient of 3 a n d c a l c u l a t e t h e
share of production of US companies operating
in W e s t e r n Europe (mainly the present EEC)
a n d deduct these figures from the total G N P
of m e m b e r states. T h e y found that if the US
companies contribution is deducted, W e s t e r n
E u r o p e ' s G N P i n 1950 w a s s l i g h t l y a b o v e 6 0 °/o
o f U S G N P , w h i l e i t w a s s o m e w h a t less t h a n
6 0 % of t h e U S G N P i n 1968.
I f ' p u b l i c r e v e n u e ' f i g u r e s a r e u s e d for
comparison - they would include all moneys
that are taken in by central a n d local governm e n t i n t h e f o r m o f t a x e s a n d w o u l d also i n c l u d e p u b l i c i n v e s t m e n t - t h e n t h e ' p u b l i c ' sect o r w i l l b e seen a s m o r e i m p o r t a n t , a s p u b l i c
revenue shares of G N P are considerably higher
t h a n t h o s e o f ' p u b l i c e x p e n d i t u r e ' . Still, h o w ever, corporate p o w e r is evident. A n d in the
case o f t h e N e t h e r l a n d s , p u b l i c r e v e n u e i s l o wer in terms of share of G N P than the share
o f t h e t e n b i g g e s t c o r p o r a t i o n s . I t seems c o r r e c t ,
t h u s , to r e f e r to t h e N e t h e r l a n d s as a ' c o r p o r a t e
state'.
T h i s is a development which is favored
b y t h e E E C C o m m i s s i o n (see E E C 1970).
Reference to some of these reactions is
m a d e in d ' O l i v e i r a e S o u z a & H o l t h e 1973.
It does not seem entirely unrealistic to
suggest t h a t t h e b i g t r a d e d e a l s o f t h e last
years between the two, from the point of view
o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a t least, m a y h a v e h a d
something to do with the increasing competition
on world markets from the E E C a n d J a p a n .
I a m r e f e r r i n g t o such a u t h o r s a s F u r t a d o ,
d o s S a n t o s , S u n k e l a n d o t h e r s ; for r e f e r e n c e s ,
see S e n g h a a s 1972.
F o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d discussion, see H v e e m
1973c.
T h e East African Community was largely,
d e s p i t e its r e l a t i v e l y successful i n t e r n a l r e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n 1965, t h e c r e a t i o n o f B r i t i s h
colonial rule. A n d the Central A m e r i c a n Comm o n M a r k e t h a s b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y successful
283
for U S m u l t i n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n s ; see CERES,
F A O R e v i e w , N o . 2 6 (1972).
For an empirical verification of the penetration of underdeveloped countries by multin a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n s , see H v e e m 1973c.
T h e present author makes n o exception,
see H v e e m & L o d g a a r d 1972.
27
2 8
17
REFERENCES
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 8
A d l e r K a r l s o o n , G. 1 9 6 8 : Western Economic
Warfare 1947-67. A l m q u i s t & W i k s e l l , S t o c k holm.
A m i n , S. 1 9 7 1 : L'Afrique de UOuest bloque.
Editions de Minuit, Paris.
B a r r a t t - B r o w n , M. 1970: After Imperialism.
Medin Press, London.
B e r e l s o n , B. & S t e i n e r , G. A. 1964: Human
Behavior. H a r c o u r t , B r a c e & W o r l d , N e w
York.
B o w i e , R. R. & F r i e d r i c h , C. J. (eds.) 1954:
Studies in Federalism. L i t t l e , B r o w n & Co.,
Boston.
B r o x , O . 1972: H v a h e n d t e i N o r g e 2 5 . Sept e m b e r 1972? ( W h a t h a p p e n e d i n N o r w a y
on t h e 2 5 t h of S e p t e m b e r 1972?), Internasjonal Politikk N o . 4 B , pp. 7 7 1 - 8 2 .
CERES, F a o R e v i e w 1972, N o . 2 6 .
D e u t s c h , K. W. 1 9 5 4 : Political Community at
the International Level. D o u b l e d a y , N e w
York.
E E C C o m m i s s i o n 1970: Memorandum on the
Industrial Policy
of the
Communities.
Brus-
sels.
E t z i o n i , A. 1 9 6 5 : Political Unification. S t a n ford University Press.
