Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:International integration. Past and present. Учебное пособие
.pdf
the elimination of customs within its internal borders, transferring their
functions to the customs at the external frontiers of the common customs
territory. The examples are the EU and the Customs Union of Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. This integration model
changes flows of goods, stimulates imports from other member
countries, as well as changes in manufacturing and consumption.
Common market implies the elimination of all barriers to free
movement of production factors between member states, changes in
the institutional framework of integration, convergence of national
laws, and the establishment of common governing bodies for the
unification process.
Free movement of production factors within common market may
be affected by the differences in economic policies of its members, as
the latter admits the complete lack of coordination in economic policy
with all its consequences. The solution to this problem is possible
through the transition to deeper integration.
The above-mentioned contradiction can be resolved through the
establishment of economic union which involves harmonization of
economic policies of its members. Thus, the European Union pursues
a common policy in the industrial, energy, transport, social, scientific,
agricultural, and other areas.
If the level of economic policy coordination is high enough, it
begins to follow its own logic linking a wide range of issues more and
more closely, finally obtaining its logical conclusion in a more complex
form of integration – economic and monetary union.
Table 1
Main Forms of International Integration
Free Trade Area Removing trade barriers in mutual trade +
Customs Union
Common Market
Economic Union
Full Economic and Political Integration
Establishing a uniform system of trade
barriers +
Freedom of capital and labor transfer,
coordination of economic policies +
Coordination of economic policies of
member states +
Implementation of a unified economic
and monetary policy
Monetary union involves creation of a single currency system
including common currency and common emission center. This ensures
more close coordination of monetary and macroeconomic policy.
11
Full economic and political integration involves merging of a
common market into a single economic and political entity, as well as
full harmonization of economic policy and its legislative framework.
At this stage a new subject of international economic and political
relations emerges and a single confederative or federal state is
established.
Nowadays, the more flexible and non-traditional models of
integration emerge, for example, the intensive growth triangles tested
in the Asia-Pacific and involving the integration of border areas in
several countries. This model is used in Europe too. Thus, there is a
project of the triangle including Kaliningrad, Finland, and
St. Petersburg.
The transition from lower levels of integration to higher ones is a
stage of integration. The duration of a stage depends on many
conditions. Practice shows that international integration is a selfcontradictory phenomenon and seldom develops smoothly.
The complexity of creating a common integration area may be
illustrated by the experience of the European integration, which occurs
due to the divergence of interests between different member nations.
As a result, the diversified integration becomes possible which
involves the use of different forms of integration by members of an
association. Such concept is implemented within the European Union
in the form of “concentric circles integration” which is established, for
example, around the nucleus consisting of the Eurozone countries.
Within the Community of Independent States (CIS) the model of multilevel integration is applied which encompasses the Union State of
Russia and Belarus, the Eurasian Economic Community, Central
Asian Economic Community, etc.
Test Your Knowledge
1. Characterize Western and Asian (“soft”) integration models.
2. What are positive and negative models of integration?
3. Describe the main types of international organizations:
A) FTA;
B) Customs union;
C) Common market;
D) Economic and monetary union;
E) Full economic and political integration;
12
F) Non-traditional forms of international integration (intensive
growth triangles, etc.)
4. Explain the concept of the stages of international integration.
Characterize the following:
A) Diversified integration;
B) Concept of concentric circles integration;
C) Model of multi-level integration.
Topics for Discussion
1. Role of TNCs in international integration.
2. Social aspects of international integration.
3. Information technology revolution and international integration.
13
Chapter II
Theorizing International Integration
Unit 2.1. Theories of International Integration: Classification
Attempts. An idea of international integration emerged in the 1930s
and was based on the views of the European politicians and
intellectuals who survived the horrors of two world wars. The first
theorists of integration who tried to identify and explain the general
principles of functioning of the IOs known at that time – the League of
Nations, the UN, etc., shared the idea of preserving peace through
voluntary association of countries and peoples.
Perhaps for this reason most of the integration theories are
closely related to the European integration. Their major groups are
following:
1) Classic (“high”) theories: federalism, functionalism,
intergovernmentalism;
2) Neo-institutional (“middle”) theories: historical neo-
institutionalism of rational choice, sociological neo-institutionalism;
3) New (“low”) theories: theory of political networks, multi-level
governance theory, etc.
Classical (“high”) theories:
1) Focus on the key aspects of international integration – the
most important international agreements in this area, political decision
making, as well as on those who make decisions and sign the relevant
agreements;
2) Virtually ignore the current issues of IOs functioning, the effect
of non-traditional actors, etc.
Neo-institutional (“middle”) theories may be characterized by their
focus on the current, everyday aspects of international integration.
Most of all, they consider the following:
1) Impact of different institutions, procedures, and powers
delegated to supranational level;
2) Study of the evolution of institutions which have arisen in the
course of integration;
3) Significance of values and norms generated by various
institutions.
New (“low”) theories cover a wide range of concepts resulting
from significant acceleration of international integration in the 198090s, which are actively developing nowadays.
