Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?

Abstract

This paper is a partial critique of the ‘neo-classical’ integration schools, the ‘neo-functionalist’ 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 Dias 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.