F i s h e r , W . E . 1969: A n a n a l y s i s o f t h e D e u t s c h
sociocausal p a r a d i g m of political integration,
International
Organization
XXI,
pp.
254-90.
F r i e d l a n d e r , S . 1965: F o r e c a s t i n g i n i n t e r n a tional relations, in B. de Jouvenel (ed.):
Futuribles. D r o z , G e n e v a .
G a l t u n g , J . 1966: E a s t - W e s t i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s , Journal of Peace Research III, N o . 2,
pp. 1 4 6 - 7 7 .
G a l t u n g , J. 1968: A s t r u c t u r a l t h e o r y of i n t e g r a t i o n , Journal of Peace Research V, N o .
4, pp. 3 7 5 - 9 5 .
G l e d i t s c h , N . P . 1967: T r e n d s i n w o r l d a i r l i n e p a t t e r n s , Journal of Peace Research IV,
N o . 4 , pp. 3 6 6 - 4 0 8 .
H a a s , E. B. 1 9 5 8 : The Uniting of Europe.
Stanford University Press.
H a a s , E . B . 1970 (1971): T h e s t u d y o f r e g i o n a l
integration,
International Organization XX,
N o . 4; later reprinted in L i n d b e r g & Scheingold 1971.
284
Helge Hveem
H e l l e v i k , O . & G l e d i t s c h , N . P . 1973: T h e
C o m m o n M a r k e t decision in N o r w a y : a clash
between direct a n d indirect democracy. M i meo, International Peace Research Institute.
Oslo.
H e r z , J. 1959: International Politics in the
Atomic Age.
Columbia Paperback,
New
York.
H e r z , J . 1969: T h e t e r r i t o r i a l s t a t e r e v i s i t e d :
Reflections o n t h e f u t u r e o f t h e n a t i o n
s t a t e , i n J . N . R o s e n a u ( e d . ) : International
Politics and Foreign Policy. F r e e P r e s s , N e w
York.
H v e e m , H . 1972a: P a n - A f r i c a n i s m v s m i n i Africanism: the evidence of African interaction trends, in A. A. M a z r u i & H. S.
P a t e l ( e d s . ) : Towards the Year 2000: Identity and Africa's Future. E a s t A f r i c a n P u blishing House, Nairobi.
H v e e m , H . 1972b: U N C T A D I I I : T h e n e e d
for a n e w a p p r o a c h , Bulletin of Peace Proposals III, N o . 8.
H v e e m , H . 1973a: T h e g l o b a l / d o m i n a n c e sys t e m , Journal of Peace Research X, N o . 4.
H v e e m , H . 1973b: T h e g l o b a l t e c h n o c a p i t a l
structure: on a cumulative international division of labor. M i m e o , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Peace
Research Institute, Oslo.
H v e e m , H . 1973c: D e p e n d e n c y , i n t e r d e p e n d e n ce a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e in a d o m i n a n c e system.
Mimeo, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
H v e e m , H . & H o l t h e , 0 . K . 1972: T h e E u r o pean Community and the underdeveloped
c o u n t r i e s , Instant Research on Peace and
Violence, N o . 2.
H v e e m , H . & L o d g a a r d , S . 1972: N o r d i s k s a m arbeid etter folkeavstemningen. Fra grasrotp o p u l i s m e til v e r d e n s r o l l e ?
(Internasjonal
Politikk, N o . 4 B , p p . 8 5 3 - 8 7 4 . ( O n N o r d i c
cooperation after the N o r w e g i a n E E C r e ferendum.)
H v e e m , H. & W i l l e t t s , P. 1973: T h e practice
of non-alignment. On the present a n d future
of an i n t e r n a t i o n a l m o v e m e n t , in Africa International, V o l . I: Horizon of African Diplomacy. E a s t A f r i c a n L i t e r a t u r e B u r e a u ,
Kampala & Nairobi.
H y m e r , S . 1960: T h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l o p e r a t i o n
of n a t i o n a l f i r m s : a s t u d y of d i r e c t i n v e s t ment. M I T P h . D . dissertation, unpublished.
Inglehart, R. 1971: Public opinion and regional integration, pp. 160-91 in L i n d b e r g
& Scheingold 1971.
