Intégration européenne et gouvernance supranationale (document en anglais)

Article review

Stone Sweet, A. and Sandholtz, W. (1997) ‘European Integration and Supranational Governance’', Journal of European Public Policy, 4 (3): 297-317.

Since the creation of the European Community (EC) in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, we can discern a rivalry between two main theories of integration: Intergovernmentalism (Stanley Hoffmann, Andrew Moravscik) and neo-functionalism (Ernst Haas, Karl Deutsch). But some other theories of integration, as the transaction-based theory from Alec Stone Sweet and Wayne Standholtz, are significant. In the article under review, Stone Sweet and Sandholtz consider transnational exchanges as fundamental in the evolution of integration. Unlike most of integration theories, the transaction-based theory concentrates on how and why integration has evolved since the beginning of the EC. This theory is based on three pillars: EC rules, EC organisations, and transnational exchanges.

This article review will demonstrate that in spite of the criticism of Intergovernmentalism made in the article, the comparative analyse of integration stemming from the liberal intergovernmentalist approach (Moravscik, 1993) is still relevant. First, the review will describe the linkages existing between the three pillars of the transaction-based theory in order to understand the integration process and then critically analyse it. In a second part, the review will explain the institutionalisation process inherent to the transaction-based theory. The final part of the review will compare the transaction-based theory to the intergovernmentalist theory and demonstrate that the latter has its place in the current European context.

In the article under review, Stone Sweet and Standholtz define integration as “the process by which the EC gradually but comprehensively replaces the nation state in all its functions” (1997, p299). For them, this integration is due to the interdependent relationships existing between EC rule, EC organisations and transnational exchanges. Indeed, Stone Sweet and Standholtz observe a correlation between the evolutions of these three components of the transaction-based theory.

To summarise this interaction, we can say that the rise in transnational exchanges drives to a rise in the number of EC rules to regulate these exchanges and finally an increased presence of EC organisations to elaborate these rules. In this sense, transaction-based theory is close to the neo-functionalist theory, in particular to Deutsch and his theory about social exchanges, communication and transactions (1953, 1957).

Stone Sweet and Standholtz argue that the integration process doesn’t operate with the same intensity in all the sectors. In fact, the sectors in which integration operates the most intensively are the sectors in which transnational exchanges are the most important. As the review let know in the paragraph above, the transnational exchanges create pressure in order to create rules because rules facilitate exchanges for transnational actors. The areas with high proportion of transnational exchanges will be subjects to more rules, to more supranational organisations and then to more integration. The reverse process is available for areas with few transnational exchanges. The article also argues that sectors evoked in the Treaty of Rome may have more chance to be subject of integration since they have already a political basis. But Stone Sweet and Standholtz are aware that this affirmation is questionable because it is quite easy to create a Treaty-basis when none exists for example thanks to the article 236 which “permits the EC to establish supranational governance to achieve the general objectives of the Community” ( Stone Sweet and Standholtz, 1997, p311). Marks, Hooghe and Blank evoke this idea of ‘supranationality’ using the term “multi-level governance” (1996). This kind of governance is not exactly the same than supranational governance, I would say that supranational governance is part of multi-level governance but do not constitute it fully.

Stone Sweet and Standholtz consider societal transactions as weak. But since the Treaty of European Union (TEU) of 1992, we can observe an important development of the European Parliament (EP)’s role in the decision-making process and with this evolution we can note a higher representation of civic interests, namely of consumers and environment for example (Pollack, 2010, p119).

The transaction-based theory relies on the institutionalisation process. By institutionalisation, Stone Sweet and Standholtz mean “the process by which rules are created, applied, and interpreted by those who live under them” (1997, p310). Once again, the Treaty of Rome is a key element of institutionalisation. Contrary to the popular belief, institutions are constantly evolving entities implying a constant evolution of EC rules. On an institutional level, the Single European Act (SEA) of 1986, based on the Treaty of Rome, played an important in the expansion of policy scope (Pollack, 2010, p109). It caused a negative integration and a positive integration (Pollack, 2010, pp118-119). The negative integration consists in the elimination of national rules and the positive integration consists in the replacement of national rules by European

...