Integration by Whom, for Whom, against Whom?
| Author | Helge Hveem |
| Published date | 01 March 1974 |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083677400900126 |
| Date | 01 March 1974 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Integration
by
Whom,
for
Whom,
against
Whom?
On
the
relationship
between
neo-classical
integration
theory,
processes
of
integration,
and
social
structure*
HELGE
HVEEM
International
Peace
Research
Institute,
Oslo
Hveem,
H.
Integration
by
Whom,
for
Whom,
against
Whom?
On
the
relationship
be-
tween
neo-classical
integration
theory,
processes
of
integration,
and
social
structure.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
IX,
1974,
263-284.
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.
Dis-
cussing
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
dis-
cussed :
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
corpora-
tions ;
a
tendency
towards
theoretical
encapsulation
not
relating
duly
a
theory
of
inte-
gration
processes
to
other
relevant
political
and
social
theory;
a
bias
towards
elites
leading
to
undue
assumption
that
what
integration
is
good
for
elites
is
also
automa-
tically
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
re-
formulated
and
reintegrated
into
an
alternative
functional
theory.
Some
suggestions
as
to
the
contents
of
such
a
theory
are
made
towards
the
end.
Helge
Hveem,
International
Peace
Research
Institute,
Oslo.
I.
INTRODUCTION
What
is
the
proper
place
of
integration
theory
in
a
broader
theory
of
global
politics?
Who
are
the
actors
involved
in
and
the
objects
affected
by
integrative
processes?
These
are
some
of
the
initial
questions
in
any
treatise
on
integration,
whether
as
theory
or
as
the
actual
process.
I
agree
with
those
who
view
integration
as
a
pro-
cess -
a
rather
simple
yet
necessary
ob-
servation
from
which
to
depart.
This
paper
may
be
seen
as
a
contribution
to
the
development
of
integration
theory.
It
is
a
report
about
a
feeling
of
uneasiness,
formed
as
a
partial
critique,
and
at
the
same
time
an
attempt
to
formulate
certain
principles
toward
a
fruitful
approach
to
integration
beyond
the
nation-state.
I
have
found
it
necessary
to
make
the
main
bulk
of
the
present
paper
a
critique
of
theories,
hopefully
a
constructive
one.
I
will
start
by
pointing
out
what
I
see
as
problematic
or
deficient
in
the
two
broad
(schools’
of
integration
theory
that
are
already
becoming
classical;
the
neo-func-
tionalist
and
the
transactional
approaches.
A
third
school,
the
federalist,
seems
of
less
importance
at
present.
I
will
indicate
some
central
theorems
in
the
neo-classical
*
This
article
is
a
revised
version
of
a
paper
completed
in
April,
1973
and
later
presented
in
absentia
to
the
IX
Congress
of
the
Inter-
national
Political
Science
Association,
Mon-
treal,
19-25
August,
1973.
I
am
grateful
to
Sverre
Lodgaard,
Jostein
Mykletun,
Joseph
Nye,
and
Kjell
Skjelsbaek
for
comments
on
the
first
draft
and
to
Susan
Hoivik
for
po-
lishing
the
language
and
the
references.
The
article
can
be
identified
as
PRIO
Publication
No.
22-39
from
the
International
Peace
Rese-
arch
Institute,
Oslo.
264
theories
which
I
believe
should
be
re-
tained
as
valid.
Lastly,
I
will
attempt
to
show
how
these
theorems
may
be
employed
in
reformulating
the
aims
and
perspectives
of
integration
theory.
Obviously,
within
the
framework
of
a
short
paper,
it
is
not
possible
to
make
a
complete
survey
and
give
due
account
to
all
the
works
on
international
integration
from
recent
years
that
may
be
considered
central
to
a
general
theory.
What
is
cen-
tral,
moreover,
will
inevitably
be
subject
to
debate.