14
Test Your Knowledge
1. When and why did an idea of international integration emerge?
2. Why are most of the integration theories closely related to the
European integration?
3. What major groups of the integration theories exist?
4. What are the features of classical (“high”) theories?
5. How the neo-institutional (“middle”) theories may be
characterized?
Unit 2.2. The Economic Approach to Theorizing International
Integration. Traditional theoretical approaches to international
integration deal with it primarily from the economic viewpoint.
According to them, the effect of integration implies:
1) Deepening IDL;
2) Consolidation of markets;
3) Increase in production volumes;
4) Redistribution of trade flows;
5) Increasing welfare in the countries participating in integration.
th
Thus, the neoliberal economists of the first half of the 20
century, such as Maurice Allais or Wilhelm Röpke, understood
international integration as the establishment of a common economic
area of two or more countries which would imply liberating foreign
trade and finance from state control. The way to integration
neoliberals saw through the following:
1) Liberalization of foreign trade;
2) Merger of the markets.
This, in turn, would allow to:
1) Raise the efficiency of production;
2) Raise the competitiveness of the integrated economies;
3) Improve the living standards of the population.
It was anticipated to achieve these goals through the growing
specialization of production as well as the growth of IDL.
The proponents of structuralism (Gunnar Myrdal and others)
actively criticized the neoliberal idea of the full liberalization of foreign
trade in an integrated area, because, as they used to think, the lack of
control of the market would cause:
1) Disparities in the distribution and development of production;
2) Deepening of social inequality.
15
Structuralism economists understood international integration as a
part of restructuring of the integrated nations’ economies. They
considered large companies and entire industries as the driving forces of
integration. According to them, international integration should lead to the
creation of new economic space with an improved model of management.
Corporationalists (Sydney Rolf, Eugene Rostow, and others)
considered international corporations as the locomotive of integration
because they stimulate rationalization and balanced development of
the world economy.
Neo-Keynesians (Richard Cooper and others) considered close
coordination in domestic and foreign affairs of the IOs participants as
a key to successful integration alongside with maintaining the widest
possible freedom, which involves seeking an optimum combination of
the two possible ways of international integration:
1) Close connection with abandoning national sovereignty and
coordination of economic policies;
2) Integration with the maximum preservation of independence of
its participants.
A kind of Keynesianism is dirigisme (Jan Tinbergen and others)
which denies the crucial role of market in international integration.
The proponents of dirigisme believe that the formation and functioning
of IOs are possible through common economic and monetary policy
and the harmonization of social legislation.
Test Your Knowledge
1. Analyze the economic approaches to international integration
such as:
A) Neoliberalism;
B) Structuralism;
C) Corporatism;
D) Neo-Keynesianism;
E) Dirigisme.
th
2. The neoliberal economists of the first half of the 20
century
understood international integration as:
A) A part of restructuring of the integrated nations’ economies;
B) The establishment of a common economic area of two or
more countries which implies liberating foreign trade and finance from
state control;
C) Close coordination in domestic and foreign affairs of the IOs
participants.
16
Unit 2.3. A Federalist View. One of the early ideological trends in
studying the nature of international integration is federalism which
emerged in the 1930s. A characteristic feature of federalism is its
critical attitude to a nation state as an institution blamed by many
Europeans for two world wars which brought so much trouble to the
peoples of Europe and ultimately caused the crisis of European
civilization.
The proponents of federalism such as Amitai Etzioni, Altiero
Spinelli, Carl Friedrich, Daniel Eleyzer, and others considered
federative relations as the most preferable. They understood
federalism as repudiation of centralization based on general
agreement and vesting multiple centers of power with governmental
authority, as well as insuring it by the adoption of a constitutional act.
A priority given to the political rather than economic side of
integration is another feature of federalism. The possibility of an
optimum combination of the elements of unity and specific features of
IOs participants is considered as its main advantage. Proponents of
federalism pointed out that under new conditions a nation state was
unable to do the following:
1) Remove violence from political life;
2) Suppress radical nationalist and religious movements;
3) Prevent the emergence of authoritarian and totalitarian
political regimes;
4) Renounce war as a way to solve international disputes with
the result that it (a nation state) loses its credibility.
Therefore, a nation state must be replaced with a supranational
union of federal nature. However, a nation state as a principle of
social organization is not abandoned completely, as according to
federalists the natural result of international integration would be a
supranational mega-state.
Federalism focuses on vertical and horizontal distribution of
political and economic power. The horizontal dimension should be a
guarantee of democratic organization of political life, while the vertical
one is also intended to promote the concentration of power in the
hands of people, which implies a rigid adherence to the principle of the
separation of powers. In general, proponents of federalism considered
a fairly high degree of power centralization as a condition for success of
integration projects. However, the active participation of civil society in
the implementation of integration projects had been regarded by them
as another condition for success and sustainability of IOs.