Kaiser, K . 1968: T h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f r e g i o n a l
subsystems: some p r e l i m i n a r y notes on r e current patterns a n d the role of the superp o w e r s , World Politics XXI, p p . 8 4 - 1 0 7 .
K i n d l e b e r g e r , C. P. 1970: The Multinational
Corporation: a Symposium. M I T P r e s s , C a m bridge.
K r a u s e , L. B. 1968: European Economic Integration and the United States. B r o o k i n g s
Institution, W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.
L a g e r k v i s t Sc K l e b e r g 1972: Ekonomi och Politik i Europa. A s k i l d & K ä r n e k u l l , S t o c k h o l m .
L i n d b e r g , L. 1971: Political integration as a
multidimensional phenomenon requiring multivariate measurement, in L i n d b e r g & Scheingold 1971.
L i n d b e r g , L. & S c h e i n g o l d , S. 1970: Europe's
Would-be Polity. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , N e w J e r s e y .
L i n d b e r g , L. & S c h e i n g o l d , S. (eds.) 1 9 7 1 : Regional
Integration.
Theory
and
Research.
H a r v a r d University Press.
M i t r a n y , D . 1965/66: T h e p r o s p e c t o f i n t e g r a t i o n : f e d e r a l or f u n c t i o n a l , Journal of Common Market Studies I V , p p . 119—49.
N y e , J . S . 1970: C o m p a r i n g C o m m o n M a r k e t s :
a r e v i s e d n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t m o d e l , 10, V o l .
X X I I , N o . 4 , p . 869.
d ' O l i v e i r a e Souza, J. & H o l t h e , O. K. 1973:
Le 'non' norvegien a la C E E : h y m n e pastor a l e ou c h a n t r e v o l u t i o n n a i r e , Revue Nouvelle (Brussels), S p r i n g 1973.
R e i n t o n , P . O . 1967: I n t e r n a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e
a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e g r a t i o n : t h e case o f
L a t i n A m e r i c a , Journal of Peace Research
III, N o . 4 , p p . 3 7 5 - 9 5 .
R o s e n a u , J. 1964: Public Opinion and Foreign
Policy. R a n d o m H o u s e , N e w Y o r k .
S a m u e l s o n , P . A . 1970: Economics ( E i g h t h
edition). M a c G r a w - H i l l , N e w York.
S a n n e s s , J . 1972: E u r o p e i s k i n t e g r a s j o n som
historisk problem (European integration as
a h i s t o r i c a l p r o b l e m ) , Internasjonal Politikk,
Supplement to N o . 2, pp. 339-56.
S c h l u p p , F., J u n n e , G. & N o u r , S. 1 9 7 1 : Zur
Theorie
internationaler
Dependenz.
Mimeo,
Freie Universität Berlin.
S c h m i t t e r , P . 1969a: L a d i n á m i c a d e c o n t r a d i c i o n e s y la c o n d u c c i ó n de crises en la in
e g r a c i o n c e n t r o a m e r i c a n a , Revista de la integración, N o . 5 , p p . 1 4 0 - 4 7 .
S c h m i t t e r , P . 1969b: T h r e e n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t
hypotheses about international integration,
International
Organization
XXIII, p.
164.
S c h m i t t e r , P. 1 9 7 1 : A r e v i s e d t h e o r y of r e gional integration, in L i n d b e r g & Scheing o l d 1971.
S e n g h a a s , D. 1972 ( e d . ) : Imperialismus und
strukturelle Gewalt. S u h r k a m p , H a m b u r g .
S e r v a n - S c h r e i b e r , J . J . 1967: L e defi a m e r i c a i n .
Denosel, Paris.
S k j e l s b æ k , K . 1972: P e a c e a n d t h e s t r u c t u r e
of the international organization network,
Journal of Peace Research IX, N o . 4, p p .
315-30.
S æ t e r , M. 1 9 7 2 a : Det politiske Europa ( P o l i t i cal E u r o p e ) . U n i v e r s i t e t s f o r l a g e t , O s l o .
Sæter, M. 1972b: D e t problematiske E u r o p a
(Problematic
Europe),
Internasjonal Politikk 2 B , p. 3 9 9 .
V e r n o n , R. 1 9 7 1 : Sovereignty at Bay. B a s i c
Books, N e w York.
Z a r t m a n , W. 1 9 7 1 : The Politics of Trade Negotiations between Africa and the European
Community. P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .