Contemporary Theory and the Beginning of European Integration

Abstract

Ludolf Herbst Contemporary Theory and the Beginning of European Integration Active politicians are generally skeptical of political theory. Walter Hallstein, in the early 1960s, indeed warned against weighing down the process of European unification with theoretical objectives. The European Community, he said, was “sui generis, a new kind of political animal.” Thinking in analogies and models, he believed, was of little value to political practice: “Just as language precedes grammar, so politics precedes political theory.”1 With his statement, Hallstein was most certainly not seeking to invalidate the old truth that the intellectual world and the political world were interdependent . He instead objected to the claim that theory could provide prognoses and guidelines for action.2 Political “integration theory” had, moreover, already been connected to an incoherent picture at the time, just as it was perhaps quite telling that the popularity of integration theory had only begun to crest after the most important political decisions in the integration process had already been made. Today, confronted with an even more perplexing flood of theories on integration , one might be inclined – for reasons of efficiency alone – to be as categorical as Hallstein and dismiss integration theories as unacceptable post festum generalizations . But much can be said in favor of a more cautious approach. At first glance, what has been labeled as integration theory is in many cases – and certainly in the more productive ones – an analysis that is definitively geared toward the historical process, while however being put forward primarily by economists, political scientists, and sociologists, who, following the systematic traditions of their disciplines, tend more towards generalizations and comparisons than do most historians.3 This applies, for example, to the major works on integration theory by Jacob Viner, Karl Deutsch, Ernst Haas, Bela Balassa, and Amitai Translation by Paul Bowman and David Dichelle. 1 Walter Hallstein, United Europe. Challenge and Opportunity, London 1962, pp. 25 ff. 2 See Karl R. Popper, Logik der Forschung, 8th ed., Tübingen 1984, pp. 31 ff. (first published 1935). 3 On the current state of historical research, see Hans-Peter Schwarz, Die europäische Integration als Aufgabe der Zeitgeschichtsforschung. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven, in: Vierteljahrs­ hefte für Zeitgeschichte 31 (1983), pp. 559 ff. 22 Ludolf Herbst Etzioni, to name just a few of the most prominent ones.4 Historians continue to benefit considerably from these studies today. Theories, however, have their own historical background as well, are associated with intellectual traditions, and interwoven into the historical process. And, even if a first impression might indicate otherwise, integration theory should be viewed not only as a consequence of the decision-making phase of the European unification process, but also as an important element in this process itself. What, however, has led to the impression that the theory only originated after the fact? The problem seems to be mainly terminological by nature. The term “integration ” was not particularly widespread until the theories associated with it gained in popularity. It was not established as a political concept until the early 1950s, when the term’s use expanded rapidly to include a much broader scope.5 At the same time, it coalesced with a number of older theories from the tradition of peace studies, the concept of federalist unification, and functionalism.6 While those lines of thought did not initially pick up on the concept of “integration,” there were others in which it was in early use, including certain currents within political economy, international law, international relations, and constitutional law. We must therefore begin by distinguishing between two different layers of theory. The first is defined by the intellectual traditions already associated with the concept of integration at the beginning of the period under consideration. The second encompasses those intellectual traditions which, during the decision -making phase of European integration, were still separate at first but were then gradually absorbed. There is also a third layer, connected to theories developed only after and drawing on the example of the historical process, including , for example, neo-functionalism. This third layer will not be discussed here. 4 See Jacob Viner, The Customs Union Issue, New York 1950; Karl W. Deutsch, Political Community at the International Level, Problems of Definition and Measurement...