5. Критика функционализма
Evaluation
-)f. laid the foundations for neofunctionalist integration theory
-)f. provided an innovative approach to the study of international politics and international organization that opened up certain possibilities for thinking
-)f. offered a distinctive alternative to normal ways of thinking about a post-Westphalia international order
-)it was an alternative to realism
Criticism:
-)difficult to see how f. logic would work in conditions of market economyю it is likely to create both winners and losers. The application of a f. pattern to systems of production, finance and trade would require fundamental changing of the behavioural logic of firms, markets.
-)f. is naïve and rests upon unreasonable assumptions about the ability of people and governments to move in rational directions. The functionalist idea that integration was 'the gradual triumph of the rational and the technocratic over the political' = false idea. Technocracy is deeply political and it is difficult to maintain it by means which are inherent only in technical.
-)f. has a poor record of prediction
-)lack of scientific rigor. The theory hasn’t exact structure and its methodology is naïve. There is no fundamental theoretical statement of functionalism. Functionalism may be hardly called scientific. For Mitrany, theoretical rigour was problematic because it meant practical hardness and creative closure.
6. Transactionalism
approach to international integration is associated the work of Karl Deutsch – “Nationalism and social communication”1953.
-)study of nationalism and integration shared much with the emerging study of supranational integration.
-)said that communication is the key mechanism of the social mobilization of communities
-)communication was responsible for historical processes of national development and for international sphere in circumstances where states build security communities -> international integration is defined as being the achievement of security within a region or among a group of states.
-)Security communities - political communities within which the expectation of war was minimized. By Daeutscn Security communities are groups of people that had become integrated. Integration – the attainment within a territory of a sense of community and of institutions and practices strong enough to assure expectations of peaceful change among its population.
-)There are two distinct sorts of security community:
1. Amalgamated(=united) – involved separate units into larger unit through institutional fusion.
Amalgamated communities were vulnerable, because of destabilizing factors – military burden, increases in social mobilization and political participation, decline in administrative capabilities, closure of political elites and so on.
pluralistic – were defined as entities where the component governments retained their identities, where integration occurs without institutional absorbtion or the creation of supreme authority. This form was Deutsch’s favoured model.
Three conditions of existence of pluralistic:
-)compatibility of major values among the units
-)a capacity for political relevant group to respond to each other
-)mutual predictability.
Deutsch was interested in situation when people are held together by common sentiments and common loyalties. From this perspective the end of integration is a sense of community.
The way to the international society was the establishment of a network of mutual transactions.
The potential for integration would occur in situation of high international transaction. The actuality of integration would be secured where mutual responsiveness also prevailed.