Abstract
Drawing an analogy with the diversity of the process of European integration, Robert Schuman expressed that, ‘‘when the cooperation is still at its embryonic stage, the theorization of that unique phenomenon involves a plurality of approaches developed over time and bringing together different valid insights to the understanding of regional integration''. However, it appears among scholars that a consensus has emerged in considering the theories of neofunctionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism as the two main confronting paradigms.
In order to highlight those two latest paradigms, this paper will expose the main analytical characteristics of the debated theories in the first part and will focus on their application in the second part. As a matter of fact, the two theories assume a completely different view of the European integration process. The neofunctionalist approach based on the work of Ernest Haas was very influential until the early 1970s when it became increasingly contested among scholars who embraced institutionalist and intergovernmentalist theories. However, its revival starting in the early 1990s witnessed the fact that insights brought by neofunctionalism to the process of integration appeared to be still relevant, even if the prospect of designing a ‘grand theory' proposed by Haas had not been completely achieved (I,a).
The Spillover phenomenon can be considered as a central core of the neofunctionalists when it comes to understanding the process leading towards more supranational delegation. It can be described as the “way in which the deepening of integration in one economic sector would create pressure for further economic integration within and beyond that sector, and greater authoritative capacity at the European level” (Rosamond, 2000: 60); it has functional, political and geographical implications (I,b). Furthermore, it appears that as the process of integration goes ahead, a transfer of allegiance of the elites responsible for the regional integration appears, and that the result of that ‘elite socialization' can be accounted as an aspect shaping the process itself (I,c).
