European integration over the past 60 years has in many ways
completely transformed while simultaneously maintaining its core purpose for
existence. The EU, or formally known as the European Coal and Steel Community,
began as an initiative to ensure that France and Germany could no longer choose
war as an option to resolve differences; moreover, the original six signatories
of the agreement pursued a united Europe to promote and safeguard peace and
security within the region. As the EU began to expand, policies and structures
had to transform to accommodate the needs and interests of those states
entering the union while standards were formed to qualify entry into the
institution. Since enduring the Cold War
era, the EU has not only changed in social structures but has since shifted its
political goals for hopeful initiates from democratic victory to the quality of
democratic governance (Goetz, 4). The political notions of democracy were
admirable plights but without the integration of the economies between the
member states (i.e. becoming economically bound to one another), the EU would
not have sustained for this length of time (Pinder, ch 1: “Economic Strength
and Prosperity”).
With the addition of many eastern European states in the
early 2000s, the member states would have to decide how to expand or change
treaties and whether or not to give the EU more economic sovereignty. As stated
in the EU Observer, German finance
minister Wolfgang Schaeuble pressed the idea of having a “eurozone-only budget
helping to level out macro-economic imbalances” (“Germany softens stance on EU
treaty change”, 2013) so as to assist small businesses in competing on an even
playing field throughout the eurozone. It seems to me that economic changes are
occurring quicker than the EU is able to make those policy reforms as influx of
states enters the union. Additionally, there is hesitation by member states to
put more sovereignty into Brussels to develop new economic policy adjustments
for fear of decreasing individual state sovereignty if that process were to
occur. Regardless of whether the EU is given more power or not to handle the
economic crisis, it is crucial that the progress be made towards overcoming
this issue and that the union be adaptable to any shocks that may occur in the
future.
A good post, Rachel -- I like the fact that you point out the way that the current crisis has brought out concerns about further integration even as the crisis itself seems to demand a collective and coordinated response from EU member states. Thinking historically, how has the EU handled similar crises in the past? What has crisis generally meant for the integration project?
ReplyDeleteThe financial crisis in the 1970s proved the resilience of the EU as an institution in which the member states gave more power to the European Parliament under the Budgetary Treaty of 1975 (Wallace, p. 6). It seems that in times of crisis the EU is generally given more power to resolve issues that individual member states are incapable of resolving on their own. I think that it may be easier to give more power to the union rather than forming temporary (or permanent) bilateral or multilateral agreements to resolve an issue since the structures are already in place within the EU. Why do more work on your own when the you have the resources and institutions of the EU already under your nose.
DeleteI like Rachel's point about how economic changes might be happening faster than the EU is able to make reforms. I think this is typical of many challenges associated with globalization. With rapid technological advantages and the rise of new transnational issues, states are often forced into cooperating.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even when states do work together, I think the EU demonstrates that the admirable goal of cooperation isn't an immediate solution. Too often in academia I will see arguments that kind of blandly call for states to work together while leaving on-the-ground and practical steps to take as problems for someone else to deal with. Cooperation is certainly essential, particularly in light of recent economic troubles, but it is difficult to know what kind of cooperative action should be taken.
A good point, Grant, though I would suggest that facile calls for cooperation are every bit as common in just about every policy statement or press release put out by practitioners and politicians as they are in academia. Just take a look at any of the statements from the G-8 or G-20 over the course of the recent crisis!
DeleteThe key here, as you point out, is that these kind of crises are very complex. Despite the calls for, and desire for, immediate action, it usually takes time to sort through the complexity of the problem and then, over time, tackle the various dimensions of the problem. I'd also suggest that this is not new...the currency crises that plagued Europe in the early 70s were every bit as complex, even if the tools we had for understanding and addressing the crisis were more limited. The difference probably has more to do with the minute-by-minute reporting (media cycle) now than the nature of the crisis or the response itself.
Rachel - I like your point that as the EU has expanded, it has had to accommodate the interests/needs of its new member states. I think this is particularly important in light of the economic crisis as not all member states are suffering from the current economic crisis in the same way.
ReplyDeleteGrant - I also like your point that, though cooperation is essential, knowing what kind of cooperative action should be taken can be difficult. I think that this can be linked to Rachel's point that each member state is different. Too often, cooperation may mean that a general set of rules or principles have to be applied to all, in this case, member states. However, the needs of each member state is different, especially in this current economic crisis. Therefore, coming up with solutions at the EU level is difficult; yet, in order to come up with solutions, there is need for cooperation. I think this is an interesting dynamic.
What are the two main types of rules that the EU can pass for its member states? "One size fits all" cooperation is actually not the only option for cooperation at the EU level!
Delete