The
theories
and
theorems
covered
in
the
following,
are
therefore
my
selection
of
what
I
see
as
central
in
a
discussion
of
international
integration
theory.
II.
INTEGRATION
THEORY
IN
A
THEORY
OF
GLOBAL
POLITICS
A
review
of
what
I
consider
as
major
deficiencies
in
the
neo-classics
of
integra-
tion
theory
necessitates that
I
first
state
some
of
my
own
expectations
about
the
contents
of
a
fruitful
theory.
In
its
widest
potential
applicability,
in-
tegration
theory
should
explain
why,
how,
and
with
what
consequences
to
whom
two
(or
more)
social
units
grow
together
to
become
one.
Correspondingly,
disintegra-
tion
theory
explains
why,
how,
and
with
what
consequences
to
whom
one
social
unit
grows
apart
to
become
two
(or
more)
units.
Any
fruitful
theory
must
be
capable
of
showing
in
general,
if
not
in
detail,
how
the
two
opposite
poles
on
the
integra-
tion/disintegration
dimension
not
only
contradict
each
other
in
a
linear
develop-
ment
perspective,
but
also
combine
or co-
exist
as
mutually
dependent
processes
within
one
and
the
same
social
context.
I
have
used
the
term
’global
politics’
purposely
to
state
two
closely
related
de-
mands
on
theory.
First,
that
integration
theory
should
be
a
multilevel
analysis:
the
widest
and
the
finite
unit
of
analysis -
social
unit
in
my
own
terms -
being
the
world,
the
globe;
the
’narrowest’
or
lowest
level
being
the
individual.
(Although
the
integration
of
individuals
may
have
rel-
evance
to
such
processes
at
higher
levels
of
analysis,
they
are
not
considered
within
the
competence
of
political
analysis.)
Secondly,
the
notion
of
global
politics
demands
that
integration
processes
be
seen
as
relating
various
levels
of
social
structure
(from
the
inter-individual
to
the
inter-
regional).
Different
levels
of
social
struc-
ture
are
related -
both
as
causal
determi-
nants
of,
and
as
being
causally
affected
by,
integrative
and
disintegrative
pro-
cesses
being
initiated
at
some
other
level(s).
No
social
unit,
and
no
level
of
analysis
corresponding
to
it,
should
be
a
priori
excluded
from
the
theoretical
and
empiri-
cal
analysis
of
unit-specific
integration
processes.
The
claim
for
a
global
politics
perspec-
tive
is
not
exclusively
addressed
to
inte-
gration
theory.
Much
of
what
goes
under
such
categories
as
’International
Relations’,
’International
Politics’,
or
’Foreign
Policy
Studies’,
suffers
from
some
of
the
defi-
ciencies
that
plague
neo-classical
integra-
tion
theory.
In
another
context
I
have
pointed
out
the
need
for
a
theory
of
global
political
economy
to
account
for
patterns
of
control
and
relationships
of
dependency,
penetration,
and
exploitation
under
con-
ditions
of
dominance
(Hveem
1973a,
1973b).
This
claim
for
a
more
’totalistic’
approach
to
politics
beyond
the
nation-
state
can
be
made
in
general,
mainly
be-
cause
the
nation-states,
or
their
formal
decisionmakers
(government),
can
no
longer
lay
claim
to
exclusive
control
over
the
lives
of
their
citizens.
It
is
my
contention
that
research
falling
under
any
of
these
headings
has
been
char-
acterized
by
a
lack
of
validity,
because
the
theoretically
potential
and
empirically
actual
interrelatedness
of
the
phenomena
studied
have
not
been
accepted.
A
funda-
mental
deficiency
of
integration
theory
seems
to
be
its
state
of
theoretical
disinte-
gration.
I
see
three
sets
of
evidence
to
support
this
point.
First,
what
follows
from
the
a
priori
selection
of
units
which
are
seen
as
relevant
in
accounting
for
integrative
or
disintegrative
processes:
the
nation-states.
To continue reading
Request your trial