17
Alongside with this, federalism assigns an important role to the
establishment and functioning of institutions. The establishment of
supranational institutions vested with extensive powers and authority
as well as their priority over national institutions are seen as a
guarantee of successful integration.
Federalists have never disputed the sovereignty of the IOs
member states. The main benefits from the creation of IOs they saw in
the following:
1) Economies of scale – cost reductions in the implementation of
joint projects in various fields;
2) Legislative support mechanisms for transfer of power in a
federation in the presence of effective institutions eliminating the
possibility of usurpation of power by any political force;
3) Synergistic effect meaning that the overall power of an IO is
substantially bigger than just the sum of the capacities of its member
states;
4) Preservation of their extensive rights by the IOs memberstates contributes to a more profound implementation of democratic
principles than the excessive concentration of power in the hands of
supranational bodies.
Critics of federalism pay attention to the following vulnerable
points of this concept:
1) It focuses on the political aspects of international integration
without due consideration of its economic side;
2) It implies that the means of control over state power is
essentially the state itself;
3) Supranational federation means the formation of a new
bureaucracy and the possibility of a conflict between it and civil
society;
4) The system of checks and balances within a nation state is
more effective in terms of respect for democracy, as compared to a
supranational federation;
5) Supranational federation may exclude military conflicts
between its members but it is not insured from engaging in wars with
other supranational organizations.
Test Your Knowledge
1. Federalism is:
A) A system under which areas connected into one state retain a
greater or lesser degree of political autonomy;
18
B) A school of political economy according to which the
economic life and the economic categories are institutionalized;
C) A harmonized system of exchange rates between the states;
D) Convergence of different economic systems, removal of the
differences between them due to common socio-economic problems.
2. What are major characteristic features of federalism?
3. Federalism gives priority to:
A) Political side of integration;
B) Economic integration.
4. What are the main benefits from the creation of IOs according
to federalists?
5. What are the most vulnerable points of federalism?
Unit 2.4. Functionalists and Neo-Functionalists. The 1930s also saw
the emergence of functionalism, an approach to the study of
international integration in the framework of international relations, which
is based on the critique of a nation state as an institution. Functionalism
involves replacing the existing system of supranational institutions
whose form should be determined by the functions they perform.
Functionalist theory had first been formulated by David Mitrany
and was aimed at eliminating war as a method of solving international
disputes. According to D. Mitrany, international integration makes
sense only if there are common problems whose solution is beyond the
capacity of individual states, provided that the interest in cooperation to
resolve them really exists (a natural selection of interests).
Functionalism identifies two levels of integration: political and
technocratic. The first refers to political cooperation between states,
while the second – to social and economic problems.
Mitrany considered the aspiration to power expansion at the
expense of other states as generating conflicts and making cooperation
between them impossible as implicit to a state and as a part of the
political level. That is why the firmest foundation of integration is
technocracy for which such acute contradictions and conflicts are not
so typical, as for politics. It also implies the need for removal of
technocratic perspective from the jurisdiction of a nation state.
Mitrany believed that cooperation in the technocratic area will
bolster cooperation between specialized groups and individuals
involved in it, which will result in the new relationships within these
groups. He designated this phenomenon by the term “loyalty”.
19
According to Mitrany, it should surpass the loyalty to a nation state.
Finally, the expansion of technical cooperation will lead to the
emergence of global society and the concept of state sovereignty will
lose its value.
D. Mitrany presumed that the gradual loss of sovereignty by a
nation state would contribute to the strengthening of peace. He
believed that in the years to come the international relations system
based on the recognition of national sovereignty would be replaced by
worldwide federal state or a stateless anarchic society.
However, functionalism turned out to be limited and vulnerable to
criticism in many ways. Thus, there had been found no grounds for
mutual opposition of the politics and technocracy; at the same time,
the political motivation of technocrats and wide use of technocratic
tools by politicians had been revealed. Practice has shown that,
notwithstanding the views of Mitrany, the identification of the people’s
needs is not a technocratic, but rather a competitive market problem,
i.e. implying conflict and closely related to politics.
The 1960–70s witnessed the extension of the neo-functionalist
approach to the study of international integration. It was based largely
on the same ideas as functionalism, developing and modifying the
provisions of the latter.
Neo-functionalism had been split into two main schools of
thought. The first one known as communication theory found its
expression in the works of Karl Deutsch and analyzed international
integration as a part of the international relations system as a whole.
The second had been developed by Ernst Haas dealing with regional
and first of all, the European integration.
Proponents of the communication theory looked for the ways to
improve the international relations system without its radical
transformation. K. Deutsch was the first to understand the difference
between a state and the so-called “sociological nation”. He gave a
sociological interpretation of a nation state and the international
relations system proving the importance of both the interstate and
“inter-societal” relations. He regarded social communications as a sort
of building blocks for local communities which in their turn would give
rise to a nation state.
Deutsch understood international integration as a creation of the
feeling of community within certain territorial borders and as an
aspiration of the community members to the gradual evolutionary
change, which may be achieved through the establishment of the
really working public institutions. He considered the feeling of
20
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]