In this review, I compare federalist and neo-functionalist literature on crisis outcomes in the EU. I seek to answer the posed questions and see which argument upholds best against Brexit, a crisis which is not yet in the post-crisis phase.
In the past few years, the European Union has seen three major crises; the Schengen crisis, the euro crisis and Brexit. Though all of these events are individual and unique unto themselves, what similarities do they have? What can European integration theories do in order to help us understand their similarities and differences?
This review aims to compare the strength of argument posed by two pieces of literature, each in favor of a different integration theory. The literature should be able to provide clarity to how these crises came about, as well as plausible explanations for their aftermath. While there will be some discussion of the euro crisis and the Schengen crisis, this review will focus on the most recent EU crisis: Brexit. All of the texts are very recent in order to account for the modern context necessary to understand these events. If the literature of one integration theory literature is better at describing and accounting for the variation in crises, then it should be applicable to literature that does not favor one integration theory over others.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Key Concepts
4. Literature Review
5. Conclusions
6. Bibliography
Objectives and Topics
This literature review aims to evaluate the explanatory power of different European integration theories, specifically federalism and neo-functionalism, in the context of recent crises within the European Union, with a primary focus on the implications of the Brexit vote.
- Comparison of federalist and neo-functionalist theoretical frameworks.
- Analysis of the Euro crisis and Schengen crisis as precedent for European integration challenges.
- Examination of the Brexit vote as a unique, ongoing crisis for the European Union.
- Critical assessment of scholarly literature regarding crisis outcomes and state bargaining power.
Excerpt from the Book
Federalism
First, I will be using the definition provided by The past and future of European federalism: Spinelli v. Hayek in order to shape the rest of the literature review (Reho, 2017). In summary: authentic federalism is defined by Reho with the motto “as much union as necessary, as little union as possible” (2017).
Bergmann and Niemann’s 2013 Theories of European Integration and European Foreign Policy explains that federalism can mean many things in many different contexts. The authors establish that federalist integration theories provide why states should form a federation, instead of how to go about it (Bergmann, Niemann 2013). Bergmann and Niemann’s work provides all integration theories in the same article, where many others choose to focus on one or two alone.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This chapter outlines the research context of the European Union at a crossroads and defines the review's purpose of comparing federalist and neo-functionalist theories through the lens of recent crises.
Background: This section provides historical context on federalist thought, contrasting the views of Altiero Spinelli and Friedrich Hayek, and discusses the UK's historical detachment from continental integration.
Key Concepts: This chapter defines the core theoretical frameworks utilized in the review, specifically detailing federalism, neo-functionalism, and liberal intergovernmentalism.
Literature Review: This section critically analyzes specific academic texts that apply integration theories to the Euro crisis, the Schengen crisis, and Brexit to determine which framework better explains varying outcomes.
Conclusions: This chapter synthesizes the findings, concluding that the neo-functionalist argument presented by Schimmelfennig offers a more robust and reliable explanation for crisis outcomes than the federalist critique.
Bibliography: This section lists all academic sources and literature referenced throughout the review.
Keywords
European Union, European Integration, Federalism, Neo-functionalism, Brexit, Euro Crisis, Schengen Crisis, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, Crisis Management, Supranationalism, Bargaining Power, Political Theory, Member States, Policy Outcomes, Euroscepticism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this literature review?
The review examines how different European integration theories—specifically federalism and neo-functionalism—explain the causes and outcomes of major EU crises, including the Euro crisis, the Schengen crisis, and Brexit.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
Central themes include the comparative strength of integration theories, the role of member state bargaining power, the concept of "shock and failure" in political systems, and the impact of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
What is the overarching goal of the research?
The goal is to determine which integration theory provides the most accurate and applicable explanation for the variations in outcomes seen during periods of crisis within the European Union.
Which scientific methods are employed by the author?
The author conducts a comparative literature review, analyzing recent scholarly arguments, evaluating their theoretical biases, and testing their applicability against the specific context of the Brexit crisis.
What is the main subject of the chapters?
The chapters transition from foundational theoretical definitions to a critical analysis of specific scholarly texts, culminating in a comparison of these theories against the empirical reality of the Brexit vote.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
The paper is characterized by terms such as European integration, federalism, neo-functionalism, Brexit, crisis management, and intergovernmentalism.
How does the author interpret the work of Reho?
The author suggests that while Reho provides a useful background on federalism, he exhibits a bias toward Hayek’s economic-focused federalism over Spinelli’s more integrated approach.
Why is Schimmelfennig's analysis considered more effective than the federalist critique?
The author argues that Schimmelfennig's work is less biased and relies on a broader, more rigorous set of empirical conditions, making his neo-functionalist model more reliable for predicting future crisis outcomes than the federalist approach.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Danielle Kyle (Autor:in), 2017, Federalist and Neofunctionalist Integration Theories in Times of Crisis, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/489358
